Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP

__NOINDEX__

Basic information
"Best known for" IP (BKFIP) is an editor who has been repeatedly blocked since 2011 due to edit warring and incivility. They were community banned in 2016.

Often editing from IPs around London but has also edited from Chile and other foreign IP and appears to travel frequently, the editor will regularly remove the phrase "best known for" or other superlatives claiming violation of WP:NPOV and edit war over it with personal attacks. In 2017, BKFIP started using sockpuppet accounts, and has continued to edit both logged in via sock accounts and logged out via IPs.

Targeted areas, pages, themes

 * Varies widely, from sports to astronomy to music to pop culture TV and film.

Habitual behavior

 * A typical first edit will remove the phrase "best known for" from an article with an edit summary of "rm pov". Sometimes edit summaries can be called "snarky", which may trigger reverts.
 * Subsequent attempts to re-insert the phrase will be reverted, sometimes with personal attacks in the edit summaries.
 * In a sustained edit war, the IP will be blocked or the page protected. After protection is removed and the block expires, the pattern repeats.
 * In the event that the IP is blocked for a long-term (up to 3 months), the user swaps to another IP.

The principal problem with this case is that many edits made by this user are good-faith edits that are often supported by editors when looked at on their individual merits. This makes issues of conduct harder to enforce. That said, the IP will edit war with numerous other editors—including with offensive and aggressive summaries—even when his edits are poor, and a talk page thread is opened to explain the situation.

The editor involved has stated they are frustrated with being reverted without explanation ("These arbitrary reverts are a real slap in the face") and says that they get "more satisfaction out of responding viciously than (they) would out of responding politely, and the end result is exactly the same".

They may also make accusations of poor English against editors with whom they are in dispute (example).

They have a limited knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and will attempt to bluff/bullshit their way through related discussions (see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145).

Cases

 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive202
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive204
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive728
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive729
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive786
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive801
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive827
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive843
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive847
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive847
 * Sockpuppet investigations/200.120.158.78/Archive
 * . User agreed to not make personal attacks and not edit war and was unblocked.
 * * Another "final" warning for personal attacks, restored the personal attacks, warned again, repeat. Total of four restorations and at least as many warnings.
 * - Blocked for disruptive editing. Unblocked by Yngvadottir: "Please don't make me regret this." with another warning not to edit war and make personal attacks. (After this]...)
 * - noticeboard discussion re 3RR warnings on two articles
 * - Edit warring at The Mary Tyler Moore Show; violation of 0RR at The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Steven Milloy and Astrakhan. Blocked for 1 week.
 * Edit warring. Closed by Drmies on 27 February 2015, "because these are two editors who have Wikipedia's best interest at heart."
 * 28 February 2015 discussion at AN/I
 * September 2015 edit warring
 * "Abuse of administrator tools" ANI report - result was 186.9.128.0/17 rangeblocked for 6 months
 * - Result was 48 hrs; subsequently increased by User:Kuru to one month (LTA).
 * Another AN/I discussion
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Moaia
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Best known for IP
 * April 2022
 * August 2022

Other notes
The IPs geolocate to South America, often Santiago, Chile, but sometimes from Brazil.
 * Many are near London: 46.37.55.80, 82.33.71.205, 83.223.124.17, 92.234.25.254, etc. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also near London 51.7.229.224, 51.7.34.168, 51.7.229.207. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * IP can geolocate pretty much anywhere, I've noticed Canada, California, Australia. Appears to travel frequently. WCM email 07:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Latest "contributions" appear to be from New Zealand. Usual aggressive comments and poor editing, see Wow! signal. Blocked again. David J Johnson (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Chaheel Riens
The only thing I'll comment upon (as I'm about to vacation for two weeks so will probably be unable to contribute further,) is that in retrospect the IP editor is not necessarily incorrect in their edits - "best known for" in some cases can be considered subjective, but in other cases the term "best known for" was supported and made by reliable sources.

However, the main issue was not the removal of the term(s) by the editor, but their general interaction with all and sundry when either discussing or reverting. Nothing but abuse and foul-mouthed vitriol when approached, and continuous after blocks had expired suggesting no willingness to change. I think it should be made clear that this is not a report solely about the edits themselves, but the conduct surrounding them - IP-hopping notwithstanding. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SummerPhD
This case is not about the edits. Whether or not to include the wording in question is, as always, up for discussion. The editor, however, is unconcerned with any possible consensus and/or sources. They have taken issue with its use, decided it is categorically wrong and must be removed without discussion. WP:BRD, WP:NPA and WP:3RR are of no interest to them. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat
As per the above, on some, but by no means all, occasions this IP makes good edits, but when those edits are challenged on any grounds whatsoever, they go into an abusive edit warring mode. Their edit history as 201.215.252.50 shows this approach to editing, and this shows their approach to reasoned dialogue on the talk pages, even going to the extent of edit warring at ANI - again and again and again. All that happens when they are blocked is to jump to a new IP address and keep on going, often leaving another uncivil message, e.g.: "rm all the lies of idiots, cunts, retards and wankers"

Not all there edits are good: some are downright awful, and their grasp of what is covered by copyright is weak; the bigger problem is that their demands to get their own way without the need for reasoned or rational discussion here, when based on their misunderstanding of what the limits of copyright are, are frustrating. Even worse than their lack of grasp on the issues at hand is their reaction. The edit history of that same thread shows them edit warring to remove the comments of others, and their swings into incivility: "you are just being a dick"; "fucking retarded little cunt" etc. – SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Bretonbanquet
My findings are much as the above. Not all edits by these IPs are unhelpful, but I think that's more by luck than judgement. With respect to his persistence in removing "best known for" wording – on occasion he's brought to light some poorly worded and subjective statements that deserved to be changed, but at other times he's repeatedly removed referenced material that was in no way contentious, such as at Jeremy Spencer, who in Wikipedia terms, is only notable for one thing. At 1977 South African Grand Prix, he repeatedly argued against the suggestion that a sporting event in which two people were violently killed might be best remembered for that fact. He is a persistent edit-warrior and IP hopper, and rarely uses a talk page, even when specifically asked to do so. He will immediately return to edit-warring after a block expires, and his sarcastic, bullying edit summaries are unconstructive and wholly detrimental to the project "prick", "infantile twat",. He has no concept of consensus or reliable sources and rides roughshod over both.

This editor has also been blocked for block evasion, and I concur with the editors above that his confrontational manner and abusive behaviour are completely unacceptable "fucking moron" etc. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Wee Curry Monster
I recognise the style instantly, the editor responsible has been editing wikipedia for about 5 years that I'm aware of. Added a number of IP addresses I'm aware of below from Ian Gow. I could have added some historical ones but they are probably stale. He is mainly based in Santiago, Chile but I've noted him travelling to the UK and Canada from the Whois lookup.

I aware that, , , and   have at various times tried to convince the guy to be civil. This editor has frequently been blocked for edit warring and extreme violation of WP:CIVIL. I have observed over a period of 5 years, that as the IP cycles he appears to get away with much of his excesses. Whenever the IP cycles it appears the block counter is reset back to 24 hrs and wikipedia seems to forget about the previous IP. Frustratingly I have also had a series of admins insisting I had to discuss matters with the guy, for which you're rewarded with abuse eg Censored, Censored Censored You dopy little Censored, "wee curry monster".. In comparison with some of the epithets he's coined "fucking moron" is almost a term of endearment. WCM email 08:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive729 Discussion from 2011 at WP:ANI. Note the diff, where he admits to manipulating his IP to block evade. There is also an extreme example of 8RR and block by. See also Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive728. I could post more, what is depressing is the number of times its been there and been dismissed. WCM email 10:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * To add to my earlier comment. I've observed much of what this IP does, tends to be about improving articles but not always.  Its those occasions where his changes are detrimental to article quality that are most troubling.  They continue to demand that they get their way and respond with abuse and aggressive edit warring, and do so no matter how they're approached.  As  notes here though he claimed I reverted him solely because he edits as an IP, that was untrue; I made an effort to explain my reasons for reverting his changes.  I was rewarded for my courtesy with abuse and that is unacceptable.  The guy seems to enjoy trolling and admits as much here  "I get more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely". Whilst there is some truth that IP editors are sometimes not treated fairly, those who comment about this in connection with this IP are giving him a fig leaf to hide behind; he complains loudly this is the case whether it is true or not.  WCM email 17:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I went back this evening to a couple of posts that the IP made. In particular this one, where the IP editor states:

These arbitrary reverts are a real slap in the face. I get more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely, and the end result is exactly the same. It's very, very depressing to see how reasonable, sensible people like yourself became the minority. Believe me, if you were the majority, I would not be viciously slagging off anyone.


 * I've quoted it in full this time as  states in this follow up edit summary  his belief that "well, if we're going to cite him, let's cite him correctly: this not rephrased incorrectly and pulled out of context"  Well if my edit was misleading I thank both editors who followed up for fixing it.  I went on out of curiousity to look at the exchange, which prompted it.  Quoting Drmies:

I will say this: I think you got a rough ride at Hermann Fegelein, but "fuck you cunt" (to paraphrase some of your commentary) is not a productive avenue and it is likely to get you blocked, in which case no one wins.


 * This is the exchange referenced. The sequence:


 * IP makes 3 edits - the tag notes references removed
 * reverts to restore the information but subsequently edits to include many of the changes proposed by the IP. Its not uncommon for editors to revert material to restore deleted content to then go on and improve it.
 * IP reimposes his edits again - the tag notes references removed
 * citing this abusive personal attack on Kierzek's talk page
 * IP simply reverts with an abusive edit summary
 * Kierzek reverts and again goes on to edit to improve the article, suggesting a compromise
 * IP reverts
 * OberRanks reverts
 * Kierzek suggests another compromise edit
 * IP reverts, the edit summary begins "When you apologise for then offensive false accusations, then maybe we can start talking about "compromises"


 * No one used the talk page.
 * However, Kierzek does inform the IP he reverted him for removing citations - which if you check the edits is correct.  The only time vandalism is referred to is when the offensive comments are removed from Kierzek's talk page. Kierzek's edits arguably further improved on the original suggestion by the IP but they still met with nothing but unwarranted abuse.  And that is my point, whilst I reckon most of their edits do improve articles, when they don't they react to the editors who follow up their edits in exactly the same way.  WCM email 23:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Briefly, from Drmies
All the edits to articles I've seen this IP editor make are quality items: I strongly disagree with some of the other posters--the IP editor has a nose for language and that they disregard reliable sources, I haven't seen it. Their combative style is clear, though, and typically it provokes a strong reaction and quick revert, often a dismissive revert without explanation which smacks of an all-too easy backlash against IP editors. On the other hand, many of their comments are totally unacceptable. I find this a difficult case: they've never been abusive toward me, and in content discussions they typically tone down that rhetoric. Problem is, of course, that too many opposing editors have nothing better to offer than "rv", and then tag-team in their reverts with the predictable result that the IP gets blocked for 3R. These are shameful practices. It seems to me the IP is editing from some sort of principle, conviction, and I also think that frequently their point is valid--it's just that they express it in provocative ways and enjoy the fight too much. If it weren't for the cuss words this would be a very different conversation and I might side with them as a matter of course. But given the situation, I see the bad on both sides, with some dismissiveness and passive-aggressiveness on the named editors' sides (not always, and not from all), and way too much cussing on the IP's side, which is unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius
I have encountered this user on occasion, but when I do, I notice that while this IP may make good edits, their edit-warring and personal attacks n the few edits that are bad outweigh anything that they add to the articles. As above, they do not care about BRD, NPA, or 3RR, and they sometimes will do this even while blocked; for example, on this talk page. More on this later. Epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that this block was lifted after the user agreed not to edit war or make personal attacks (see below). I'll accept the IP editor's apology as long as he does good with his promise. Epicgenius (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from AlanS
I have encountered this user on occasion and I most say that whatever potentially good edits they make are vastly outnumbered by the snide personal attacks and reverting against consensus. No good ever comes from anything they touch. If they were able to be pinned down to a username a indef would be in order. AlanStalk 12:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Yngvadottir
Per discussion at User talk:190.163.4.132, where the editor undertook not to make personal attacks or edit war in response to reverts and instead to bring them to my or others' attention for consideration, the 6-month block placed on that IP has been lifted and I will be provisionally unblocking all other IPs blocked as being used by this editor. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from ATinySliver
Active edit war at Larry Ellison. ( seems likely the same editor.) I've attempted what I think is a reasoned response; we'll see what happens. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 06:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No question its the same editor (see note below). - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Slon02
I'm finding it difficult to determine whether the edits to the articles themselves are constructive or destructive. Some of the more recent ones are in. While situations that result in edit warring, personal attacks, or block evasion should result in blocks, I don't see the article changes themselves as being patently disruptive. My question would be if those changes should be reverted, or if it should be handled on a case-by-case basis per article.--Slon02 (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Beyond My Ken
It is completely irrelevant whether this editor's contributions are "productive" or not, or, rather, if they would be acceptable if they came from another editor. The "Best known for IP" is blocked, and any edit they make is therefore block evasion. Further, any editor with a history of long-term abuse such as this one has should be considered de facto banned, and their edits reverted on sight. Any worthwhile changes which an editor in good standing wishes to take personal responsibility for and revert back, that's fine, but we should not put ourselves in the position of having to evaluate the quality of a blocked or de facto banned editor's work - it simply plays into their hands, encouraging them to feel as if they are justified in breaking the rules and editing through a block because they are "improving the encyclopedia". This is dangerous as it undermines the entire purpose of blocking and banning, which are among the very small number of tools that are available for keeping things in proper order around the place. Deletion on sight, followed by a block, is a reasonable and practical response to disruptive and tendentious editors such as this. BMK (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Robert McClenon
There have been recent reports of a disruptive editor who, on first glance, appears to be the Best Known for IP, but whom User:Berean Hunter has concluded is not the Best Known for IP. The recent editor is editing from the United States and uses American English spellings, such as "behavior", and so is probably a Best Known for Copy-Cat. The copy-cat makes large numbers of edits removing "best known for" phrases in lede paragraphs. As with the original, the edits might be appropriate if discussed properly. It is the indiscriminate nature and number of the edits that is disruptive. The proper response by a non-admin editor appears to be: revert the edits; request semi-protection of the page; report the copy-cat to WP:AIV, noting that this is a Best Known for Copy-Cat. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Lithopsian
More not-quite BKIP blocks here. I had "exchanges" with User:Pe19 and have come across edits by User:Reedsrecap (which I just added to the list, block log reports WP:BKIP), two of the most recent blocked socks. In both cases, the m.o. has changed from classic BKIP, and I wouldn't have associated either with the other or with BKIP. Both sets of edits could be considered good-faith for the most part. The responses to any challenge were hardly exemplary, although tended to stop short of outright abuse. Not to say they shouldn't fall under this umbrella, just curious variations. Lithopsian (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Incnis Mrsi
Edits articles of every kind, not only biographies. Doesn’t conserve quantity of edits, preferring to edit sections separately in a fast sequence. Makes characteristic edit summaries, sometimes detailed and conveying a pretense of wide knowledge of policies and guidelines. In fact, the puppeteer’s understanding of the Wikipedian style is shallow. When confronted, usually goes to war without any diplomacy, but is also capable of deliberate delays (e.g. to avoid a determined opponent). Is completely obsessed with problems of style and doesn’t contribute in sensible fixes, let alone creation of content of any value. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from XOR'easter
BKFIP has a penchant for deleting image galleries (calling the pictures within them redundant even when they are varied), removing inter-language links (Interlanguage link may be used on over 55,000 pages but it's still somehow a deplorable practice), expunging bold text ("per MOS:BOLD" even when MOS:BOLD would allow it), and cutting "jargon" (even when explained, wiki-linked and appropriate for the context). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Andrew nyr
I made the mistake of reverting an edit from this user while I was on rc patrol. The user resorted to verbal attacks and talked about how I was on a "revert spree" because I was doing rc patrol. He claimed that I should not blindly revert, which I was not doing. I truly wish the user could have just engaged with a civil conversation with me instead of using unkind language in edit summaries. As happened in the past, this user will be back and more ip's will be added to this page. Until then, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 05:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia
BKFIP has a perennial problem with the word "common" in the lead of Tourette syndrome. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Wizzito
I believe that he is also using VPNs and proxys to circumvent his blocks. wizzito &#124;  say hello!  01:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment from Ad Orientem
I have blocked the 82.132.192.0/18 range for three years. The history of WP:DE in that range, much of which looks like him, is extremely long. As is the already existing block log for the range. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed and suspected IP addresses
Admission from IP that this list is "massively incomplete".


 * – active January 2016, registered to a webhost located in Dallas, Texas
 * – active January–July 2016
 * – blocked April 2016
 * – Active 2017
 * – Active May 2017
 * - blocked February 2016
 * – Active July 2016
 * – Active March 2019; blocked at ANI on March 11, 2019
 * – Active May 2017
 * – Active July 2016
 * – active April 2016
 * – active May 2016
 * – active January 2016
 * – active January 2016
 * – active May 2014, registered to Rogers Cable in Whitby, Ontario
 * – active May 2014, registered to Rogers Cable in Bolton, Ontario
 * – active as of 10 July 2015, registered to the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
 * - registered to a data center in Sittingbourne, Kent, apparently used by public transport WiFi
 * - active April 2015, located in Valdivia, Chile
 * – active as of 19 July 2015, geolocates to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
 * – blocked April 2016
 * – blocked October 22, 2020
 * – blocked for 31 hours on 18 September 2015
 * – Blocked at ANI on May 20, 2015
 * – active as of 18 September 2015
 * – active as of 20 September 2015
 * – Blocked on May 20, 2015
 * – blocked for 72 hours on 18 September 2015
 * – Blocked at ANI on May 9, 2015
 * – active as of 20 September 2015
 * – active as of 14 September 2015
 * – active as of 20 September 2015
 * – Blocked at ANI on May 20, 2015
 * - active June 2014, located in Bahia, Brazil
 * - active June 2014, locates to Natal, Brazil
 * – Block on October 17, 2015 for 1 week
 * – blocked on 6/13/2015 for 1 month
 * - geolocates to Puente Alto, Chile
 * – Block evading 15 January 2016
 * – Block evading 15 January 2016
 * – Block evading 18 January 2016
 * – Block evading 15 January 2016
 * – Block evading 15 January 2016
 * – Blocked on May 20, 2015, locates to Maipú, Chile
 * – Blocked for 3 months on February 28, 2015, locates to Las Condes, Chile
 * – Blocked on May 1, 2015, in Las Condes, Chile
 * - in Calama, Chile
 * - in Santiago, Chile
 * - in Los Andes, Chile
 * - in San Felipe, Chile
 * - in Guarulhos
 * - in Las Condes, Chile
 * – Blocked for one month on July 10, 2015. in Santiago, Chile
 * - in Tauranga
 * - in Sydney, Australia
 * – blocked for 24 hours on September 17, 2016, in Glasgow
 * – blocked for 3 months on September 17 2016
 * – Blocked 31 hours on 2 June 2017. Registered to JANET.
 * – Blocked for a week on October 8, 2017
 * – Blocked for a week on November 19, 2017. Geolocates to Birmingham.
 * – Blocked for a week on November 19, 2017
 * – Blocked two weeks November 18, 2017
 * – Blocked for one week on December 11, 2017. Geolocates to Taipei, Taiwan.
 * – Blocked for two weeks on April 17, 2018
 * – Blocked for one months on August 4, 2018. Geolocates to Alcester, Warwickshire.
 * – Blocked for a week on September 20, 2018 (geo-locates to Torre del Greco – must be on the road again)
 * – Blocked for three days on September 23, 2018 (now in Crema, Lombardy – evidently traveling Italy)
 * – Blocked for three days on September 25, 2018 (back in Merry England)
 * – Blocked for three days on September 25, 2018. Geolocates to "Software Design" in Italy.
 * – Blocked for a week on October 6, 2018
 * – Blocked for a week on October 13, 2018
 * – Blocked for a week on October 13, 2018. Geolocates to Manchester.
 * – Blocked for 60 hours on October 13, 2018
 * – Blocked for a week on October 14, 2018
 * – Blocked for a week on October 19, 2018 and then, immediately upon expiration, three months on October 26
 * – Blocked for 24 hrs on December 16, 2018, then being convinced of identity on December 17, 2018, blocked for a month. Geolocates to Ellesmere Port.
 * – Blocked for a month on December 17, 2018
 * – Blocked for two weeks on February 3, 2019
 * - Page protected. Geolocates to Athens, Greece.
 * - Page protected. Geolocates to Athens.
 * - Page protected. Geolocates to Athens.
 * - Page protected on 10 June 2019. Geolocates to Athens.
 * Blocked for 72 hrs on 10 June 2019. Back in England.
 * - Blocked for 72 hours on 12 June 2019
 * - Blocked for 6 months on 29 June 2019. Geolocates to Dallas, Oregon.
 * - Blocked for a week on 30 June 2019, now into airports and now in Sheffield.
 * - Geolocates to Christchurch, New Zealand.
 * - Geolocates to the Wellington Airport.
 * - Geolocates to Nelson, New Zealand.
 * - Christchurch, NZ.
 * - in Wellington, New Zealand
 * - in Invercargill
 * - identified as a "possible sock puppet" 11 July 2019. Geolocates to Auckland, New Zealand.
 * - Blocked for a week on 16 July 2019. This well-traveled LTA is currently touring New Zealand (in Auckland).
 * - in Sydney, Australia
 * - Blocked for a week on 19 July 2019. Geolocates to Tonga.
 * – Blocked for a week on 28 July 2019. Vacation, or whatever it was, is over and he's back in England, fists flying.
 * — Blocked for a week on 28 July 2019. In Sheffield again.
 * — Blocked for two weeks on 29 July 2019.
 * — Blocked for a week on 30 July 2019. In Glasgow.
 * — Blocked for a week on 5 August 2019.
 * — Blocked for a week on 7 August 2019.
 * — Blocked for 72 hours on 8 August 2019.
 * — Blocked for a week on 11 August 2019.
 * — Blocked for a week on 11 August 2019.
 * — Blocked for a week on 13 August 2019.
 * — Blocked for a week on 15 September 2019. In Costa del Silencio, Province of Santa Cruz de Tenerife
 * — Blocked for a week on 22 September 2019. In Santa Cruz de La Palma now, the last IP listed here having originated from Costa del Silencio, and being blocked on 15 Sep.
 * - blocked 1 week 24 October 2019.
 * — Blocked for a month on 17 November 2019. Locates to Munich. Sojourning in Bavaria since early November, most recently sinking his teeth into old man Heidegger. Favonian (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * — Blocked for 2 weeks on 2 December 2019.
 * — Blocked for 1 week on 2 April 2020.
 * - Blocked for 2 weeks on May 12
 * – Blocked for 1 week on 29 June 2020
 * - blocked for 72 hours on 3 September 2020
 * - Blocked for 72 hours on 8 September 2020
 * - blocked for 72 hours on 4 October 2020
 * - blocked for 48 hours on 4 October 2020
 * - blocked for 1 week on 3 December 2020
 * - blocked for 1 month on 19 January 2021
 * - blocked for 1 week on 28 August 2021
 * - blocked for 1 week on 23 October 2021
 * - blocked for 3 months on 20 January 2022
 * - blocked for 1 week on 29 January 2022
 * - blocked for 1 week on 30 January 2022 for block evasion. In Blackburn.
 * - blocked 8 February 2022 until 11 February
 * - blocked for 72 hours on 1 March 2022
 * - Blocked x 1 month on 6 June 2023
 * – Blocked for two weeks on February 3, 2019
 * - Page protected. Geolocates to Athens, Greece.
 * - Page protected. Geolocates to Athens.
 * - Page protected. Geolocates to Athens.
 * - Page protected on 10 June 2019. Geolocates to Athens.
 * Blocked for 72 hrs on 10 June 2019. Back in England.
 * - Blocked for 72 hours on 12 June 2019
 * - Blocked for 6 months on 29 June 2019. Geolocates to Dallas, Oregon.
 * - Blocked for a week on 30 June 2019, now into airports and now in Sheffield.
 * - Geolocates to Christchurch, New Zealand.
 * - Geolocates to the Wellington Airport.
 * - Geolocates to Nelson, New Zealand.
 * - Christchurch, NZ.
 * - in Wellington, New Zealand
 * - in Invercargill
 * - identified as a "possible sock puppet" 11 July 2019. Geolocates to Auckland, New Zealand.
 * - Blocked for a week on 16 July 2019. This well-traveled LTA is currently touring New Zealand (in Auckland).
 * - in Sydney, Australia
 * - Blocked for a week on 19 July 2019. Geolocates to Tonga.
 * – Blocked for a week on 28 July 2019. Vacation, or whatever it was, is over and he's back in England, fists flying.
 * — Blocked for a week on 28 July 2019. In Sheffield again.
 * — Blocked for two weeks on 29 July 2019.
 * — Blocked for a week on 30 July 2019. In Glasgow.
 * — Blocked for a week on 5 August 2019.
 * — Blocked for a week on 7 August 2019.
 * — Blocked for 72 hours on 8 August 2019.
 * — Blocked for a week on 11 August 2019.
 * — Blocked for a week on 11 August 2019.
 * — Blocked for a week on 13 August 2019.
 * — Blocked for a week on 15 September 2019. In Costa del Silencio, Province of Santa Cruz de Tenerife
 * — Blocked for a week on 22 September 2019. In Santa Cruz de La Palma now, the last IP listed here having originated from Costa del Silencio, and being blocked on 15 Sep.
 * - blocked 1 week 24 October 2019.
 * — Blocked for a month on 17 November 2019. Locates to Munich. Sojourning in Bavaria since early November, most recently sinking his teeth into old man Heidegger. Favonian (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * — Blocked for 2 weeks on 2 December 2019.
 * — Blocked for 1 week on 2 April 2020.
 * - Blocked for 2 weeks on May 12
 * – Blocked for 1 week on 29 June 2020
 * - blocked for 72 hours on 3 September 2020
 * - Blocked for 72 hours on 8 September 2020
 * - blocked for 72 hours on 4 October 2020
 * - blocked for 48 hours on 4 October 2020
 * - blocked for 1 week on 3 December 2020
 * - blocked for 1 month on 19 January 2021
 * - blocked for 1 week on 28 August 2021
 * - blocked for 1 week on 23 October 2021
 * - blocked for 3 months on 20 January 2022
 * - blocked for 1 week on 29 January 2022
 * - blocked for 1 week on 30 January 2022 for block evasion. In Blackburn.
 * - blocked 8 February 2022 until 11 February
 * - blocked for 72 hours on 1 March 2022
 * - Blocked x 1 month on 6 June 2023

Known range blocks
The user regularly switches IPs to evade blocks. Former and ongoing range blocks include:

Named accounts

 * – created 2017-08-25, blocked 2017-09-03 following this post at ARB requests. Compare.
 * - created 2017-08-24
 * - Created and blocked on June 29, 2019
 * 
 * - Created and blocked on June 29, 2019
 * 
 * - Created and blocked on June 29, 2019
 * 
 * - Created and blocked on June 29, 2019
 * 
 * - Created and blocked on June 29, 2019
 * 
 * - Created and blocked on June 29, 2019
 * 
 * - Created and blocked on June 29, 2019
 * 
 * - Created and blocked on June 29, 2019
 * 
 * - Created and blocked on June 29, 2019
 * 
 * - Created and blocked on June 29, 2019
 * 
 * - Created and blocked on June 29, 2019
 * 
 * - Created and blocked on June 29, 2019
 * 
 * - Created and blocked on June 29, 2019
 * 
 * - Created and blocked on June 29, 2019
 * 
 * - Created and blocked on June 29, 2019
 * 
 * - Created and blocked on June 29, 2019
 * 
 * - Created and blocked on June 29, 2019
 * 
 * - Created and blocked on June 29, 2019
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 *