Wikipedia talk:IP editors are human too/Archive 1

Archive 1

I'm not an IP

I'm several, because I edit from different computers. And one IP can be several people, either through a shared computer or through DHCP release and reacquisition. On the other hand, a registered user is more likely to be one person (I know I certainly don't give my password to others), and the rules discourage one person from being more than one registered user, except in specific circumstances.

To me, this is a fundamental difference between registered users and IPs, independent of any differences in behavior.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispreputable ?

The page states "Disreputable registered users can sign out of their accounts and contribute under their IP address. In that event, it is not an unregistered user that is behaving disreputably, it is a registered user."

That is wrong - "disreputable" in the sense being discussed is only a registered user that makes deliberate multiple contributions to a discussion using different ids. There is nothing wrong with a registered user choosing to use IPs. 69.106.253.194 (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree--71.104.169.67 (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. I've updated the text. See diff. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

btw, had an odd happening recently. I had inadvertently signed a talk entry with a 2nd id (for that discussion), so I edited the contribution, replacing only the signature with the one used earlier. To my surprise, someone reverted that edit, leaving me with two different signatures in the same discussion. I abandoned the discussion, not wanting to deal with someone who would change my signature. Thus there is at least one case of two different signatures for the same person where the error lies with someone else.

Thanks for the update. Tempted to sign here with my other id just for fun, but that would be two ids in the same discussion! 69.106.253.194 (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking about that. But someone is reverting it without talking about it. Well, I'm gonna update it until they come here and talk about it--that's how I role. But the thing is, I can't log in to my registered account at school or use my IP address any more. Someone named Zzuzz blocked it because someone was making disruptive editing. 72.230.135.196 (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

80% of Ip edits constructive

I've added a "dubious" tag to this claim. The user survey that generated this claim was conducted over a 3 minute period in February 2007, which surveyed 89 ip edits. Leaving aside that 2 1/2 years ago might as well be the dark ages as relevant to editing today, i don't see any indication that this is a relevant sample size. Even if the data holds true, the same survey found that 80% of all vandalism was by Ips, and also admits that only "obvious" vandalism is included. Unsourced, OR assertions and the like that had to be revereted were not considered vandalism. Fair enough -- but the implication that 80% of IP edits are "constructive" is, at least, uncertain.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The definition of vandalism is clear, and was applied evenly to registered and unregistered users in that survey. Your implications of wrong-doing by the surveyor by not looking at non-vandalism, and your implication that IPs make more non-vandalism unconstructive edits than non-IPs, is utterly unfounded, and does not belong here. The opinions in this essay regarding the survey are clear and factual, this is not an article, it does need to be balanced or NPOV'd based on what you think was deficient about the survey. MickMacNee (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no allegation of "wrongdoing." It's an allegation, if anything, that it was a non representative, non scientific survey with lots of caveats. A lot of what was not defined as vandalism was nevertheless defined as "needing to be reverted." But, yes, it's clear that this is basically just a screed and evidence and facts should not be allowed to get in the way.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly clear what the survey does and does not show. Your additional interprative commentary on the validity of it has no place in this essay. If you want to do your own survey and write your own essay to support your opinions, feel free. Don't hijack this one. MickMacNee (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What interprative commentary? "Other than determining whether an edit was vandalism, I did not make any value judgments. Thus, 'minor content changes' contains considerable amounts of unsourced material and original research that will certainly be reverted" is a quote from the fellow who conducted this informal review in February 2007 per Opabinia regalis' studies. That ain't "constructive" whether or not it's "vandalism."Bali ultimate (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What?

Please note this quote: As a general rule, unregistered users can do everything that registered users can. Unregistered users may edit articles, participate in talk page discussions, contribute to policy proposals and do (almost) everything else that a registered user can do.

There are, however, some specific restrictions on what unregistered users can do. These largely technical restrictions are not placed on unregistered users because they are trusted any less than registered users. In recognition of unregistered users' place alongside users editing under an account, processes exist to allow unregistered users to contribute in those areas with the assistance of registered users." Basically: Unregistered users can do everything that a regular user can. NOT then we put limits on unregistered users so that they can't do what people like us (registered) can. Whats up with that??

Only for the bold! DASM (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"misconceptions" clarification

I added a short clarification note at the end of the first paragraph: "The following are common misconceptions:", since the header made interpretation of the most visible bold text ambiguous. Made as IP to further make the point. 201.171.60.216 (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Common misconceptions

Having "Unregistered users are more likely to vandalise articles" under the heading Common misconceptions feels a bit misleading, because it then goes on to describe that this statement is true. If it's true, then it isn't a misconception. The information is good, but I think it really belongs elsewhere in the article. 72.49.253.141 (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

What if

You were to move? Would your account record the same IP's — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ticklewickleukulele (talk • contribs) 21:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That last part...

Is the wording "Don't be a ****" appropriate for the majority of Wikipedians? Cup o' Java 21:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You are an IP too

The alleged A set of "unregistered users" is *NOT* a subset of the alleged "registered users" set B and conversely B is *NOT* a proper superset of A

Hallo there,
I would like to propose an image insertion in the == You are an IP too == section in the article.
Comments are welcome.
Thanks.
  M aurice   Carbonaro  11:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

From one perspective, "unregistered users" is a not a subset of "registered users" (and vice versa). From that perspective, "unregistered users" and "registered users" are distinct sets. But the world can be seen from many perspectives. Both "registered users" and "unregistered users" belong to the set "humans", for example. Both belog to the sets "editors", "contributors", "wikipedians", etc.. The purpose of this essay is to indicate that seeing "unregistered users" and "registered users" as distinct, while prevalent, is not correct. The sets have more in common than they differ.

Additionally, the precise section you refer to says, "You are an IP." Click the link, if you don't believe it.

On a different topic, your signature is very long. Would you consider shortening it? --RA (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I Would Just Like To Say

I would just like to say that I think it is very useful to be able to edit without making an account. I only wish that people wouldn't misuse this ability by posting vandalism. If you are a person that posts vandalism please stop because you are ruining it for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.93.230 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 February 2013‎

IP sockpuppetry

It is sad to see how the edit of Rossami (talk · contribs), who tried to rectify an obvious moronity with “it doesn’t make sense” and to remove a silly advice to call CheckUsers, was promptly extinguished by Whitehorse1 (talk · contribs), and no Community actions ensued. Did any reasonable person watch here in late 2010? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason "it doesn't make sense" is because someone who engages in IP socking is (by definition) a registered user. They have merely signed out of their account. As the test says, "Unregistered users cannot be sock puppets." Additionally, if you have a concern about socking, the appropriate advice is to call CheckUser.

I've restored the text to the original text. --RA (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The use of IPs in sock puppetry do exist. One should not play this fact down. A sockpuppet investigation clerk user: Rschen7754 states that IP are not checked except in cases of extreme disruption. I know it from my own experience when I requested an investigation of an apparently disruptive dynamic IP. Whether Rschen7754 was right or wrong, but it reflects the current practice. You might request checking of an alleged puppeteer (registered), but the text you defend is ambiguous and does not suggest namely this order of operations.

It is simply an edit warring covered by meaningless sophisms without actually addressing my arguments about existence of the phenomena. Do not doubt, the Community will not appreciate it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted again. The text has already been reverted twice by two separate users.

The point being made by the text is not that IP sock puppetry does not exist but that it is registered users who engage in it. See WP:ILLEGIT: "Editing logged out to mislead". Ungregistered users don't have an account to sign out of. --RA (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

LoL… on the same grounds I can assert that this-doesnt-even-make-sensian rubbish was deleted twice by two separate users: in fact, I did not know anything about Rossami when edited the first time. “Ungregistered users don't have an account to sign out of” is merely a sophism which can’t convince an average, not mentally retarded, human. An IP sockpuppet is a sockpuppet – just admit that your reaction was mistaken, that the text which hanged here for years was flawed, and help to write a reasonable version. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

As I read you, by IP-sock puppetry you mean when a registered user logs out and contributes under the IP address. Is that correct? In contrast, the section is about whether unregistered users are more likely to engage in sock puppets. Obviously, if someone isn't registered, they have no account to sign out of to engage in IP sock puppetry. --RA (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you actually remember what is written (probably, by yourself)? Or you have troubles with English grammar?

“ Unregistered users are more likely to be sock puppets: ”

In any case, it is a pure sophistic. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I do recall and I have read it. Now, would you mind clarify that when you are referring to IP-sock puppetry you are referring to a form of sock puppetry engaged in by registered users? Because (as you've quoted above) the section is about whether unregistered users are more likely to engage in sock puppets compared to registered users. --RA (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The concepts of IPs and socks is covered by Wikipedia:IP addresses are not people, which is a companion of sorts to this article, although they have different audiences. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 11:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

So what? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

What does the text added here have to do with the question of whether unregistered users are more likely to engage in sock puppetry that registered users? It deals with how sock puppetry is determined, not whether one group or another is more likely to engage in it. --RA (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm late to this debate but will strongly disagree with the interpretation offered above. An "unregistered user" in the context of that page is not merely "a person who has never created an account". "Unregistered user" in this context means "any person who is not currently using a registered account" whether because they have one and have logged out or because they have not yet made one. "Unregistered user" in this context merely means an anonymous editor.
Unfortunately, there are countless examples in the project's history of anonymous users joining deletion debates, then jumping to a different IP and commenting again. Some of them also had a registered account but we've seen some sockpuppets who only ever editing under IP addresses. (The similarity of grammar, vocabulary and punctuation made it obvious sock-puppetry.) An IP address is a user-ID of a sort. A person who switches IP addresses in order to game the system is just as guilty of sock-puppetry as a registered user who logs out.
Note: I am not saying that all anonymous editors are sock-puppets. However, it is true that anonymous editors who choose to participate in deletion debates are much more likely to be sock-puppets than those who choose participate through registered accounts. Rossami (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sophistry

The word sophistry has been used several times in this discusion an again in an edit comment. What fallacy or deception is being referred to? --RA (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Excellent!

I love this page. It shows that everyone is equal, that no one is more important than each other, that no one has any right to mistreat someone over the Internet, etc. --70.181.68.226 (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Difficulties when unregistered editors participate in discussions

I'd like to copy here something I wrote for an ongoing discussion at Talk:Do not feed the animals:

I'd like to say that it is difficult to have a discussion like this when a number of the participants are anonymous. Talk:Do not feed the animals#Article title has seen opinions expressed by User:24.151.116.25, User:202.124.73.5, User:202.124.89.1, User:203.171.197.2, and User:203.171.197.5. In addition, the preceding AfD discussion saw opinions expressed by User:86.150.211.181, User:202.124.73.1, User:202.124.88.7, User:202.124.88.20, User:202.124.89.4, User:202.124.89.16, User:202.124.89.39, and User:203.171.197.20. That's thirteen different IP addressed accounts; do they represent thirteen editors' opinions? Fewer? More? My guess is it's around three to five, but there's no way for us to know. No, I don't want to exclude anonymous discussion participants, and I certainly don't want to discourage anonymous edits. I'm just saying that it's easier for me to hear someone's viewpoint when I can see them as individuals rather than random computer addresses, and I doubt I'm alone in that.

(snip)

I am certainly not trying to exclude. I'm just noting that we're having a discussion between editors here, and over time the participants build up impressions of who each person is. When someone here reads a new comment labeled "Dan Griscom" they'll think "Oh, that's Dan; I remember he stresses WWWW and XXXX, and he ignores YYYY and ZZZZ". But, when a new comment comes in from IP address 123.456.78.90, it comes without history, as if the person had never commented before. That makes the discussion much choppier, and it's difficult to construct threads of argument. Some of the IP commenters have even said things like "That's why I voted 'no' above", when there's no way for others to have noticed that. Yes, we could keep track of IP addresses, but they change, and even the same address may be used by multiple people, so who's going to do that?

The net result is that IP-addressed commenters are naturally going to appear less as coherent people and more as just a series of disconnected comments, which harms their positions in the discussion. I understand there may be external reasons to remain unregistered, and Wikipedia has an explicit policy to allow unregistered editing and commenting, but the unregistered commenters might think again about the benefits of participating as a registered user.

I'd like to add something similar to the above to this essay. Any thoughts? Thanks, Dan Griscom (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comments above are good reasons to register an account. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? That page used to be linked from here. I'll add it back in.[Edit: it still is] Also see Wikipedia:IP addresses are not people, which reminds people that there is not a 1-to-1 link between an IP address and a contributor.

Those issues are not really the purpose of this essays. The purpose here is to remind people that IP contributions (both in articles and on talk pages) shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Together, the three pages, make up a rounded picture of the situation. (You could also add WP:SOCK into that rounded picture too, of course.)

FYI there are some tricks-of-the-trade in spotting the same person behind an IP. For example all of the 202.124.* comments are probably the same person. Likewise, the 24.151.* comments and the 203.171.* are probably two other people. So, that three people: 202.124.*, 24.151.*, and 203.171.*.

Another trick is to ask an IP contributor to (manually) mark their comments with a (temporary) moniker, if they are going participate at length in a particular discussion. It helps I've never seen anyone refuse to do that. And I've seen cases where people went from being an IP marking manually their comments to registering an account of the same name as the moniker. --RA (✍) 10:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

I had a registered account but I acquired a stalker (not dangerous, just persistent hounding and challenging every edit) so I gave it up and have been an IP ever since. I wasn't very active until recently, but now that I am, I can't believe how dismissive some user are towards people who have unregistered accounts. It doesn't matter that I have hundreds of edits, I'm still talked about as if I'm a brand new user who hasn't read any policy pages. I think some of these folks are half my age but they treat me as if I'm a teenage vandal, without actually looking at the edits I'm making. It's maddening!

I guess I could eliminate some of this grief by registering under a new username but I really don't want to be Wikihounded again and it seems like once you have a name, some user can personalize your edits (even if you have a gender-neutral name). When I had a name and someone made things personal, they followed me around on Wikipedia. That doesn't happen with an IP because they don't think I'm a long-time user. So, I'm sticking with my number right now.

Just wanted to say that I appreciate you writing this essay. I hope some folks take your advice! 69.125.134.86 (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Arithmetic error?

I've tried to reconstruct the original survey counts from the percentages and get this:

Analysis of 248 edits to English-language Wikipedia articles from 04:43 to 04:46 UTC on 18 Feb 2007 (Source)

Change type	Count of edits by all editors	Count of edits by registered editors	Count of edit by anonymous editors	Percent of all registered edits (n = 159)	Percent of all anonymous edits (n = 89)
Substantial content changes	13	10	3	6.3%	3.4%
Minor content changes	71	43	28	27.0%	31.5%
Copyediting/formatting/wikilinking	101	68	33	42.8%	37.1%
Tagging/maintenance	21	16	5	10.1%	5.6%
Vandalism reversion	22	18	4	11.3%	4.5%
Vandalism	20	4	16	2.5%	18.0%

On this basis unregistered (actually not logged in) users reverted 18% of all vandalism, rather than "over a quarter (28.5%)" as claimed in the essay. - Pointillist (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You're correct, but I think by now that's irrelevant. It's a small sample from 8 years ago: 10% makes little difference, given the overwhelming issues with the outdated data. I think we need much more accurate data, which would require both (a) a more recent sample and (b) a larger sample. I can't think of an easy way to remove the systematic bias of users with accounts but not logged in (i.e. showing IP addresses but actually registered people), but you could say that's irrelevant depending what point you think the essay is trying to make (e.g. that IPs should have as many editing rights / as few restrictions as possible).

I wouldn't know if there's a proper way to go about collecting data, rather than constantly refreshing Special:RecentChanges and picking edits at random, and I wouldn't really want to make a graph either. But I'd be interested in trying to update this essay somehow. If someone wants to collect a proper sample of data — anything from 1000 edits upwards, I'd be happy to try and classify some the edits in it. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Wikimedia Labs has adds-changes data dumps and tools. To be of real value the overall sample would need to be considerably larger and include different times/days to take account of when schools are in session etc. For enwiki the labs provides daily dumps for the past month. There's an important question of how thorough and transparent the new statistics should be. For me, the ideal result would be a statistically valid sample collected automatically every month, but this might be practically impossible—I don't know how the tedious business of determining the quality of each edit can be automated. Before investing a lot of time on this it might be a good idea to get advice from technically experienced colleagues like DeltaQuad and MZMcBride, and then perhaps get a wider discussion going about the value – or not – it would bring. It might be a pointless exercise, given that it would really only be a measure of not logged in. - Pointillist (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the "not logged in" factor, if relevant at all, is just a small systematic bias. (The only way to determine this would be through surveys, which is probably too much effort for everyone, but) I would imagine that the vast majority of edits from people with >1 registered account on Wikipedia are assigned to a user account, rather than an IP address. (At the very least, we'd get an upper bound for constructive edits by IPs — unless users are signing out to vandalise, which would be strange behaviour but also sounds ever-too plausible.)

Cluebot NG could be a possible measure of vandalism — it's an automated process determining quality of edits. I've seen hundreds of constructive reversions it's made for every false positive I've had to report. However, I think there would perhaps be too much systematic bias if we used this, as I imagine vandalism from user accounts is generally more sneaky, subtle, WP:POINT-related or attempts at creating hoaxes (and therefore, Cluebot will revert less of it). STiki is partially automated, and could (combined with Cluebot) give a more accurate representation of the ratio of IP:user vandalism. (Hoax edits are rare and I imagine most users manually classifying edits would include them as "constructive" anyway.)

I think the data would be useful and could be used in any number of future discussions. We need accurate statistics about IPs for any RfC or proposed system involving IP user rights. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we agree that the statistics actually represent logged-in vs not-logged-in, don't we? However, in my experience the numbers are interpreted as being registered vs unregistered and few people consider the difference between unregistered edits vs registered-but-not-logged-in edits. Maybe this is just a small systemic bias as you claim, but perhaps it is a really significant factor. I suppose (because you fixed my broken signature, thanks) you read my examples of accidental and deliberate not-logged-in edits at the RfA talk page. What if the majority of today's IP edits are being made by people who also have accounts? Wouldn't that have interesting implications for user rights discussions too? We can't just say this question is "too much effort for everyone". - Pointillist (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

These numbers are a little old, but I think they make the point. There is no way the majority of IP edits are being made by active registered editors who are logged out. This is not a plausible hypothesis. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

For me the really interesting thing on that page is the idea of using the cu_changes table to associate logged-in users and their IP addresses (see Pre-registration anonymous activity). I'd like researchers to try the opposite direction, seeing how many not-logged-in edits come from the IP addresses used by registered contributors. I appreciate this would be pretty rough measure: perhaps registered users make minor not-logged-in changes from their smartphones/tablets whose IP addresses change frequently, but they do more major work logged-in via lap/desktop machines with more long-term stable IP addresses.
Another perspective is editing intent and quality. The Geiger & Halfaker 2013 paper discusses the idea of a activity sessions and rhythms, with the idea that session length indicates how strongly users are engaged. While this seems intuitively reasonable, it ignores tasks performed outside the Wiki editor, e.g. searching for references and assembling them into wikitext using external tools like zotero, mendeley, notepad etc. In the days when I was more productive I would usually do my most serious work offline and then improve an article in a single paste (e.g. creating articles like [1], or adding citations to AfD's like [2], [3]). You did the same with Chou–Fasman method, Valerie Daggett and PEN-2 so you know what I mean.^{added 09:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)} But when I'm tidying up an article I stay in the Wiki editor, making a sequence of minor edits, which all too often means introducing a typo and going back to fix it twenty seconds later. So I get to claim two edits for changing a single word, but only one for adding ten references! Bare edit counts are of little value: we need some measure of quality as you used in 2007. Section 4.3 of the Panciera 2009 paper might be a good starting point.
Unfortunately this discussion is mushrooming beyond the time I have to engage today. All I can say is that I still think more data is required. I'd particularly like to see:

• Bot and perhaps AWB edits excluded
• Count of edits to article namespace only
• Major/minor edit quality e.g. in the terms you used in 2007, with the addition of formatted citations being a key factor.
• Whether offline editing is indicated between editing sessions, e.g. multiple references added in a single edit.
• Some measure of not-logged-in edits coming from IP addresses that are associated with registered users.

Over to you! - Pointillist (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, dear, I've just noticed that you said "active registered editors". I was including in my scope anyone who ever registered even if they haven't logged in for months. So that's another perspective. - Pointillist (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I said "active" because those are the people pertinent to the related RfA discussion, but I don't think it matters. If someone who fixes the odd typo as an IP registered an account once a few years ago but forgot the password, that association is irretrievable. I'm sure no one but the foundation or approved researchers is going to touch the checkuser data tables, and the data is only retained for a few months anyway. Since I generated that original stupid table I am clearly throwing stones at glass houses, but I think this idea of large-scale, frequent IP edits from registered users is tilting at windmills.

As for quality classification, I believe the foundation has done some of that too, but the definition of quality is somewhat subjective. For example, I wouldn't give one single shit about citation formatting except that detecting citations is easier when someone uses a template. And any measure that more or less means "reasonable chance of not getting reverted on sight in 2015" would suggest that everyone here was a blithering idiot in 2001 and we all slowly got smarter and smarter till at a guess 2009ish and since then have been getting slightly dumber.

That Panciera paper is interesting. Their 'born not made' result could at least partially be explained by the pattern that productive newcomers tend to edit as anons first; if you measure on the first day of registered wiki-life, those people are already further up the learning curve and are prepared to be more productive on day 1. I think the flatness of the PWR metric as a function of lifetime is mostly just evidence that it's a bad metric, not least because the likelihood that your contribution is removed is itself a function of experience, by virtue of the fact that people are more likely to revert newbies or IPs regardless of edit quality. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Reflection and challenge

Perhaps some shall find this of interest; perhaps not. In any event, I want to memorialize these thoughts as I think they summarize not only my opinions, but also those of the many diligent, constructive, and underappreciated IP editors who contribute to this site. First off, I am not some malcontent. I was a longtime editor, the author of several good articles, the reviewer of others, and the coauthor of a featured article. I participated in AFD, mediated disputes at DRN, and participated actively in policy-related discussion. As an active editor, I enjoyed a few userrights, enough to combat vandalism and patrol new articles. I love Wikipedia, I love its community of editors, and I am profoundly appreciative of my time as a registered editor. I am also a busy person with educational, family, and other commitments, so I retired from active editing. In so doing, I figured that I could remain a fairly prolific content creator while withdrawing from more time-consuming, non-content-related activities. Editing as an unregistered user is enjoyable, but it has also been a wakeup call. Too often, registered users view IP users as vandals, as violators of the BLP policy, as "test" editors, and, in short, as their inferiors. I know that's how I used to feel: on more than one occasion, I had to revert my own reversions of edits made by IPs, which I had trigger-happily regarded as vandalism. And you know what? That is an incredibly short-sighted approach to Wikipedia editing. Wikipedia, as our user interface proclaims, is "The Free Encyclopedia". It's not the "Two-Tiered Encyclopedia" and it sure ain't the "Encyclopedia of Registered Editors." It's an intellectual democracy focused on content creation, so let's act accordingly. And I'd encourage all registered editors to try this: for one (1) week, for seven (7) days, edit as an IP. I think you'll find it educational, and perhaps you'll find it a compelling reason to forsake the sometimes overwhelming and needlessly contentious atmosphere of the "registered" world. Walk in the shoes of an IP, and you might want to leave them on. I know that I do. 74.127.175.164 (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, though I wish I didn't have to. Though I don't think that the encyclopedia should allow IP editing (or, at least, editing by an IP after a certain number of edits sort of like reverse autoconfirmation), so long as it is the consensus of the community that we're going to allow it I feel that I must ordinarily respect IP editors to the same extent as I do registered editors and I consciously endeavor to do so. (In working at DRN — where we must have crossed paths during your registered editing — I will strongly suggest to IP editors who have dynamic IP's to register an account simply to keep it from being so confusing when their address changes.) What I don't understand, however, is your assertion that IP editing "forsake[s] the sometimes overwhelming and needlessly contentious atmosphere of the 'registered' world". Why is editing from an IP less contentious? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC) PS: And to any registered editor considering trying 74's suggestion, let me strongly suggest that you not edit as an IP any place in any namespace where you have edited logged-in. First, there is a great risk that you may inadvertently reveal your real world identity or at least a strong clue to it, since anyone can look up your IP address. Second, you may be exposing yourself to accusations of sockpuppetry unless you identify yourself as your logged-in name (and then what's the point)? — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I was fairly ignorant as to the reasons for not registering. I have now read some of Wikipedia:Why not create an account?. The entire rationale is based in cynicism and distrust for the rest of the community, and tests AGF. It speaks of the fact that IPs often get shorter blocks, and asserts that registered users are "hiding behind usernames". It says, "...you never have to worry about creating the many editing-related breadcrumbs that account-based editors routinely create unthinkingly that can be used against them...", which is cynic-think for, "You don't have to be accountable to the community, or worry about building and maintaining a reputation on the site." Sorry, if these are best reasons the IP community can come up with, it's hard for me to muster much sympathy for their "right" not to register. The whole philosophy seems built around, "You can't trust the Wikipedia community." That said, I don't think I commit IP profiling on this site; I look at the edit, not the editor's identity; so I'm not the one you're complaining about. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me if this sounds condescending, but did you read the {{Humornotguideline}} tag at the top of the page? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 14:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't sound condescending, but I think it's misguided. If that page was intended to be humorous, it has failed miserably. I didn't get even a chuckle. If it's meant to be satire, the writers have managed to make it indistinguishable from the real thing, great job. If the page was written to poke fun at the IP rationale, then I'm still looking for the IP rationale from the IP's perspective. Where would one find that? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree — it's the strangest page with a humour tag placed on it I've ever come across, not because it's weird, but because of the opposite (I wouldn't really have been able to tell it was supposed to be a joke without the tag). Nevertheless, it's had a humour tag on it since it was created (by, perhaps with intended irony, an IP) and I wouldn't take it seriously. Disregard it as an anomaly; I'm sure there are people who would argue IP editing has some benefits (e.g. original creator of this section), but I don't think that page will explain anything. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll accept that I'm the victim of my own failure to read a template message. Not the first egg on my face by any means, or the last. Still looking. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• While I agree that there is every possibility that an IP account may have the highest possible standard of editing experience shows that, on many occasions, IPs may be problematic. I don't see why, after a certain number of edits or after a certain quantity of editing (within a predetermined time frame) an IP user should not be required to register. GregKaye 16:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• How about the following:

• IP addresses (most of them) change periodically. So if you set the limit at 100 edits, someone might end up making 90 edits under one IP and then 30 under another; they'll never get the message. You can never create a system that will tell a person to sign up after they've made X edits: it's not technically possible.
• Conversely, someone with an IP that was recently owned by someone who made 95 edits will not be allowed to make more than 5 edits before they're forced to sign up. They won't really understand what's going on and that could drive a potentially constructive user away.
• Some people might just come to Wikipedia, binge edit for a day and then never return. I think they should be allowed to do that: I've done it at other wikis. We shouldn't waste their time by forcing them to make an account if they're only going to be here for a short period of time.
• Some people only want to do things that IPs are allowed to do anyway. If someone's only concern is with copyediting existing articles, they can do that as an IP. They don't need to get dragged into RfAs, article creation, Twinkle/tools for registered users, uploading images, getting rollback/autopatrolled/sysop/whatever or controversy on semi-protect articles.
• It goes against the spirit of Wikipedia and the increasingly untrue idea that "anyone can edit".
• What's the point? You seem to be trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. I can't see what's wrong with someone experienced editing with an IP if they prefer. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e)

• I too have limited time; what Wikiholic doesn't? So, I save time by ignoring that majority of the powers of a registered account that don't interest me. Checking on how a few thousand articles are changing, well, that registered power interests me more. To save time on that, I concentrate on those watchlist items that look suspicious. Mostly, those showing neither an account nor an edit summary. That class get my immediate attention, because of their high rate of bad edits. Most other changes, I delay checking for about a day and a half, by which time someone else has probably but not always handled the problem. There is no need to forbid the class that attract my suspicions, nor to forbid me from using this method to save my time.

Just wanted to post to say that editing while logged out is allowed (so long as you play fair). As for IP edits, try to always assume good faith and judge the edit, not the editor. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• They don't use an account: I have an account. It isn't blocked or anything. I lost the password and username and don't see any need to recover it. It is easier for me to just fix minor things and not worry about my IP address showing. MY IP address will change in a few months anyway (and I don't need a medal; I need a chest to pin it upon). Forgive me if this is a bullet is bad behavior. If there are others like me then rewrite this. If I am very unusual then revert or delete this. (Please be sure to say why.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.209.132 (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

How do I show an IP address of registered users?

183.89.151.109 (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

You can't. Only users with the WP:CHECKUSER right can do that, and then only if they can justify it. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)