Template talk:SharedIPEDU

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] What to do?

This template is helpful, but I'm a little lost as to how to proceed.

It says "In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts will be made to contact the institution to report network abuse." and I know of a case of vanalism on Edgar F. Codd. What am I supposed to do? put a {subst:test} on the page? McKay 17:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, best to check WP:VANDAL for good instructions. I suspect we don't go to the trouble of reporting abuse to the organization for just a tire-kicking vandal. However, the vandal should be warned on their talk page, partially to let other editors know there is a pattern. -- cmhTC 18:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin contact and school website address?

I think the template should be changed to include an admin contact for the school and the school website. I've done that on user talk:70.88.111.65, my school IP. This will make it easier to contact the school in cases of abuse. ~Crazytales !!! 12:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You can link the school directly from the name. Try {{SharedIPEDU|[http://www.powerscatholic.org/ Powers Catholic High School] (Flint, MI)|host=backup.powerscatholic.org}} --Geniac 18:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. But what about modifying the template to include an administration contact? ~Crazytales !!! 12:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think these links to school websites should be done. I'm not sure the best way, though. User:Selket says he/she needs us a list compiled of school websites (and contacts), in order for the bot to add the links. Alternatively, we could manually add them when we give subsequent warnings. --Aude (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on that soon. I'll have to figure out how the new page preloader works though. I'm planning to split off contact details into a separate subpage and have it transcluded back onto the talk page. We need to keep contact details separate as a safeguard against tampering which is time consuming to detect if a talk page is very active itself. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Police image

Is there really no place for the image removed in this diff? I suppose it doesn't really matter but I find the reasoning to be quite dubious. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 03:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that removing the image because "Many users live in regions where the police are not "friendly", to say the least" is a bit odd. If the police image is a problem, how about Image:Nuvola apps important.svg () instead? auburnpilot talk 21:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just ran across this discussion. My reasoning, which I could not expand on very much in an edit summary, is that many people on this planet live under police states, and Wikipedia should not appear to be working in alliance with those state's aims. I personally feel anxiety and distress at the image of a cop's hat, and I have only resided briefly in a police state, and was never a citizen of one. If it is preferred to have an image in that area to call attention to the warning, Image:Nuvola apps important.svg would be great. Thanks to auburnpilot for that suggestion. ··coelacan 19:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the Image:Nuvola apps important.svg () image. Let's see how that goes. -- Avi 22:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link

The template has a link to Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Options_for_IP_blocks which is not present. It should be changed.--Scheibenzahl 15:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mangojuicetalk 16:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Similarly, it links to Wikipedia:Requests for investigation which is inactive. Gary Kirk [Talk] 09:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Done; thanks. -- Avi 13:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] replacement image

Resolved. Done.

 Note: In the event of persistent vandalism, anonymous editing from this IP address may be disabled for up to 6 months at a time while abuse reports may be forwarded to your school administration for investigation in case of long-term abuse by registered users.

Can we replace image with just the important with clockimportant?Jer10 95 Talk 18:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. -- Avi 16:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove unwarranted limitation to "primary and secondary schools"

The above box now reads:

 Note: In the event of persistent vandalism from primary and secondary schools, anonymous editing may be disabled for up to 1 year at a time. Abuse reports may also be forwarded to your school administration for investigation in case of long-term abuse by registered users.

Apparently, the highlighted text has been inserted without discussion, and I see no sense whatsover in limiting ourselves here. We want to protect ourselves from any vandalism, regardless of what kind of institution it comes from. Can this please be changed back? — Sebastian 17:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take this request seriously. This insertion clearly violated our policies and guidelines:

  • "[A]dministrators should not make significant changes to these pages without prior discussion" (WP:PPOL);
  • "Always fill in the summary field. [...] [M]entioning one change but not another one can be misleading [...]" (WP:ES). That was the case in the edit summary of the insertion.

In this context, I also want to mention that of the last three edits from institutional IPs that I encountered, all three were from universities. This indicates that we are pulling our claws in the fight against a significant source of vandalism, just because one editor made a change that he/she didn't even deem worthwhile of an edit summary. — Sebastian 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, we prefer not to block entire universities for up to one year; rather, we communicate directly with their IT staff, which is why the primary/secondary is there. I could be mistaken, however. -- Avi 21:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, Avi. — Sebastian 00:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

{{sudo}} Collecting all evidence put forward above, we have:

For keeping the inserted wording
There may be some form of other communication. Either nobody knows anything about it or the people who do just don't speak up here.
For removing the inserted wording
It was inserted in violation of one policy and against one guideline. There was no consensus, and not even a single benefit put forward for its insertion. Conversely, it limits our ability to fight vandalism at one of the busiest fronts.

Please, therefore, remove the inserted text. — Sebastian 00:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to remove it, as it seems needlessly specific and effectively narrows the potential uses of the template without any obvious benefit (that I can see, anyway). Extraneous chance to link another article or two, maybe? Could easily replace it with "educational institutions" or "this IP address" or anything similar. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
That would be nice; thank you! This is actually undisputed; nobody has spoken up in favor of the inserted text. (I see Avi's comment as an attempt to explain it, not to defend it.) — Sebastian 04:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Y Done pending any further discussion or requests. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! I like the wording "from this IP address". That is of course a limitation, too, since it prevents us from doing such things as whole IP range blocks, or blocking one IP for the wrongdoings of another IP from the same school. But I don't mind that since I don't think anybody ever seriously proposed such a thing. — Sebastian 17:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate to rehash an old discussion, but I'm noticing that it was said that it is prefered to contact university IT staff instead of blocking their IPs. I totally agree with this idea, but why should K12 schools be any different considering many districts employ a very tiny pool of proxy IPs (usually about two or three) to represent the entire district of schools, so why shouldn't the K12s and universities be treated in an equal manner? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse reports & registered users

{{sudo}}

Please remove the text "in case of long-term abuse by registered users" from the box at the bottom regarding vandalism. Abuse reports cannot be filed on registered users (see WP:ABUSE), so the statement should read "Note: In the event of persistent vandalism from primary and secondary schools, anonymous editing may be disabled for up to 1 year at a time. Abuse reports may also be forwarded to your school administration for investigation." --Darkwind (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it should not include the words "from primary and secondary schools", as per the previous discussion. — Sebastian 00:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Y Done - I removed "in case of long-term abuse by registered users", but left it otherwise as is since I don't see consensus on what to do with that. Nihiltres(t.l) 16:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Documentation

{{editprotected}}

I came to make some changes to the documentation to make it clearer that this template should NOT be subst:ed, and remembered this template is protected. So, I created the /doc subpage per WP:DOC. Please remove everything from the <noinclude> to the bottom of the page and replace it with:

<noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
<!-- PLEASE ADD CATEGORIES AND INTERWIKIS TO THE /doc SUBPAGE, THANKS -->
</noinclude>

The original categories, interwikis, and the {{pp-template}} are on the /doc page which will be transcluded. Thanks. --Darkwind (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Thanks for the detailed request! --ais523 15:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double categorisation

The template makes entries in categories on the same tree.--141.84.69.20 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I agree that IPs shouldn't be categorised into Category:Shared IP addresses from educational institutions and Category:Shared IP addresses because the latter is a parent of the former. I'm an admin, but I don't know enough about the code to fix it without maybe messing something up. --Geniac (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is code on the page such that accounts are categorised into the first category no matter what namespace the template is used in, and the second category only in the User Talk namespace, so my guess is that someone was trying to implement some sort of system I don't understand the details of. I'm therefore not making this edit immediately until it's determined why the page is as it is at the moment, but am happy for someone else who understands what's going on to make it. --ais523 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the code in the {{#ifeq: function is much older than the Category:Shared IP addresses from educational institutions code. When that subcategory was created, the category link was added without much forethought, such that it categorises in all instances. I don't think there is anything intentional about the difference. I have changed it to only categorise into Category:Shared IP addresses from educational institutions, and only on user talk pages, which is what should have happened when the subcategory was added way back in 2006. Happy‑melon 12:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template on user page?

Hello all- Anyone know if we meant to put the template on the user page for the IP address as well as on the talk page? I didn't see any guidance regarding that in the Documentation section of the template page. -Eric talk 17:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, just the talk page. I'll add it to the documentation. --Geniac (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. -Eric talk 15:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RSS feed

Why was the information about how school administrators can subscribe to an RSS feed removed? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've only just noticed that. It was quite a useful feature... (hint - if you want to access the RSS feed, view the history of a page and add "&feed=rss" to the end of the URL.) ~~ [Jam][talk] 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)