Wikipedia talk:IP addresses are not people/Archive 1

User names are not human
Following the logic of this essay, registered users are not human either. E.g.:


 * "IP addresses are just that, addresses, not humans." &rarr; "[User names] are just that, [user names], not humans."
 * "IP numbers are like masks, you never know who is behind them, or even how many people." &rarr; "[User names] are like masks, you never know who is behind them, or even how many people."
 * "When an IP address is blocked, the purpose isn't to stop the edits coming from that address, it is to stop that human(s) from editing. If they change their IP address by cycling their cable modem by editing from a different location, they should be blocked for block evasion." &rarr; "When a [user name] is blocked, the purpose isn't to stop the edits coming from that [user name], it is to stop that human(s) from editing. If they change their [user name by signing up for another one], they should be blocked for block evasion."

Would it be OK if I add a section to this effect? -- RA (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If it were accurate, it would be fine, but it isn't. Policy dictates that a registered account be used solely by one person.  There is no restrictions for the number of unregistered users that may use the same IP and sign as such.  Registered users aren't like masks, because while you may not know their real name, you can easily look up their contribs and see history here at Wikipedia, often going back years.  This is not true of the overwhelming majority of IP editors.  The third point needs to be reworded, but is essentially true, just not all that applicable for this essay.  In particular, Wikipedia software allows a maximum of 6 accounts to be created in a day for a single IP, but if you cycle your IP on your cellphone, you could post as a dozen IPs in one day rather trivially, so they aren't quite the same. Both are avoiding a block/socking, however.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 18:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Policy dictates that a registered account be used solely by one person." Policy also dictates that people must not abuse multiple accounts. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The substantive point is that "you never know who is behind them".
 * User names are like mask. We use them to hide our identity — both by adopting a pseudonym and by masking our IP, and thus our location. Abusive editors use them to pretend to be different people — like a real-world mask. In contrast, an IP address offers less privacy. Indeed, the increased privacy offered by a user name is one of the benefits stressed by Why create an account?
 * "Wikipedia software allows a maximum of 6 accounts to be created in a day for a single IP, but if you cycle your IP on your cellphone, you could post as a dozen IPs in one day rather trivially...." From a single IP, you say? So if I cycle my IP, I could post as a dozen user names in one day? Hmmmm ... --19:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not really interested in an academic debate, and you don't seem genuinely interested in improving the article, but instead in picking apart my logic, so we should just agree to disagree. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I am interested in improving the essay. Poking a hole through your central premise is a constructive criticism. Adding a section discussing how similar issues relate to user names would strengthen the essay IMO.
 * WP:NPOV doesn't apply to essays, but if you want to present a strong reasoned position, you should include obvious criticism IMO. -- RA (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I would also suggest a page move. I understand you are trying to mirror IPs are human too, but I think a bolder statment that IPs are not people would be a stronger statement of what you mean. When I wrote IPs are human too, I chose the word "human" to emphasise hunmaity. By saying that IPs are not human, you appear inhumane. I think it would strengthen your argument if you made it clear that the central issues is not that we should treat IP inhumanely, but that we don't know how many "people" an IP or range of IPs represent and we have not long-lasting connection with that "person" (a perfectly valid and logical argument). And not come across that you are de-humanising the people behind those IPs (which would be unsympathetic and illogical). -- RA (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That actually does make sense, and I wouldn't be opposed to that in the least. I'm not trying to diminish the contributions of IP editors, but I am trying to get them to understand WHY there are limits, as well as the realities that most people will not take their comments as serious, even if they should, but it is for some valid reasons: ie: accountability.  I don't think of it as a "counter" to the other essay as much as a compliment.  Too many people use that essay improperly, to mean "I'm an IP, I should get to vote at RfA" or similar, which is a bastardization of what your intent likely was.  The goal is to have some balance, and when it is possible for the editor, to encourage them to register, obviously.  It is rough, but it is important that you understand the goal isn't anti-IP, it is pro-understanding the reality of being an IP at Wikipedia.  And apologies if I misunderstood your intent.   Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've moved per your suggestion. By all means, lets work on it.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's actually quite a nice paradox that does (I think) capture the whole picture: IP are human, but not people :-)
 * I've created two shortcut, WP:NOTPEOPLE and WP:NOTAPERSON, which may be useful in different circumstances. -- RA (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I get the idea -- the converse of "IPs are humans." But the title, both original and improved, is offensive. It's like an impressionist painting -- when you're looking up close at the dots the big picture isn't obvious. But at a glance IPs are not people comes off as: IP (editors) are not people (they're subhuman). Which isn't really the point of the essay. Rather than focus on what they're not, why not focus on what they are? A couple suggestions: Aha! Figured out the problem I'm right and Dennis Brown is wrong. In the Wikipedia context, WP:IP refers to unregistered editor, not IP address. (Aside: it once referred to "anonymous editor" so the term is more correctly archaic than mistaken). So let's be explicit and rename the essay "IP addresses are not people." Nobody Ent 16:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * IPs are ephemeral
 * IPs are nomads Nobody Ent 10:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence to the first paragraph. I'm open minded, but I have to admit that I like the stark nature of the current title.  The key is to differentiate IP and unregistered editor, which are two different things that are often confused.  The IP is isn't a nomad, the user behind the IP is, virtually traveling from IP to IP. The IP is just how we identify the user, just as a name is how we identify the registered editor, except there is no accountability or chain of continuity with IPs. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Even a broken watch is right twice a day, so don't get too cocky ;-) Lemme think on that name.  Not opposed, just want to mull it over.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As you may recall, it took my fellow Ents three days of Entmoot to make the obvious decision to that Isengard just had to go, so take all the time you need. Nobody Ent 21:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I never watched any of those. Really.  Just haven't set aside the 12 hours needed to watch 3 movies yet. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and changed it. I'm kind of neutral with the name, but I see the logic, and since I don't have any real objections, it seemed logical to just make the move.  Now we need to link it in several places and fine tune it.  I had been thinking about this for months, so I think I have most of the points already in there, but the prose needs some polish.  Of course, others may have other ideas for stuff to add, which is fine as well.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

ip accuracy
IP addresses don't actually geolocate reliably to hometowns 50 to 80% in US and likely worse outside  Nobody Ent 18:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Even when not accurate, though, geolocation can place users in a bordering or nearby city, which may be good enough for the entity seeking the information. This happens because a common method for geolocating a device is referencing its IP address against similar IP addresses with already known locations." from the same source. Actually, globally it varies 50-80% and experience has shown it is actually somewhat more reliable in the US and near useless in a few parts of Western Europe except to differentiate country of origin.  I don't have enough personal data to offer an opinion outside those areas.  It is still considerably less anonymous than a registered account. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 18:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's really a side discussion which detracts from the significant part of the essay -- I've tweaked down to a short statement so the essay moves more quickly into the meat. Nobody Ent 10:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Slight tweek
Hi Dennis, I made a slight tweek at the end about IP's "unwillingness" to register vs deciding against registering. Was that ok or could it be worded better? Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. This essay belongs to everyone.  I had just seen the WP:IPs are human too being abused by IPs, taking it to mean they can do anything they want to do, even troll.  This is similar to how some people misinterpret WP:IAR to mean you can ignore a rule just because you want to.  In both cases, the fault isn't the page, it is the interpretation.  This page is to both explain to the IP why there are limits, subtly recommend registering, and be honest in telling them "Look, many people are going to give your opinions less credit because it is human nature to do so, and no policy can change that".  At the same time, recognize that their edits should be held to the same scrutiny and standards as mine.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Participation section added
We still need some tweaks and cleanup, but it is pretty close to consider cross-linking in a number of project space pages. Well, after we consider the title. I don't see it as offensive, but I'm open minded as to the title. The original title was picked as being a compliment and only slightly contradicting of the essay that inspired it, as to paint a more full picture. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Conflicting with WP:AGF
The tone of this essay, which has been written by one particular admin so he can use it in response to people who point him to WP:HUMAN, seems to be at odds with the guideline of assuming good faith in this site. The whole essay and the accompanying images convey the overall message that unregistered users are up to no good. I think an essay like this has no place in Wikipedia. Instead of writing this essay, the author should perhaps ask himself why other editors keep pointing him to WP:HUMAN. 220.246.156.175 (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

i agree this reads as a Admin cop out for assuming good faith] and [[WP:HUMAN. more over i do agree with the need to lock down "some" pages due to repeat vandalism but majority of vandals on wiki come less from IP adress prakers and more from POV posters on controversial topics (example vegans, god/religions, politics). this article really should be a hub directing to both WP:AGF and WP:NPOV. would also like some sources to back up all the WP:OR in this job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.153 (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The primary author is the most vocal advocate for the appropriateness of ip editing in Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive782. NE Ent 00:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I cannot see Dennis Brown intervening there, but that is beside the point. The question is not Dennis Brown's ability to assume good faith, but this essay's stark contrast with the AGF policy. 219.73.104.90 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think he is referring to the discussion up higher in the page. I am pretty comfortable with the idea that anyone that knows me, knows that I'm not "anti-IP".  The idea of the essay is to spell out some hard, cold realities.  It isn't the same a registered account, and many people will discount the IPs opinions, even if I don't.  The truth is still the truth.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

IPv6 users
The essay currently does not cover this topic, but it should. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to make it cover IPv6 and IPv4 in a generic way, but if you have some info that sheds light via IPv6, please add it. I'm not a v6 expert, although the changes it poses for SPI will force me to eventually bone up on the newer network standard so I can effectively do rangeblocks and the like.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

pic
In context of the Mfd, the clown pic could be interpreted as implying IPs are clowns, so I've changed the mask to something more regal. NE Ent 03:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I propose to rename from IP addresses are not people to An IP address is not a person
I propose to rename from IP addresses are not people to An IP address is not a person. The title in singular is more accurate and I think better reflects the intent. IP addresses frequently represent many people, but an IP adress cannot be assumed to represent a unique person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Meh. I'm not married to the name, but I think the plural is more helpful and ties into the idea that an IP can be many people. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've actually felt for a while that it should be moved. It's certainly not the intent but writing "IP addresses are not people" can carry the connotation that IP editors are less human than other editors. Ryan Vesey 23:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That is my motivation. I think the "An" in "An IP address" emphasizes the non-personal nature of the noun and makes it much harder to misread the title as a comment on the people behind the IP signatures.  We often have references to IP editors as simply "the IP", and I do think the title is easily misread as "IP address editors are not people".  If Dennis can suggest a difficult-to-misread plural title, please do.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit preoccupied with work and such, so would like to think about it more, but again, I'm not married into the name. We've already changed it once.  Maybe we need to just come up with a few names here and pick a final one.  No rush, but I do see where the name is less than optimal.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 02:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Something else

 * I strongly reject the tone of the whole essay. It gives the impression that all the abuses listed are very frequent, whereas in fact many of them are rare. User names of registered users are not people either. They are strings. Registered users sitting on a dynamic IP can sock all they want and never get caught. So what? 219.73.104.90 (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "IP addresses are like masks, you never know who is behind them" - what nonsense. Surely the same exact statement applies to registered users, even if they are not socking. See WP:ANONYMOUS and IP_edits_are_not_anonymous. This discrimination against unregistered users is unnecessary and harmful to the project. 220.246.135.25 (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Policy dictates that one person use one account, so the theory of policy is that one registered account must be one person. That they use a nickname and I don't is irrelevant, it is still a single person, if they are acting within policy.  If you trace an IP, you find that many represent several people over the years.  Also, some ISPs use NAT, particularly in Germany from my experience at WP:SPI, so you might legitimately have several people using the same IP at the same time, which has caused us much grief when blocking since that blocks regular editors that do not have IP block exemption. You might also have four editors sitting at the same Starbucks using the same IP addresss via the free Wifi.  That isn't the case with registered accounts. I would argue that much of the content isn't about abuses, it is about perceptions.  Many people regularly discount the opinions of IP addresses, as the essay clearly explains.  It isn't just about admin or blocks, but even in discussions.  IPs can't even vote at RfA. And no, registered editors socking on the same IP are found every day by both contrib evidence and by Checkusers (trust me, again, I work SPI daily), and this is against policy.  The purpose of the essay isn't to explain every possible scenario on socking, it is to explain why an IP address isn't the same as a registered name in many respects, because it isn't the same in many respects. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. NE Ent 00:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously, do try to keep up ;) Jester of the court (sock)  00:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But a registered account can only be used by one person, which is what I think DB is getting at. NE Ent 00:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wish I could keep up, work is grinding me. At least I answer the IPs instead of ignoring them, it just takes time during this time of year. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 02:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverted
In particular, the idea that using IPs to sock isn't rampant is simply inaccurate. IPs pose some very unique challenges and limitations in the enforcement of sockpuppetry, as a CU can't be used and they can rotate frequently. Based on my experience as an SPI clerk over a year and someone who works with sockpuppetry on a daily basis, I would argue that claim is highly inaccurate. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Great essay
It's convinced me that, while registration should not be required, it is a very good idea to make human editors accountable. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I humbly beg to differ. I argue that registration should be mandatory, given that current rules prohibits banning IP adresses indefinitely.
 * And before anyone says anything, no, requiring registration does not constitute any kind of violation of "Anyone can edit". Because there're currently no rules prohibiting anyone (not even long-time vandals) from registering.  Cédric wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery. 21:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since lots of vandals do register, I fail to see how registration of an account "blah238595" makes them accountable. We have millions of such accounts already. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then please let me explain:
 * There's currently a list of prohibited user names, but there're no lists of "prohibited IP addresses". If you wish you prohibit meaningless user names, all you need to do is to request an update of this list;
 * OTOH, making everybody register acts like a checkpoint that deters vandals from trying to register before vandalising Wikipedia. After all, who, other than addicted long-term abusers like zh:User:影武者, would want to keep registering new accounts?  Cédric wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery. 00:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 'blah' was tongue in cheek. How you can prohibit names like Eric1089 or Hiroyuki19560207 beats me. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Speaking as the original author, I think it speaks to the fact that IPs are allowed to edit due to the WMF, not the community's wishes, but the community has put in place some reasonable limits. It is allowed purely for philosophical reasons.  Some might argue more limits are a good idea. Most IPs do good work, yet most vandalism comes from IPs.   At the end of the day, we want to strongly encourage good faith IP editors who do more than a rare edit to register.  And to clarify one bit of misinformation, we do have "prohibited IP addresses".  A number of very large ranges as well as individual IP addresses are all but permanently blocked for both IP editors and registered users, unless they get the IP-Block Exempt bit.  Open proxies are just one example.  Registering doesn't make them more accountable, but it is shown that people that register are less likely to vandalize. Why that is, I won't venture a guess.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * it is shown people that register are less likely to vandalize. I don't doubt you saw this claim, but I'd like to check the underlying assumptions of this statement, how much less, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a study that is quoted in the citations. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Slight Incredulity
I don't wish to be ungallant but it does not seem this meets the definition of an essay in any academic sense. Essays of course can put forward POV, but this should follow critical analysis and a weighing of factors. A single reference to a (quite good I admit piece) is insufficient for an essay. Relevant peer reviewed journal articles with clear methodology setting out the extent of proxy IP services being used for instance could assist. In addition, other resources on business and governmental interests either hiding behind proxy IPs or hiding behind pseudonyms would perhaps assist in having this (good faith) collection of text meet any definition of an essay. It currently seems closer to the definition of a newspaper Op-Ed piece. There is nothing wrong with that, but I think essay suggests a degree of academic integrity that it does not have. Two points:

* I have not logged in here to demonstrate the potential dangers inherent in this argument. A look up of my IP 131.111.128.45 (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reveals my actual psychical home address. Part of that host name is a CRS ID that searched through Google will reveal precisely who I am, my contact details and other personal information. I believe this essay may lead some good faith static IP users to believe their privacy and identity is more protected than it is.

* The second point is that the use of pseudonyms by governments and companies in editing pages directly relevant to them, often flooding them with advertising babble and removing any criticism of those companies and governments means being logged in is no guarantee of being a bona fide independent editor. As registration conceals their IP addresses and host names is therefore makes if further difficult to determine whether there is a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest complaints are difficult as clear evidence is often elusive.

I am not submitting that this piece is incorrect. Just that it could perhaps refer to more authority and could consider some of the more nuanced factors as part of the critical analysis before the conclusion (in which the author is entitled to adopt a POV based on that analysis). Please understand I make this comment in good faith and would agree with most of the POV in it. As for the title of the essay causing so much incredulity, I don't remember many people ever arguing internet protocol addresses were people. Their lack of personification is just not relevant. The same goes of course for the rebuttal essay using a similar title. So please don't take this the wrong way. I'm signing off with my IP address which will give you much more information that an alias would. So much for privacy. Anyway, I do hope you have a pleasant weekend.06:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC) 131.111.128.45 (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As an essay, I'm allowed to use my decade of experience in the writing, as not everything is able to be referenced, particularly when we talk about the back pages of Wikipedia, which are almost never covered by reliable sources, who (thankfully) have better things to do. Also note, how we define "essay" may be different than how it is defined off-wiki.  The same is true for "involved", "reliable sources" and hundreds of other terms.  If you check the top of any essay, you see a proper disclaimer.  I don't mean to invalidate your criticism, which makes good points, I'm just saying you may be using a bar that is set too high when it comes to verification of the claims.  For that, we have to rely on consensus editing from experienced editors rather than citations.  Of course, the goal of the essay isn't to have an anti-IP POV, but instead to have a pro-register POV, because there are a lot of benefits, including actually being anonymous when you register.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Creepy Page
I was listening to a scary audio drama, and it made the images look really creepy. I do not think reading this page while listening to said audio drama is a very good idea. 50.49.143.45 (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)