User talk:99.137.209.90

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, 99.137.209.90, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

Hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Good luck. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please register

IP address contributors are always viewed as a lower form of animal life. You seem to be making useful contributions so please create an account and use it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Done that, preferring to swim with the 'lower forms'. I've reported an awful lot of named accounts for vandalism, so I'm not interested in such distinctions. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Commoditization with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sp33dyphil © • © 00:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Commoditization with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Sp33dyphil © • © 00:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe my edit summary, coupled with a cursory look at the other editor's history [1], are fairly clear. They are attempting to insert a neologism and original research in every article they can. Please look again before issuing warnings. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Commoditization. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Please stop reverting the article. Discuss the situation on the article talk page, Talk:Commoditization. --Orlady (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Never mind the context of those edits, I was rather waiting for that. I discussed the situation in my edit summaries, at the user's talk page, at several AFD discussions, and at two administrators' notice boards. Not to worry, Orlady, I'll not attempt to deter someone from promoting their theories again across multiple articles [2], and will be happy to leave such efforts to you. Your warning is itself an instructive example of the Wikipedia process, and ought to be observed by the community. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's disenfranchised

It had crossed my mind to respond by issuing templates re: the misuse of warnings, but there's no purpose served in antagonism. What's disappointing, though the norm in human behavior, is the desire to hold others accountable while demurring from self-accountability; hence, the above warnings--which I've no intention of reverting, so that they will continue to speak for themselves-- remain without any acknowledgment that they may have been ill-advised. I suspect this is due in great measure to the observation offered above by RHaworth: IPs are, in essence, viewed as shit in a handbag, and this is as true for administrators as for more casual accounts. Having long used an account for creating and adding to articles--some attaining featured status--reverting vandalism, and accruing many barnstars and trinkets, I may have earned as many warnings in over five years as I did here in a few hours. My edit pattern hasn't changed, only the reactions to it. IPs are Wikipedia's disenfranchised. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

As it happens, no one is immune from being templated or blocked over edit-warring. Even administrators have been blocked for edit-warring in circumstances similar to the one that caused me to give you that "3rr" template. If you had reverted on that page again, you would have been vulnerable to a block, so I wanted you to be aware of the situation. I also posted on the talk page of the user who had reverted you, pointing out that your edits were not vandalism.
Another user had posted on a noticeboard to request full protection for Commoditization to prevent continuation of edit-warring there. Instead of protecting the page, I chose to ask the two of you who were engaged in back-and-forth reverts to quit doing what you were doing. Since then, the user who created the problem has been indefinitely blocked, so all seems to be resolved for now. --Orlady (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Abusive sysop for an illustration of why I felt it necessary to warn you about 3rr. --Orlady (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the link, and I understand that I'd reverted several times, in part to bring attention to a series of edits which were not constructive. The decision to issue a warning was not unjustified, but from the beginning I've questioned its necessity. I need to check the chronology, but I think that by the time you warned me several hours had passed and things had cooled. So, as I've said elsewhere on this page, I'm not sure that the warning served a constructive purpose...unless we refer to ensuing conversation. I am truly bothered by your statements here re: IPs in general, and find it prejudicial coming from an admin--I've wrestled with whether this ought to be taken up elsewhere for feedback. Perhaps you wrote it as an exasperated response to my venting, which I can understand. But I hope you're not inclined to practice 'IP profiling'. It's clear that you accomplish a lot of good work here. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The guidelines and rationale are fully understood. The interpretation of my edits as warring is one that I find unfortunate, given the circumstances. That a problematic editor was blocked is appropriate; if I was reverting disruptive edits, and I think that intent was clear, then I question whether templating me serves a constructive purpose. This was not a disagreement over content, but an attempt to revert a continuous and chronically disruptive series of self-promotional edits. Anyway, I appreciate the intention and the 'legal' foundation for the warnings, yet they reinforce my foolishness in continuing to edit here. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. The editor in question was not indefinitely blocked; the block has expired. I expect that you'll want to watch the articles this user disrupted. As you know, registered users get to maintain article watchlists, which allow us to see recent changes on articles in which we have an interest. For technical reasons, an IP can't do that, which makes it harder for you to monitor articles for disruptive editing. --Orlady (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes; I gladly jettisoned my watchlist when it grew to well over a thousand. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

As another IP editor I strongly agree with your assessment. The "regulars" have an essay WP:DTTR that they will almost inevitably point to when they are given a template. They believe they are somehow immune or above the rules. Furthermore, they believe that IP editors are not "real" Wikipedians, that we have something to hide or we aren't just as invested in editing. Don't even get me started on admins and crats, two things which became the most horrific inventions on wikipedia furthering the schism between those who seek to edit and those who seek to bully. Hence, there is no class that the rules actually apply to and no class that is considered "normal". 140.247.141.165 (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, though my experiences and conclusions are more complex. Since presumably nobody gets paid for their contributions, most long-timers and administrators are acting in good faith; that includes those who template me. I surely used to get the benefit of the doubt when editing as a registered account in good standing, was granted rollback privileges, and was asked by two sysops to become an administrator myself. What is compromised by operating as an IP is the ability to create articles and make AFD proposals (and, at the moment, to edit the 'incidents' noticeboard). I think it's facile to go after an IP account used by somebody who's operating in good faith, in other words, to withdraw the benefit of the doubt. I may disagree strenuously with and even resent others' actions, but I don't think the site could run without administrators and longterm editors. Yes, a certain attention to class distinctions exists everywhere, and in this respect Wikipedia is no different than the rest of life. It is unjust and inevitably maddening, but I can't help thinking that it's a mistake to take anything that happens here-- meaning not only Wikipedia but life in general-- very seriously. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My conclusion re: IP accounts is that they're not granted full citizenship. That being the case, as an entity Wikipedia would one day do well to either ban them and require all users to register, or grant them the same editing rights as all others. Otherwise the claim that 'anyone can edit' is a nice promo, but a half-truth. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

All of the above is true and the inner circle of wikipedia refuses to truly broach the issue, which it sad and disappointing. Until the day that everyone is either forced to sign up or everyone is given equal rights (including IPs being promoted to administrative status) wikipedia will remain the "encyclopedia that only some can edit". 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe in a monolithic power structure at Wikipedia, and am not sure that it exists in many places we're inclined to imagine it. Rather, my experience in academia, Wikipedia, and pretty much everywhere is that people find a niche in which they are expert, or at least like to believe they're competent, and begrudge anyone's intrusion within their arena. It happens all the time here, and often involves editors of deep engagement and brilliance, who are no more immune to insecurity than anyone else. It's the seat of the most violent edit wars: I know more than you do. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is that far too many edits by IPs are vandalism. If you choose to edit anonymously from an IP address, your "user ID" is indistinguishable, for all intents and purposes, from the user IDs of thousands of schoolchildren who are inclined to use Wikipedia to tell the world "My name is Joe" or "The kid sitting next to me has three noses" (or something like that) and myriad other less innocent varieties of vandal. You are judged by the company you choose. --Orlady (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Way too much vandalism originates from school and library IPS; I've reverted thousands of such edits, which are often nasty rather than innocuous. No, editing as an IP in no way puts me in the same company as vandals--wow, I'm surprised by the "company you choose" metaphor, which denies WP:AGF--to maintain that it does is a lax analysis, and excuses one from looking at the substance of an edit or series of edits. If the problem of IP vandalism is serious enough to merit systemic change, then Wikipedia may well consider blocking all IP contributions. Until then, responsible editors and administrators are obliged to view edits individually. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:HUMAN is worth visiting in this context. 99.137.209.90 (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC) It states, in part:

Unregistered users are more likely to vandalise articles: This is true; by contrast, the greater proportion of their contributions are non-vandalism edits. In a February 2007 study of 248 edits, 80.2% of vandalism was done by unregistered editors. But 81.9% of edits by unregistered users were not vandalism. Non-vandalism edits by unregistered users accounted for 29.4% of all article edits. Of the article edits, only 6.5% were vandalism by unregistered users; in contrast, unregistered users reverted over a quarter (28.5%) of all vandalism. 91.9% of the edits to Wikipedia articles were constructive and unregistered users accounted for nearly a third of those.[1] Another study carried out by IBM found "no clear connection between anonymity and vandalism"; in addition, the research group found anonymous users provide significant and substantial positive contributions.[2]

Re: Your AIV report on Prosoccer44

Thank you for your report on Prosoccer44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have however declined to block because the user stopped vandalizing after the first "stern" warning (last edit was at 12:22 and you warned them at 12:24)

If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers! -- Luk ^talk 12:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Luk; I appreciate your explanation, though the edit history indicates they're here only for disruptive purposes. Thanks, 99.137.209.90 (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

---