[[User_talk:216.11.222.21]]
This is absurd. I recently looked at Wikipedia and saw an unusual amount of IP blocks, all with the same reason (vandalism). A large amount of these blocks were one year, and had the same cookie-cutter message. They also blocked accounts editing from that address and/or blocked account creation. Ironic, since the usual response to an IP ban is to create an account.
I understand that schoolkids can be a problem. I also understand that it can be troublesome to deal with "[Insert name here] is a faggot" and "[insert neighboring city name here] high school is a bunch of bastards". And yes, sometimes forcing shared-IP users to create accounts can simply create 10,000 separate idiots to deal with instead of 1 IP.
But to block account creation is not just "a preventative measure against vandals". You've just restricted the Wikipedia access of *at least* 1,000 people (my district has > 6,800 students + teachers + staff + etc). This is fine if your sole aim is to prevent people from being idiots. However, if you ban an IP because of a couple kindergarteners having fun during indoor recess, you're going to piss off the teachers (people with degrees in math, science, art, history, and English who could write FAs in .5 seconds), the honor roll students (who have detailed textbooks and could cite about a hundred articles each), and the bored people on computers (who could do a hell of a lot for WP:CLEANUP). Now, of course, not everyone's going to leap into reverting like Curps Jr., but there's something to be said for the raw power of a lot of people. That said, it also makes people less inclined to contribute to a website where they are immediately turned away and condescended to.
Long-time contributors and those dedicated to the project can be banned, kicked, spit on, and stabbed, and they'll want to come back. Look at all those people that struggled through an ocean of crap in order to contribute. Look at me. But IPs, on the other hand, they haven't started doing anything. They could go either way on the whole Wikipedia thing. They're just bored people looking for something to do, maybe they could share their knowledge and help people, or wait, maybe the Tigers game is on. We can't just go "this is policy" to an IP. They're not going to fight tooth-and-nail to edit. E-mailing with the school-provided e-mail address? Great idea. Most school e-mail addresses are formatted with the first initial and last name, and the address also has the city in it (fjwales@foobar.k12.mi.us). In times like today (pardon the cliche, stupid phrase) where everyone's fearing the Internet rapists/pedophiles/murderers/etc, and especially for the lower grades where the teachers are monitoring everything, nobody's going to want to give out their last name and city. And then there's the issue of "do they even have addresses"? Most schools don't give out the addresses until 6th or 7th grade, and some schools don't have them at all. Sometimes, a student's account will be revoked at the whim of the IT staff (for example, my friend's was taken away after he cc:'ed our entire class). You can't just count on unreliable variables to give you a smooth result.
And then there's the question of finality. What if they don't care? You can't just take someone, manhandle them impersonally, make them jump through hoops, all to do something they're not even sure they want to do. I, for one, remember a couple summers ago, when I created my account (or the first time I edited, anyway). I didn't really know what I was doing, but when I found that I could edit the encyclopedia, I added some information I thought was useful into some article, the name of which has long since been forgotten. I created an account shortly thereafter and began my long journey to where I am today (banned, but that's not my point). If the school IP had been blocked without account creation, I don't know that I would ever have started editing. At that time, the school had not yet created a school-email system. I was also a lot more immature then, too. I'm not sure I would have taken it with perfect grace. I might have called someone a dickmuncher, and then where would I be?
What if 7,000 people get banned from editing something because 5, or even 1 person was fooling around? That's 7,000 potential editors you just lost. Maybe everyone wouldn't edit. Maybe if you gave everyone a chance to create an account, 6,999 of them would just resume their stupidity and get blocked.
But if 1 productive editor came out of that IP, and maybe they became a sysop, maybe a bureaucrat, maybe nothing. Maybe they write an FA. Maybe they write a stupid, pointless, uncited, rambling stub and leave.
I think that if you were to get 1 productive editor from the sea of crap called "shared IP", it would be worth it.
So I ask of you. Reconsider your policy on blocking account creation from shared IPs. If not for me, for the thousands of people out there who might become our finest someday.
--------------------------------- Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.