Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP/Archive 1

Formal restriction
* Note I have moved the next two comments from the project page to here. Chillum 23:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC) IP has breached the 0RR restriction, and is back to block-on-sight status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs)
 * Two admins, and, have unblocked with a WP:0RR restriction. In this context, editors are advised to carefully examine recent behavior, and block as appropriate if there is recidivism.
 * Note: editor is under no formal restriction, but Kww issues this as an ukase. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

What the heck is this about? There is no requirement for there to be a formal restriction on an IP hopper to block them block evasion. Saying the user is blockable is based on sense, not a proclamation from a tzar. Regardless there is plenty of agreement on ANI that the user is disruptive. Chillum 23:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Any admin who feels there is not a formal restriction on the editor can, of course, stuff beans up their nose and see what happens. Otherwise, we have a three month block for the editor to wait out or evade. Otherwise, we have a very real block. The editor knows where to turn to if they feel the block is a war against quality. The rest of us know where to go to make sure violations have consequences. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, it seems to me that and  are clearly WP:INVOLVED in this case. Corrent? -  Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * While they clearly have a strong point of view on the matter(which I do not fully understand) I don't think they are involved unless they have acted in other than a purely administrative role in this matter. If this has happened I have not seen it. Chillum 04:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * SummerPhD is correct about their involvement. They have been involved with the content.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I see. Chillum 05:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thus, for example, closing an ANEW discussion and unblocking are bad ideas. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , now we're involved. It's odd: we get to be called invoooolved for reverting the reverters, but the reverters are upstanding citizens. I can't close an ANEW report because I reinstated one of their edits, but Kww can issue a three-month block even though he used mass rollback. Reverting blindly is OK, I suppose., you're a pretty decent admin: certainly you can see how this is completely back-assward. This is all quickly devolving into trolling territory, and considering how ridiculously stupid these accusations are, one might well charge OccultZone and SummerPhD with either a personal attack or incompetence. Good luck to you all, and don't ping me unless you bring me before ArbCom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 22:50, 3 March 2015‎

While I am at a loss to understand your position in regards to this user I don't think it serves anyone to attempt to disqualify you as involved. In the context of responding to a dispute as an administrator it could be said that those reverts were an administrative action rather than being involved in a content dispute. I certainly don't think you are defending this user because you have a point of view in this content dispute.

My position is that if this user can edit in a fashion that is not disruptive then it is pointless to block the user. However what more often happens is this person starts blindly removing certain terms from any article he finds them in much as a bot could do. While an account only doing a single type of edit is not ideal I don't think it is something to block over. The problem starts when somebody disagrees with this user. The user does not hesitate to edit war, knowing full well that established editors cannot edit war but he can always change IPs again.

However helpful this editor may be to the encyclopedia the attitude that it is okay to edit war is simply not compatible with the project. I think some of our long term editors may be getting upset about this because they are expected to work well with others while this IP has made no such effort. Surely you can see how it can be a little insulting to work in a collaborative environment for years and then find out that some IP who does not feel like editing collaboratively is being defended. Chillum 23:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Chillum, I'll respond here since I'm active right now and Drmies isn't. I respectfully disagree with you on registered editors being unable to edit war: the other side of the coin is that IP editors are treated with less respect, and this one in particular, because of the existence of this page, is reverted at will, and edit-warred against, as if he were a banned editor (which is a licence to blindly revert). Drmies and I attempted to get the editor to discuss on talk pages, and he did so. The reverts of his edits were mostly not collegial and not on the merits. That said, there are two sides to every story and the anti-IP one has clearly won in this case. As I said at AN, consensus has spoken. I don't have to like the continuing slanging and bringing up of old points, and I do not like the implications of this for collaboration with IP editors, but I bow to consensus. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

First off this IP certainly does take advantage of his changing identities to get an advantage in edit wars, the very fact that he gets blocked for edit warring and is edit warring under a new IP before the block is expired is proof he is getting away with it. Secondly edit warring/3rr lists Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users as an exemption. If he is blocked under one IP and is evading that block under another IP then he is a sock puppet of a blocked user. From a policy point of view they have a point.

I think that those who are reverting quality edits should be dealt with as a separate problem, the behavior of other should not be used to justify this IPs behavior. This is not simply a case of people picking on an IP because they are an IP and I think it is pretty unfair to those who have documented very real disruptive behavior by this person. This guy is getting picked on for edit warring, personal attacks, and block evasion. Nobody is out to get them for being an IP.

I am trying really hard to take in your side of the story here but reality just does not reflect what you are describing in this user. Chillum 00:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Chillum, all this started, a long time ago, since their edits were simply reverted and as an IP they had little recourse, little standing, and even less sympathy. Now their edits aren't reverted because they're IP edits, but because they're their edits (though I've noticed that this is becoming much less frequent, which is good). I can explain, to some extent, the IPs behavior, I can even understand it (though what they said to Summer was way beyond the pale), but that's not justification. But, and there's always a but here, their frustration is not irrational. That's all. As long as there's rationality and some good faith toward something (here, article quality), I'm prepared to try, and keep trying. That I'm at my wits end is because I'm in the middle and both sides are intransigent. I don't want our regular editors insulted, and I don't want our IP editors pushed away. This IP editor is not the first editor I've tried to work with: while you were out, a few years ago, I had someone with an account, and tens of thousands of edits, under my wing; they were indefblocked for an absolutely awful transgression. I unblocked, tried to help/mentor them, and they're still here. But, of course, that's one of only a few success stories, and this is clearly not one of them. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know how this all started but I see today a user who evades blocks and scrutiny by switching IPs while edit warring and abusing our editors. They edit war over multiple IPs and they act nasty to others. Attempts to rescue an editor are noble but should not be done at the expense of users who are willing to work in a collaborative environment. The only way you can salvage an editor is if they work in good faith with you. Given this user just tells you what you want to hear to get unblocked and then goes on with the same behavior on a new IP should tell you that this user it not acting in good faith.


 * I will say it again, it is insulting to editors who work within a collaborative system for you to defend a user who not only refused to work collaboratively but makes nasty attacks on those who do. This editor has been given plenty of chances and they only used it to game themselves out of blocks to do the exact same thing.


 * Your noble attempt to rescue this IP as productive editor has failed due to their unwillingness to work with you. There are a lot of users out there that would love the chance you are trying to give and would work with you. The only thing this IP is giving you in return is damage to your reputation, and you really do have an exemplary reputation.


 * Have you ever read the story of the The Scorpion and the Frog? Its moral is "The greatest kindness will not bind the ungrateful". Sometimes people will not change their nature despite it being in their best interests, and they will not hesitate to bring down those helping them. Chillum 18:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

From the UK? Edits from far away can't be him?
In various places, we've stated this guy is from the UK and we now have some speculation that edits from far afield are not him. This edit and this one are clearly from "Best known for IP" (same personal attacks, complaints about "falsely" being called a vandal, their very first edit claims they were reverted for no reason, etc.). The IP traces to Chile. Whether this means he travels a lot or if it's part of his deliberate block evasion is moot. We cannot dismiss IPs based on location. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as you are aware of these particular extensions, there should be no room for doubts.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It is trivial to make your IP appear randomly on the Earth. I suspect this user is finding a lot of their regular IPs blocked and may be using proxies. Chillum 17:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This, of course, also answers the absurd claim that, gosh, sometimes his IP just changes. No doubt it probably does, but him specifically stating he deliberately changes his IP and now the evidence that he is deliberately hiding his identity removes a bit more of the "Oh-pitty-the-poor-defenseless-anonymous-editor" defense being bandied about. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Guys, been observing this guy for some time, as will attest I don't have much time for him.  However, A) its clear from his use of language either British educated or British origin and B) the reporting from British IP is compatible with being on holiday in the UK and returning to Chile.  I've never formed the opinion he was using proxies.  Don't get me wrong, his attitude sucks and I have no sympathy for any block you may wish to introduce for block evasion but I doubt proxies are part of the picture.  My 2c.  WCM email 00:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, his English is BE, but that doesn't mean that much, given England's colonial history. (And this may be a good place to plug 2666, which also makes a foray into Chile.) He's university educated, perhaps ten years younger than me, but not much more, and not more than ten years older than me. I also don't think proxies are involved; he's of good faith in that respect, and I bet that unplugging the modem made for a nice surprise: hey! I can edit again! He's white, probably upper middle class, better educated than me, and I assume can travel and access the internet from anywhere. If I were him I'd go to where Kudpung lives, edit from there, and throw everyone for a loop. Thank you WCM. Summer, it's "pity", with one t, and the IP would probably change your "him specifically stating" to the gerund, "his specifically stating". That kind of BE. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an awful lot of unsourced info for a "BLP". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "demonstrated that he has no intention" would have been better?&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the psychoanalysis; except that I'd guess he works alone, if he works at all. On his latest talk page he makes it pretty clear he's going to continue editing and evade the current block. The only question is whether he is rolled back regardless of edit quality, or if his better edits are kept. It might be worth being consistent about it. I'm not going to roll him back unless he produces a crap edit, but then that's how I've been looking at it for months. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest only reverting edits that you personally disagree with. The issue with this user is not the quality of their edits(arguably) it is their tendency to edit war and engage in personal attacks. While many of this users edits are helpful he tends to not look too close and some of them may need reverting. The current status of the user as a block evader gives us plenty of leeway to block or revert the user but that should only be used if it benefits the encyclopedia.

I find it hard to believe the rational people on this page cannot find common ground in this matter. I suspect that much of the dispute on this talk page is the result of a tug-a-war that has caused escalation in this matter to mutually exclusive positions. Rather than have one side staunchly defending this IP and the other trying to block them on sight perhaps both sides can agree that disruptive behavior deserves a block and disruptive edits deserve a revert and that productive block evasion can be deprioritized till all the other vandals are dealt with. <b style="color:Green">Chillum</b> 23:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Block evasion is block evasion, and cannot be deprioritised. It's a shame that our blocking software is so inadequate that it takes manual intervention to maintain it, but blocks mean nothing unless we are willing to perform that manual intervention.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

We are volunteers, we all set our own priorities. Perhaps you don't want to deprioritise it but you certainly can. While I think it would be more productive to only block this user when they are disruptive I do have to concede that they have a very long history of being disruptive and that any admin is welcome to(but not required) block someone engaging in block evasion.

While I would prefer if we found common ground on this matter it is a fact that policy supports blocking this user while they are evading their blocks. Frankly Kww I agree with your position more than I do with the position of Drmies or Yngvadottir, I am simply trying to see it from the other side. <b style="color:Green">Chillum</b> 00:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * An unregistered IP that is not blocked makes an edit you disagree with. You revert it. They edit war and are blocked. They evade and, rather than blocking the new IP and reverting their edits, you revert edits you disagree with? Why bother with the block if it is completely meaningless? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At least part of the problem with that, at least in this case, is that the IP will then be defended by someone with no prior experience of his disruptive behaviour. An admin might even unblock him. Reverting the IP's good edits attracts people who will defend him, dragging out this sorry saga even further. Another way would be to block any new IP, roll back all his edits and then tediously reinstate the good ones. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * My suggestion that we only revert edits we disagree with was based on the idea that improving the encyclopedia is out first goal, not out of some sense of mercy towards this IP. I do think some of the reason this IP is getting sympathy is that people are reverting useful edits. While plenty of the IPs edits are crap with zero thought put into them some edits are actually useful(perhaps 30-60% of them?).


 * In addition to helping the encyclopedia by leaving useful edits Bretonbanquet also makes a valid point that blind reverting both good and bad edits bring sympathy to an editor that has not earned sympathy. I think the main point of contention with this user is that people are throwing out the good with the bad. As a wise college once said, "Block evasion is block evasion", in my opinion if someone evades their block to edit productively and without disruption then that can be safely ignored. I am not suggesting that this is likely to happen with this user, but we can at least agree on theory.


 * The fuss on this talk page has stopped being about the IP's edits and has become a dispute on how we react. I know the names of the people on this page, we probably have 50 years of Wikipedia experience between us. Surely we can come to a reasonable compromise.


 * In my opinion we should block on sight due to the block evasion, the rules allow it. That being said I would prefer if we came to a common ground with those who dispute that idea. I am essentially trying to make sure the minority view is not just drowned out but actually given consideration.


 * At this point it is clear to me that consensus is against it and I can only play the devils advocate for so long. I accept the status quo, if people want to block on sight that is allowed. If people want to revert good edits because they came from a block evader then that is allowed also. Perhaps a compromise could be that we block on sight for block evasion but take more care in reverting.


 * While blocking on sight may be in the best interests of the encyclopedia I certainly do not thing that reverting an edit that improves the encyclopedia is in its best interests. I would ask that if you lack the time or effort to verify the quality of edit edit before you revert that you leave it for someone else with more time. <b style="color:Green">Chillum</b> 18:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. If one evaluates edits made by a block evader and determines whether they are "good" or "bad", one is treating the block evader in exactly the same way as one should treat a regular editor. It renders the block meaningless.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the block having meaning is less important than creating an encyclopedia. I also disagree with the premise that evaluating an edit before reverting is in some way invalidating the block, it is working towards the goal of making an encyclopedia. We should not cut off our nose to spit our face, removing improvements to give a block meaning does not help the encyclopedia. We enforce blocks to allow us to make an encyclopedia, not because block evasion is block evasion or blocks must have meaning. Block enforcement is the means to the end, not the goal itself.


 * While our edit war rules do allow you to revert a block evading user, you are still responsible for any edit you make and if you return the article to a lower quality state that is your doing. With that in mind I suggest it is in everyones best interests to look at what you are reverting as it is you doing the edit. <b style="color:Green">Chillum</b> 19:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * plenty of the IPs edits are crap with zero thought put into them - can you give a few representative examples? 186.9.135.97 (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am looking at your contribution history and I am not seeing any. I am wondering if you have any experience with the IP in question at all? If not you can familiarize yourself with the situation by reading the project page. In short this users edits could be done by a bot that searches pages for the word "famously", removes it and then edit wars and insults anyone who undoes the edits. Of course for such a bot to be effective it would need to be hooked up to a rotating IP. This users edits are productive to the same degree as is statistically likely for blindly removing the term. <b style="color:Green">Chillum</b> 22:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He is the IP in question. Blocked.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I know, I just wanted to see if he would lie about it. <b style="color:Green">Chillum</b> 22:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

A few thoughts
By way of my background here: I've tried to keep out of this for a while, and—with one PRD exception—have only had interaction with the IP when they have come to articles that have been on my watchlist. I left a statement on the LTA page here, and the at the subsequent ANI discussion. I have had this page watchlisted, and have not tracked the editor's edits, nor reverted any of his edits (there is an exception of a PRD, which I reverted, thinking the matter was probably best left to a full AFD discussion, rather than a PROD on a low-visibility article). Unfortunately I sense an increasing polarisation of opinion about this matter, which is saddening and—much more importantly—isn't going to come up with any resolution going forward. I have some observations on this which may or may not be of help, but may hopefully crystallise, but not polarise, people's thoughts. I am seeing a number of very good editors and admins coming up with some good points that are not being acknowledged (whether that's because there are good reasons to refute them or not, I don't know, but I think it may be helpful to all to try and be clear on that). Those points I see as being particularly pertinent (taken from here, the current ANI thread and the most recent 3RR filing) are:
 * Drmies has a key point here that I think needs to be taken on board: this editor "[has] Wikipedia's best interest at heart".
 * IMO this needs to be clarified that this is in terms of the content, rather than anything related to behaviour.


 * The majority of the IPs edits improve the encyclopaedia.
 * Not all of them, it has to be said, but certainly the majority.
 * Whether or not these have been done under a cloud, most of their edits are beneficial, and done in good faith.


 * The IP gets pissed off with people who revert his edits.
 * Who doesn't, but I think it's important to examine this a little, however. To my mind it's pointless to revert something that improves the encyclopaedia (i.e., are beneficial to the project)—regardless of who has done it and the manner in which it is done—so one can understand the IP's frustration: as Chillum has pointed out, "we should not cut off our nose to spit our face".
 * But when one their edits that are not clear-cut improvements, that's where the reversions are a problem. My problem is that the IP reacts to all reverts of their edits in the same manner, regardless of the reason. The IP is not as perfect an editor as he thinks he is. (None of us are, but the rest of us either accept that, or we stop edit warring before it becomes a problem). Even when their edits are not improvements, they still kick back against a revert, which helps absolutely no-one, including themselves, but particularly Drmies and Yngvadottir, who have tried to bring this to a practical and workable conclusion.


 * Chillum has a key point that "some of our long term editors may be getting upset about this because they are expected to work well with others while this IP has made no such effort. Surely you can see how it can be a little insulting to work in a collaborative environment for years and then find out that some IP who does not feel like editing collaboratively is being defended".
 * I will admit that this is sort of what I feel. If an active editor had edit warred like the IP has in the past (gross PAs, edit warring and deletion of comments and edit warring at ANI (including block evasion to do so, to the point ANI was locked down)) we'd be buried so deep in our block that we'd be utterly forgotten and unable to return.

To boil it all down a bit further:
 * 1) To be honest (as is fairly clear to most) the IP does themselves absolutely no good whatsoever with the way they conduct themselves (although their patience has probably been pushed to breaking point - but so has everyone's over this).
 * 2) The recent efforts of Drmies and Yngvadottir to try and manage the more beneficial aspects of the editor have been hugely laudable, and it is unfortunate that this did not bring about a substantive change in approach from the IP.
 * 3) The actions of many (both the IP, and several long-term editors including me) have not been beyond reproach in this far-too-long running situation.
 * 4) Both sides are becoming increasingly polarised and less likely to reach a beneficial conclusion if this continues
 * 5) The idea of trust and good faith is (or has) broken down in a number of places, which is not helping bring this to any resolution
 * 6) The IP shows no signs of wanting to stop and hs signalled their intent to continue with their edits, despite the attention and blocks

This summary of where we are now probably isn't complete, probably doesn't cover all bases, and probably doesn't speak for all parties, but it's a rough outline of where we are now. In purely practical terms, which is what interests me most at the moment, it may or may not take us forward to some form of resolution. Which brings us all to: what next. There are a few points that need looking into:


 * Is the IP to be allowed to continue (a slightly moot point, as that have the tecnical ability to skip from IP to IP in various geographical locations).
 * Are there any practical procedures that can be used, if this course is chosen?
 * Despite Drmies and Yngvadottir's effort, are there any other ways that the IP's excesses can be curbed to a more amenable basis? (Even on those edits they make which are not beneficial, despite being made in good faith)
 * If/when they do continue to edit, should they suffer any sanctions at all for the five-years of avoided blocks they have been handed?
 * Should their be a continuing "revert on sight" of all their edits, regardless of the merits (I strongly suggest a big NO on that for a few reasons)

There are probably several other points and questions people could add to the list, but that's where my thoughts are heading at the moment, and I hope they may lead to some sort of resolution,l although my expectation may be flagging slightly! - SchroCat (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "If an active editor had edit warred like the IP has in the past (gross PAs, edit warring and deletion of comments and edit warring at ANI (including block evasion to do so, to the point ANI was locked down)) we'd be buried so deep in our block that we'd be utterly forgotten and unable to return" is precisely the point. The only way to implement that with an IP is through filters and relentless reversion.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But is that the optimal course of action to someone who largely improves that encyclopaedia? (And that's without taking into account whether it's technically possible to block someone who knows how to hop around so well) - SchroCat (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the big picture, yes. If we don't maintain our willingness and ability to control who edits and who does not, we lose our only method of preserving our content.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But this IP is (largely) improving that content. We're into "cutting off our nose" territory a little here: all we may be preserving is sub-standard and unencyclopaedic, and I'm not sure that's the best outcome. - SchroCat (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On that, I firmly disagree. I'd love to see every reference to "best known for" removed from this encyclopedia, and think we should probably have a global RFC with the intent of making the phrase explicitly forbidden. That's a separate concept from the need to show this particular editor the door.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't give two hoots about the use of "BKF": it's a phrase the 247-year-old Encyclopaedia Britannica is happy to use, so I don't see a need to get too worked up about that, but I'd like to hear what your take on why we need to show this particular editor the door (even if it were technically possible). - SchroCat (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks are sufficient in my book.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Historical, as far as I'm aware. (And much worse is seen and goes unpunished at ANI). Anything else? - SchroCat (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As this discussion continues, the editor in question is evading the latest block. As they are more than happy to hop to a new IP and have shown no intention of stopping, the ONLY rule in effect (if we do not revert their edits) is: Make good edits to content and you can do ANYTHING else you want. "Edit war"? Schmedit war - go for it! Personal attacks? Absofuckinglutely, I LOVE that shit! "Block" evasion? What is this "block" thing? Is that where you make me unplug my router for 30 seconds? HA! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And how, on god's green earth, is vandalising good content by turning it back to bad in any way constructive or beneficial? - SchroCat (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * By making it clear to the blocked editor that under no circumstances is anything he does going to persist. The goal is to completely and absolutely destroy any shred of hope he may possess of making a difference. Any sane person eventually stops trying, so long as no defenders attempt to provide him with that hope that others are attempting to eliminate. Consistent and uniform rejection is the only effective strategy.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And how's that working out for people so far? Has it slowed the IPs output in any way? Has it stopped them from improving the encyclopaedia in any way? Have you thought that it may be time to come up with some form of alternative strategy to manage the situation in any way? - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How on god's green earth do you expect to stop personal attacks and edit warring given that they enjoy both and (without the reverts) they are not blocked? (Yes, they are "blocked". But they continue to edit. Their edits are accepted. NOTHING changed but their IP.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I strongly think that you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. 1. Mindless reversions of good edits to bad is vandalism that does absolutely no good whatsoever (and tha's in the proper sense of the term, not some wiki-lawyered "he's blocked, so I can rollback" sense). 2. You are goading the IP to edit war with you: that's worth a trip to ANI for you, not something to be proud of. - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered the question. You are saying the editor can do ANYTHING they want so long as they are willing to unplug their router. "Wikipedia: The encyclopedia where anyone can do absolutely any damn thing they want." That's an improvement to the project? (Additionally, you know or should know I have not "vandalized" anything. No wikilawyering needed, just simple reading. The IP editor would call that a personal attack and demand an apology, were it aimed at them. The IP was theoretically under a 0RR. That would have been a PERFECT time for me to be "goading the IP to edit war with (me)." Go look for it. You won't find it. A trip to ANI with an unsourced claim would not be something to be proud of.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not said anything even close to that, so read again what I wrote and do not misrepresent me again. – SchroCat (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Which part? Calling good faith reverts "vandalism" or saying I'm goading the IP to edit war while not editing articles they are ignoring policy to edit? Additionally, you still haven't answered the question: If a block means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but having to unplug his router, what is your plan to stop him from edit warring and making personal attacks, which he has clearly stated he enjoys? "Please stop or you will be blocked from editing have to unplug your router"? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't classify your good faith edits as vandalism: I classified the knee-jerk revert of the IPs good edits as vandalism (if it takes good prose and deliberately and knowingly back to a poor form then, yes, it's vandalism). At the risk of repeating myself, my point about the router resetting is that it just isn't working. Part of the reason for starting this thread was to see if anyone had any ideas other than brainlessly blocking and mass-reverting. Obviously a couple of people here are too stuck on that pathway to think in a flexible way, but I am still hopeful that someone may come up with something more beneficial and constructive than the current situation. - SchroCat (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Her reversion of a blocked editor's edits are good faith edits and are not vandalism, SchroCat. I fail to understand why you don't grasp that it's the restoration and defense of his edits that causes the problem.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating myself once again, I refer to the term "vandalism" in its linguistic sense, not some narrow wiki-lawyering definition. Knee-jerk reverts that degrades content isn't in good faith, but is vandalism. I fail to understand why you don't grasp that it's the brainless reversions that is an element in continuing this problem. – SchroCat (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * SummerPhD, aside from the IP I blocked, can you point me at any new edits by him?&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume they're also editing content and we haven't found it yet. (This is and assumption of good faith. They have repeatedly stated they will continue to evade blocks, they are evading blocks to edit here. I assume they are keeping their word on that much.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you see anything more.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Even the recently created article has "BKF". That particular phrase has been already used so much that some of the editors have often switched to simply "Best". Instances are low in the amount, still I had removed a few. When and where we will be starting an RfC about BKF?  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I am starting to this this may be a time to agree to disagree. Those who wish to block this user on sight for block evasion are allowed to do so under policy and while anybody is free to choose not to block there is little they can do if another admin decides to. I think this is defensible as we can be pretty sure the behavior will not suddenly stop after all of these years, the block is preventative.

Given the exemptions to edit warring reverting someone engaging in block evasion is not edit warring, that does not mean it is green lighted, it just means it isn't edit warring. The existence of phrases like "famously" is not outright forbidden by policy and it is a judgment call, that is likely why we have differing views on how useful the edits are. I would say anyone is allowed to revert this user but they need to be ready to defend their reverts. At the very least one needs to look at the article and see if it really was an improvement.

Those who think the user should not be block are welcome to not block. However since the user is objectively in violation of our block evasion policy there is not much standing to complain about it. With regards to reverts there is much more latitude, you can always restore the improvements in your own name. A polite message to the reverter may be helpful, but keep in mind they are allowed to revert block evaders.

I have been thinking very hard on where I am going to settle on this issue and today we have all made some real progress in clarifying our views. I will be blocking this user for block evasion until such a time as he is willing to sit out their block. I will be looking at the edits made and I will revert those that do not improve the article. I will remove personal attacks.

What I will not do is start clicking rollback buttons en masse to give the block meaning. I will certainly not be trying to destroy any shred of hope he may possess of making a difference, with respect that is a bit fucked up. Blocks are not there to make people feel powerless or to enforce some sense of justice. Both the block button and rollback button are for improving the encyclopedia.

As long as we act within policy and in good faith we do not have to agree and like every other user here the IP will get inconsistent treatment depending on who deals with them. I have one suggestion and obviously nobody needs to follow it but perhaps the next time the IP is reported to the edit warring noticeboard we can see what happens when people not involved in this case handle the matter. <b style="color:Green">Chillum</b> 05:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct. There are supporters, even I support his version of the Wilderness hut. Anyone can restore the edits of a block evader if they are willing to take responsibility of those edits that they have restored.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How about not deleting them in the first place? Aggressively driving the encyclopaedia backwards by reverting good edits just because we don't like this IP doesn't seem a good thing to waste time doing (especilly if it means other people have to waste even more time going round putting them all back again, because they are actually good). How does this help anyone? How does this improve the encyclopaedia? - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more. I think the general consensus is while some of the BKFIP's edits are questionable, many (or perhaps most?) are improvements of articles that have lain stagnant with bad writing for years, and the situation we're in now is through general attrition of good faith. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree with a lot of this, I am uncomfortable with the consequent legitimisation of this guy's presence. It potentially ensures that this sad farce will go on indefinitely. Even if his good edits are kept, I don't expect to see this guy's lunatic ramblings being entertained on talk pages or admin pages, and I don't expect people to be forced to engage with him anywhere if he's reverted. If he's reverted and a third party objects, fine – but he should have no say. He is, you know, supposed to be blocked. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I fully sympathise with your position, but the status quo of block-him-revert-his-edits-(no-wait-someone-has-restored-them,-do-I-revert-again) cycle isn't hepful to anyone. The worst thing about this is that the IP is not helping himself with any of his actions, so there doen't seem to be a way of ensuring that he couldbecom more integrated in the future. I'm not sure that keeping his good edits will mean that this goes on forever: I do think that deleting his good edits will alienate him further, ensure he will never temper his behaviour, and guarantees that he will hop to a new IP in order to edit back to the improved version. One of the resons I wrote the above was to try and come up with a practical solution going forward. The "block and rollback" cycle is ridiculous, counterproductive, divisive and damaging, so where do we go from here. Id like to hear from anyone (but perhaps particularly and ) if they have any further thoughts as to a practical course of action that people can live with going forward. - SchroCat (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating rolling back his good edits, as I've said a couple of times now, but I object strongly to any further legitimisation of his presence, particularly people having to jump through the normal dispute resolution hoops, having to try to interact with him on talk pages and suchlike. Forget about trying to integrate the guy or tempering his behaviour – he's neither willing nor apparently capable, and enough time has been wasted on that, and further attempts are just an insult to the rest of us. Keeping his good edits is one thing, but anything more is an admission that we don't have a blocking policy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * SchroCat, it's editors that interfere with the block that are the problem. If everyone would leave the reversions in place and not wring their hands over whether their edits were improvements or not, we could keep up the solid wall of rejection that is necessary to be rid of this editor. Occasional accidents can occur, but any editor that consciously and intentionally undoes the reversions is just committing a form of proxying and should be blocked themselves. Drmies and Yngvadottir have simply prolonged this mess by giving the IP the belief that he has a right to evade his block, a problem that you are adding to. I'm working on filters to keep the editor out before the edits have been made in order to prevent having an edit to roll back in the first place.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Have I read the situation correctly? Let's take this recent edit of mine and assume the BKFIP made it. Would you revert the edit because of who made it? Does that not contradict WP:NPA's mantra of "comment on the content, not the editor"? And if somebody reverted it, I came along and thought, "no that copyedit makes the article more readable" and put it back, would I be blocked? Surely not. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would have reverted it while reverting the IPs edits. Yes, if you had then intentionally examined my reversions and intentionally interfered with the block by restoring the edits, I would propose blocking you for it. If you were an editor that typically edited the article in question that restored the edit because you saw that it was an improvement, no problem. That's what the language about "having independent reasons for making such edits" is about.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Kww, but that's just bollocks. How does me trying to get people to discuss possible solutions mean that I am "adding to" to the problem? Have you possibly thought that your actions are not beyond reproach here? If I see any good edits being rolled back (including by you), I will happily revert them. I will do so in good faith, and in the knowledge that I am improving the encyclopaedia. I will then happily explain to everyone at ANI why I have improved the encyclopaedia in the way I have. Could you point me to the twisted part of policy that supports the piss poor practice that I should be banned for improving the encyclopaedia in a good faith manner? Proxying? Bollocks, I'm afraid. That's a rather narrow and limited thought process that is one of the reason that this thing has been going on for a few years. I'm sorry that you are unable to think out of the box, but telling me that I'm part of the problem is possibly the most stupid thing I've heard on Wiki for a long time – and that's up against a lot of stiff competition! I am afraid that you are now too WP:INVOLVED to act in any rational manner on this, and I strongly suggest you think twice before you take action against any individual – and that includes the IP. – SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can't read what you've written and see how much encouragement it offers the IP, that saddens me. If you happily undermine blocks and then don't see how you've contributed to the problem, that also saddens me. You may be improving a detail of the encyclopedia, but you are damaging the project as a whole. If you chase after reversions and restore them in order to preserve the IPs edits, you do not have an independent reason for making the edit.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are too INVOLVED to make a good decision, and I suggest you step away from this matter andd leave it to people who have the ability to think in a more balanced way. You hae accused me of adding to the problem: you have't bothered to explain just how you came to this rather petty conclusion, but it's not one that you should be proud of. My reason for opening up this section was to try nd come to some better place than te mindless, unthking and iditioc reveersions of good edits, and to try and see what other options may be available. Sadly it seems that the thought processes are too polarised to be of any benefit, and that an INVOLVED admin on a crusade is determined to twist and bastardise any possible policy or procedure, without looking at the possible damage they are doing. That's a rather sad and dangerous positin to be in. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not in violation of WP:INVOLVED, and I've explained to you quite clearly why you are contributing to the problem. I'll do it again: the only way to make this editor go away is to make it absolutely certain that no contribution he makes will ever have an effect. Since you oppose the steps necessary to make that happen and support actively taking steps to prevent it from happening, you are encouraging him to keep making them. What part did I not explain?&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You explained your own thoughts, but you forgot to engage any common sense while you did it. Shame (and shameful, too). If I see any rollbacks of this editors work that I think as piss poor, I will evert them back to the better version, just as if I see the IP make a poor edit, I will revert him too. I think you are on as much of a disruptive par as he is, but at least, for all his many faults, trying to improve the flawed content, not keep it stuck in a parlous state. This shouldn't need any explanation, but I doubt you'll fully understand the reason. And yes, you've edited content and blocked the IP: you are much (or as little) INVOLVED as Drmies or Yngvadottir, but again, your too close to see that. - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with both Drmies or Yngvadottir, but don't believe that they are in violation of WP:INVOLVED in this matter. They'd be in front of Arbcom if I did.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Even here, we have already examined enough proofs that they are involved in this case, I wouldn't say that their involvement was necessary or not, but still that "involved" is non-disputable. That is less of a matter now. Every editor is allowed to revert any edits of any editor who is evading their block. I would also like to remind that block evasion also falls under those types of edits that had been made through various accounts, including the bot ones.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's funny, OccultZone, because I just read, I believe, that Kww said Y and I are not in violation of involved. Now, Kww is an administrator and thus must know something; I'd love to see you explain to him that he is wrong. Setting aside the whole business about false allegations, of course, until you solve that problem. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, Kww, I see you've been editing some K-pop articles. Those articles, and some of the editors associated with it, are the real danger to the project. The IP isn't setting up hate websites or writing fake letters to employers. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This IP is far from the largest danger to the encyclopedia we have. The idea that blocks are merely suggestions is dangerous, though, and that's why I rail against it so hard. I deal with the K-pop articles pretty much on a BLP basis: if they can provide a citation to the fact that some group won some meaningless award, I don't touch it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I admit I made this dig at the IP, but it's the sort of edit he would happily make himself, and the sort that would invite complaint were it to be reverted for no good reason. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Intermezzo
I don't think we're getting anywhere with this, and I think I'm going to have to endorse 's thoughts that we're just going to have to agree to disagree about this. In the meantime, here are over 4,000 BLPs with the phrase "best known for" if anyone fancies wading through that lot... <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly, with the dearth of common sense or flexible thinking being applied here, this will continue ad nauseum, and the unthinking and deeply unconstructive mass rollback vandalism will continue. As I've pointed out above, the Encyclopaedia Britannica are happy to use the phrase BKF from time to time, and I'm not that hung up on its removal as a matter of course, but only to be decided on a case by case basis. - SchroCat (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Blanket removal may not be the solution. It is usually seen as more than just a "minor" edit and requires local consensus on ATPs. This is one of the few reasons why no one has attempted to get rid of "BKF".  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That and the fact that many editors don't see it as a pressing problem, me included. It appears to be good enough for radio and TV news, newspapers, and Encyclopedia Britannica etc, so many don't have an issue with seeing it here. Part of my objection to the IP removing it was often that he replaced it with sentence structure better suited to Simple Wikipedia. The irony is that he dubbed objections to his iffy writing style the "war on quality". Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Breton, I'm sorry--I appreciate some of the comments you made here, but the IP has a better sense of style and a firmer grasp on sentence structure than the majority of editors here. "BKF" is not the only thing he was doing here, and "BKF" is awful; the other day I removed it from some boy actor's article, where he was best known for the only thing he ever did, besides being potty-trained. And for lots of things "best known for" is fine, but we are supposed to be better than lots of things. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And, being topical, I removed "best known for" from Mick Underwood because the older lead said he was "best known" for every notable band he's ever been in. That's just silly. I've found the best way to deal with this is - copyedit, don't revert. There was a BLP that had some warring just before Christmas (can't remember which, sorry), and decided the option was to blow up the lead and start again. That seemed to do the trick - no more warring and a better article. Why can't we do that? It's more effort than hitting the revert-hammer, sure, but are we not all here to write an encyclopedia? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's how I've been dealing with his edits where I wasn't keen on them (and he rarely objected): reword the sentence to satisfy his BKF obsession but also to improve the writing. Drmies – I wouldn't agree with you on the IP's sense of style and sentence structure. He might spend most of his time exercising his style muscle, but it's distinctly average. Certainly, what he removes is often poor, but what he leaves behind isn't always particularly great. I had a lengthy, abuse-strewn "discussion" with him after his edit introduced factual errors to one article, for example. His scattergun approach to article selection means that he sometimes edits articles on subjects he knows nothing about, which is fine of course, until you pick him up on a factual error he's inadvertently introduced and he spews a tirade of abuse at you while taking it to 5RR. BKF is definitely sometimes misused, I'm not going to argue with that – but at the very worst it's just poor writing. It isn't crime of the century, as you might suspect it to be from the IP's rabid edit summaries. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to chime in and say that I am surprised at Kww's position that restoring a quality edit from a blocked user is somehow proxying and thus actionable. To hear that from an admin is a bit shocking. I guess I will just quote our banning policy which is the basis of being allowed to revert block evaders. I have added emphassis and condensed the relevant sections: Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor...Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content...Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor.

Restoring an edit by a blocked/banned user is not proxying for the user, it is taking responsibility for the edit. Unless they are secretly getting direction from the IP telling them what edits to make then it is not proxying. Restoring an edit that improves the encyclopedia is not the same as reposting some banned user's rant on Jimbo's talk page. I think you need to step back and reconsider your position that somehow accepting anything of quality from this editor validates them somehow. If you proposed blocking a user for such a thing then I suspect the community would find that user without fault and you would dine on trout. <b style="color:Green">Chillum</b> 20:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That depends. If the reversion happens because an editor that normally watches or edits the page notices the reversion and undoes it, I have no particular objection. If it comes about because an editor that objects to block enforcement goes through a list of reversions and restores the edits that he thinks are good, that's substantially identical to proxying for the blocked editor. Such an editor has no independent reason for making the edit, and his edits serve to undermine the block.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a rather perverse reading of policy. Waaay to much of a stretch for my liking, and I suspect for most other users. I look forward to seeing someone you block being unblocked quickly: hopefully your subsequent time in the spotlight at ANI will put you straight on the matter. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Kww that is simply not what the policy says, you are welcome to propose a change to support your idea of how it should be but I don't see it getting consensus. It is not proxying unless they are acting at the direction of the IP. When a person restores an edit by a blocked user they are taking responsibility for the edit and it is no longer an edit by a blocked user. Address the edits themselves and stop worrying where they came from. If you cannot find a problem with the restored edit beyond where it originated then it is probably not a problem. If there is a problem with the edit then the person who restored it has taken ownership of it and is responsible for it. Wikipedia depends on the idea of keeping the good and throwing away the bad. <b style="color:Green">Chillum</b> 21:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Which results in prolonging these problems forever, where a blocked editor is still permitted to edit freely. There's no problem with people restoring edits so long as their intent is not to undermine a block.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock
Why is their no discussion of rangeblocks as a means to address the disruption? NE Ent 02:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They're big. Multiple /16s and a handful of /17s, and the result would effectively block Chile. I've put some filters targeted at known ranges in place, but blocking seems a bit out of the question.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply to
If AIV is not appropriate then the only place to have a block issued is ANI. If they don't do anything to warrant a block then they shouldn't have an LTA case. However, since they've been blocked, any activity is block evasion and should be reported. This, combined with the fact that the infobox already says to report to AIV, leaves no reason to not have a warning on the top of the page. Phantom Tech (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with this case is it's a bad fit for the "LTA" template, but I couldn't think of another place to coallate the numerous ANI threads into one place, and try and get a long term view on what we should do. Since the user won't create one account and stick to it, we couldn't set up an RfC/U. It's been one of the reasons that Yngvadottir has retired. The infobox says "please link all AIV reports", but IIRC that's just boilerplate text. I've changed that - one of the factors that has caused this case is the IP having good fath edits reverted as "vandalism". I'm not particularly against sending this page to MfD if somebody can suggest an alternative venue, but without this page somewhere I fear we're just going to have more ANI threads. Part of the problem is we don't have a good way of handling editors who contribute lots of content but can't play by "the rules" and at least one admin has been burned out by it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  07:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * From reading the report it does seem like a case for LTA, edit warring, incivility and block evasion are all things that show up in other cases and I don't think vandalism is a requirement for LTA. From what I can tell they're currently blocked and so I think any of their IPs that can be identified should be temporarily blocked for ban evasion, regardless of if the edits made are in good faith. Aside from identifying and blocking the user, there isn't much that can be done with LTA cases. The best way to deal with LTA cases is to find an easy way to identify the user so they can quickly be blocked per WP:DUCK, as long as the user doesn't realize how they're being identified they'll (hopefully) be discouraged by the quick response and stop. However, you're much more familiar with the case then I am and it seems like you're seeing it as (correct me if I'm wrong)
 * This editor sees "best known for" as a violation of our NPOV policy
 * Acting in good faith, they try to correct the perceived issue
 * Most other editors view "best known for" as something that is "clearly not an issue" and assume the removal is vandalism
 * Instead of using dispute resolution, this editor responds with edit warring and incivility
 * If that is the case then I would recommend the editor be contacted with an explanation of why "best known for" is not a violation of NPOV and what they should do if they think that should change, (policy talk page/village pump) though it seems like this might have already been attempted to some extent. Once they've been contacted, I would treat any continued behavior that violates policy in the same way as it is treated in any other LTA case, identify any block. Regardless, I think that there should be clear instructions on every LTA case for how to deal with the user if they are identified, even if those instructions are different depending on if they've done anything wrong or not yet. How have you been dealing with this user when they've been identified up to now? Phantom Tech  (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The merits of "best known for" have been discussed in several places eg: Talk:David Gilmour and I recall starting a thread on the NPOV noticeboard some years back as well. I believe consensus is now to block as soon as it is obvious its the same person. As you can see from other discussions here, a 0RR restriction has been tried (largely on the initiative of ) and failed. I don't believe there is consensus for what to do with the edits this user makes between swapping IPs and being blocked again. Some (eg: ) want to revert on sight, others (eg: ) think the edits should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Whatever the views, incidents have been intermittently appearing on ANI for the better part of five years and I think people have got so frustrated in a resolution that we've ended up with the entrenched opinions we have now. By the way, thanks for your views on this; it's nice to get a fresh perspective on things. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

While there have been some divided views on the matter I think the conclusion is that this user is in violation of our policies and is a block evader. While admins are of course always welcome to not block, others may decide to block. I would suggest that blind reverting is only going to make the situation worse and you should look before reverting. <b style="color:Green">Chillum</b> 14:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on these two replies it seems like everyone agrees that blocking is appropriate and that the disagreement is to whether or not all of their changes should be reverted or only the problematic ones. If that's true then I think something similar to that should be put in the infobox, "This editor should be blocked when identified, there is no consensus as to whether to revert all edits made or check each individual edit for problems. Please link this case in any reports and update it with information from the report." As for my opinion on how to deal with their edits, they said they were frustrated by the reverting so I can see why Chillum would think that blind reverting would make the situation worse, however I think that, as long as they can be found quick enough, reverting everything would be the best way to discourage any of their activity. Phantom Tech  (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No idea seriously. Some of his last contributions clearly violated the copyrights and some of them were better than even the established editors. If some editors(like Drmies, Schrocat) insists that his contributions should be checked like just any other editor, they might be correct. Though I insist that if some other editors, who revert because the edit was made by this particular editor, they must not be criticised for doing that. Thank you.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There's no consensus to carve out some kind of exemption to our blocking policy for this editor: reverts made as a result of block-evasion can be performed at any time. Anyone that wants to claim otherwise will have an extremely hard time getting policy rewritten to accomodate exceptions.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the correct representation of the policy.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The pertinent bit of the policy for me is "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)". Sounds pretty clear. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is quite clear: there's no obligation on you to remove his edits, and you can't be blocked for failing to do so. "Doesn't mean that they must" is not the same as "means that they should not", though. They most certainly should be reverted on sight.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. Putting policy to one side, the average Wikipedia reader cares not one jot about whether an edit was made by a sockpuppet of a blocked user, they care about whether the information is readable, well presented and factually correct. Any revert to an edit which consensus says is an improvement is, in my view, a problem. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I care primarily about our ability to enforce blocks: any effort to support blocked and banned editors' edits on the basis that they are an improvement undermines our ability to ban and block editors. There's no edit so exclusive to a blocked or banned editor that an editor in good standing won't eventually produce something equivalent.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I care primarily about creating an encyclopedia, enforcing blocks is merely a means to create the encyclopedia. Keeping a good edit does not harm our ability to enforce blocks. Our goal is to make an encyclopedia. We have blocks and we enforce blocks so that we can create an encyclopedia. To reverse an edit that improves the encyclopedia so that our blocks can seem more enforceable seems to forget that blocks exist for the benefit of the encyclopedia and not the other way around.


 * This user is blocked because of their unwillingness to work with others. This does not mean that we harm ourselves to spit this person. To suggest that supporting an edit that improves the encyclopedia somehow undermines our ability to ban someone is a false dichotomy. We can enforce the ban and make intelligent decisions about what we keep.


 * I am a big supporter of blocking this person on sight, but let us not reduce the quality of the encyclopedia by acting without thought in response. <b style="color:Green">Chillum</b> 15:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How does keeping his edits not reduce the effectiveness of his blocks? If we examine each of his edits, keep the ones we think are good, but force him to take the occasional extra step of disconnecting his modem, what impediment to editing does the block present? Do you think that extra step does anything useful, or is blocking simply a symbolic gesture?&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The blocks are having no impact either, so to try and argue that "we must revert all to preserve the sanctity of the block" seems something of a false argument. You carry on blocking all you want. Others will examine the individual edits to see if they alone have any merit. - SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "How does keeping his edits not reduce the effectiveness of his blocks?" But conversely, how does not keeping his edits help improve the quality of the encyclopedia? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Driving away disruptive editors does improve the quality of the encyclopedia in the long run.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm finding that using revision delete on his edits does seem to have an effect. Depriving him of any chance of seeing his edits go live does seem to deprive him of his motivation to evade his block.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And keeps the encyclopaedia looking shit in places. Not a good outcome. I'm going to step away: you'll never convince me of your position, just as I will not convince you, so this roundabout is pointless. – SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I know this discussion ended a month ago, but since this just happened I don't think revisiondelete was effective in getting this person to go away. We shouldn't use tactics this unorthodox if they don't even work. ekips39 &#x2766; talk 05:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems pretty simple to me: block on sight for block evasion, but revert edits according to discretion. Obviously anything that is even a tiny bit controversial can be rolled back, but if there are edits that are unambiguously correct then it's pretty silly to revert them. It's a bit like - if you're a cop, and you see a known criminal helping an old lady who's fallen down, then you arrest the criminal, but you don't push the old lady over again. Frickeg (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For the latest iteration, blocked by, I spun through the contributions, decided all were good faith edits and left them, but some edit summaries contained obvious incivility. I can't really say any were personal attacks as they weren't directed at specific editors but they still were not the sort of things likely to lead to future collaboration and improvement. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume you're referring to 200.83.84.155? I wasn't aware the editor was a long-term problem; I just knew they were edit-warring on The Holocaust in Poland. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ekips39, you can specifically blame Ritchie33 and Drmies for the difficulty in making the revdeletes effective. For some reason, they seem to believe that it is important to preserve the exact wording that a blocked editor uses and to encourage them to edit. I have no idea why they believe that encouraging the IP is a good idea, nor why they refuse to help enforce the block. Even in the event that the article needed improvement (a position that I won't contest in most cases), there's no reason to enable the blocked editor to edit by restored deleted revisions from history.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I remember that discussion from WP:ANI. You were proven to be correct on revdeletes, right?  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Within policy, yes. Saying that there is a consensus that I am "correct" would be going a bit far.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , I don't see how that relates to what I said -- I was talking about the IP's posting at ANI, not whether or not the revdeletes were allowed to remain. Perhaps I wasn't clear, or I missed something.  <b style="color: #55f">ekips39</b>  (talk)  19:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

As much as I'm not a fan of the BKIP (see Tom Baker's talk page), and would love to see them just quietly go away, they do......h/o, got to gear myself up for this....occasionally make decent, even constructive, edits (I even helped on one of them). I would hate to see those constructive edits just disappear, but I also believe that allowing them to appear on the pages as being done by them only ends up encouraging the IP. Obviously they must be blocked on site, because unless they completely stop editing for the next six months (unlikely) they will almost certainly be evading a block of some sort, but isn't it possible, and please correct me if I'm wrong because I am unsure if it realistically is, to revdelete their edits, even the occasionally good ones, and then have the blocking editor or someone else do the edits over? That way we get the good edit, block the IP, and help stop what I believe to be enabling their intransigence by allowing them to see their work. Vyselink (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are blocked for the next three years.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Above Santiago, Chile IP was active about 12 hours ago and civil.
 * Above Santiago, Chile IP was active about 12 hours ago and civil.


 * The edits seem productive and I don't see any edit that really convinces me it is the same person. The lack of edit warring and uncivil comments are lacking specifically. This may very well be the same person, but at this point their behaviour is such that I can reasonably assume they are just a productive editor.


 * Another admin may feel otherwise. <b style="color:Green">Chillum</b> 13:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This edit summary and this one look like him. Wouldn't do anything at the moment, as ever they're probably useful copyedits. The minute they get reverted, they will fight back with "Don't revert for no reason" and the quacking will be deafening. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverting for no reason
I realise this is one of the clichés from the man himself, but can I put out a plea again to not revert edits just because they were made by him but evaluate them on their own merits? For example, This one on Leslie Harvey is a good edit removing a borderline copyvio that contains far too much information. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:EVADE. If you disagree with the policy, you can discuss that at its talk page. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have read that policy and agree with it. On that note, I would draw your attention the part that says "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And we both know that isn't all the policy says. In my opinion, the community does not need to waste time finding a reason to remove edits that would never have been made in the first place, were it not for a bad faith effort to subvert the rules (this is a conduct issue). If an editor wants to find a reason to reintroduce the edit, on grounds of content, that's fine. With a /17 range block in place for six months, this should hopefully become a moot point for the time being. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, you can make policy prove black is white if you try hard enough. What's important for the reader? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, most good faith editors do not simply revert out of malice, Ritchie333. When you have an IP hopper working at a frantic pace and drawing in more and more editors (who he abuses in no uncertain terms), one doesn't want to be obliged to go through every edit with a fine-toothed comb in case it may have been constructive-ish. Personally, I don't revert everything just because a user/IP is identified as being a sock. By the same token, you're opening a can of worms if good faith editors are put in the position of being penalised - that is, what can only understood as being punitive measures taken against them - should they have reverted something that could be challenged while they're undoing dozens of unproductive changes to content. Please don't oversimplify the situation by suggesting that we could create a policy proving black is white. No, we couldn't. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm getting at. No, I don't think his conduct is acceptable at all, and his track record of edit warring, incivility and block evasion is .... unfortunate. I'm no stranger to blocking him myself and getting stick for it. Rather, I'm simply cautioning people to disengage the conduct (unacceptable) from the content (might be okay) and only revert edits that are directly challenged, or otherwise do not in your view improve the article. I have re-reverted a few this morning that I disagreed with, but it was certainly a minority. This is why I'm working with the filter at the moment - my ultimate goal is to physically stop him from violating 0RR. That's the root of the problem as far as I can see. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333 can "put out a plea" for whatever he likes, but he knows full well that there are other editors who strongly disagree with his view, and he does not have a monopoly on reasonableness. Can I "put out a plea" for people to respect other editors' decisions on this? Nobody is forced to revert an edit made by a persistent disruptive multiple-block-evading editor if they don't choose to. However, if an intelligent and competent editor is of the opinion that reverting is the best choice, then please don't behave as though that editor has no right to that opinion. Re-reverting back to the disruptive editor's version is questionable, but re-reverting and then posting statements implying that you are RIGHT and anyone who disagrees with you has no right to make edits that you don't like, is more than just questionable. I also suggest that the heading of this section is ill-chosen: "Reverting for no reason" seems to mean "Reverting for a reason happens to disagree with". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I have now had time to think a bit more about this, and I have another point to make. Some, perhaps all, of the reverts that Ritchie333 objected to were made by me. (Perhaps Ritchie333 might like to consider whether it would have been more helpful to tell me what he thought, rather than just posting here. If I hadn't happened to look at this page, I might never have known of Ritchie333's opinions on this.) Contrary to what Ritchie333 presumes (without asking me) I did not automatically revert everything that I saw by this editor. I actually found it a very difficult situation. Like Ritchie333, I don't like reverting beneficial edits just because they were made by a disruptive editor, but on the other hand unlike Ritchie333 I do think that under some circumstances the advantages of conveying to a disruptive multiple-block-evading editor the message "you won't get away with it" can outweigh disadvantages, so that sometimes reverting everything can be the best option. Also, I had discovered many hundreds of edits from a large number of IP addresses, so that laboriously checking each edit to see whether it should be reverted was out of the question: it was a matter of either using mass-rollback or letting most of the edits pass without even checking them. Ritchie333's suggestion of checking each edit individually is, of course, what one should do ideally, but things are not always ideal, and although he may think that in a non-ideal situation it is obvious that leaving everything must be better than reverting everything, that is not obvious to me. In that situation I very often, reluctantly, rollback everything, knowing that there will, unfortunately, be some collateral damage, but judging that the benefit outweighs the damage. This time, however, I did not do that. The overwhelming majority of the edits which I had found I just left, because I decided that the proportion of good edits was so high as to make the proportion of collateral damage unacceptably high. It was, in fact, only the edits from one IP address, or a couple of IP addresses (I don't remember exactly) that I rolled back. I can well imagine that Ritchie333, seeing only the edits which I did roll back, and being unaware of the considerable amount of time I spent looking at the edits from other IP addresses and deciding not to roll them back, thought that I was indiscriminately rolling back everything, but that was a very inaccurate impression. Perhaps he could have consulted me about it, rather than jumping to conclusions about what I had done, and, without hearing my view of the matter, posting here, without informing me, implicitly criticising me (since he linked to an edit which I reverted) behind my back. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm really sorry you feel like that, and it was definitely never my intention to beat anyone up or belittle their efforts on keeping the project running, and my experience as an admin is that we are fair game to be criticised! I just used the Leslie Harvey edit as an example, and it is my personal opinion that "Reverted edits by 186.9.135.169 (talk) to last version by Ludwigpaisteman" isn't a particularly informative edit summary to evaluate how the edit improved the article - and I would have said the same regardless of who had made the edit.
 * One of the reasons we've got this situation is that we don't have enough editors anymore, and there are far too many articles that are sitting unwatched and unloved, which are gradually deteriorating by well-meaning but inexperienced editors. We do a pretty good job of catching blatant and obvious vandalism, but the more subtle stuff falls by the wayside. It's in this environment that our IP friend finds himself in; he's fixing articles because nobody else is doing the work, and generally, I find that edits that don't attract attention go unchallenged, or when edits are discussed on their own merits (eg: at Talk:Self-arrest), they go in his favour. Circumstances mean we're stuck in this situation; ideally we would not have to be stuck with "content or civility; pick one" but we are. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously it "isn't a particularly informative edit summary", and I have often wished that the "rollback all" facility provided the option of customising an edit summary, though obviously it would not be possible to give separate edit summaries for each reverted edit. "Mass deletion" does give the opportunity of overriding the default deletion log entry, and I don't see why "rollback all" doesn't have a similar option for edit summaries, but it doesn't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

While many of the edits are helpful, they are often rather hurried changes that reflect their particularly strict interpretation of some of the less important parts of our policy. This is not simply about civility and edit warring, it is about a stubborn campaign for their interpretation of policy. Since this person has taken such efforts to make sure we cannot view their work as a whole we are left with a situation where we have someone of limited reliability making edits that can't be reviewed with ease.

If there was a choice of reverting all their edits or reverting none I would choose reverting all. That being said if our volunteers do have the time to deal with this when they see it they can go through and sort the edits. However this is not a burden that should fall on anyone dealing with the persistent and problematic user. <b style="color:Green">HighInBC</b> 15:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to see you were dragged to ANI over the matter. I think everyone who has come into contact with this user has borne some stress as a result. Personally, I doubt I'd get seriously hurt by an abusive sock. But when I see admins misrepresenting policy to suit their own agenda on how to deal with the situation, I begin to understand why WP:Wikipedia is failing. That's why we don't have enough editors. The community doesn't have to choose between "content or civility"; that was decided when this user was blocked. If he is allowed, even while blocked, to divide and conquer the community, he wins. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

What this user needs to realize is that he had a chance to improve the encyclopedia, screwed it up, and got sanctioned. He is persona non grata here. No matter the quality of his edits, they're not wanted. Someone else can make the changes later, but anything this IP user does should be reverted on the spot. Besides, his apoplectic anger over reversions makes him easier to spot. clpo13(talk) 09:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And on the second day, the lord god WMF said, "There shall be socks," and it was not so good. (Not really, but its the inevitable corollary of the anyone can edit axiom) Ya'll are replowing well churned ground. WP:BANREVERT is crystal clear; succinctly: sock edits should be reverted except when they shouldn't. The reverter argument; there's insufficient volunteer resources to review in detail in banned edits, and leaving them encourages socking, makes sense. The reviewer argument; if an edit improves the encyclopedia, that's more important than who made it, make sense. Because Wikipedia is not zero sum both viewpoints are correct. The key must be for the reviewers to respect the reverters, and the reverters to respect the reviewers. Acrimony is just troll feeding and benefits no one. NE Ent 10:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblocks
The month-long 201.220.240.0/20 (Telefónica) rangeblock expired yesterday evening, and within a few hours it was used to breach 3RR on 2010 Pichilemu earthquake and leave a whole bunch of personal attacks everywhere. I have reblocked the range for 6 months, similar to 's other Telefónica rangeblock not too long ago, and I propose the next time we have to rangeblock, it's for a year. There is collateral, but not too much, so this time round I've blocked as "anon only" so collateral can be worked around by creating an account. has done a few straight IP blocks and semi-protected a bunch of articles; in the light of the rangeblock, perhaps these could be reviewed? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I did two month-long rangeblocks - 201.220.242.0/24 and 201.220.244.0/24. I believe your extended block encompasses both these ranges. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Think he may be back?
Less swearing, the same aggressive response to being reverted, IP from Santiago, Chile. WCM email 21:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Range blocked for a year, consistent with existing consensus. I do confess to having poked the bear a bit. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

working towards a wiki-proper unblock, eventually
First of all, I will note that I'm not the person from England-slash-Santiago. :-)

In case you missed that, I'm somebody else. Don't block me, please-n-thank-ye-kindly. ;-)

It strikes me that there is a simple way to solve the gordian knot problem, discussed at verbose lengths above...


 * should wikipedians respect all logically-valid edits,
 * or should all edits accomplished via block-evasion be reverted on sight?

The third answer is, achieve a proper unblock. I have some expertise in making difficult unblocks happen, and stick. I also have some advantages not possessed by those who tried previously this year (e.g. the 0RR attempt), in particular, that I also only edit as an 'anon'. So my request here is simple: I would like to have a two-way conversation with the person from Santiago-slash-England, on my usertalk or in whatever venue they wish, preferably to be moved to their then-current usertalk with all prudent haste, on the question of how to get unblocked. If they would please contact me directly, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks for your time and efforts, to all who may be reading this. p.s. For the policy-wonks, please note that this specific exact discussion is an allowed-per-policy topic for a blocked user to engage in. For those who dislike being thought of as policy-wonks... IAR. :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A proper unblock would require that the user stop engaging in block evasion for at least a little while. As long as they insist on using dozens of IPs to evade their block they will just push the possibility of an unblock further down the road. The standard offer is available to this user like most others. <b style="color:Green">HighInBC</b> 15:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, you are correct, but the core of the behavior which has proven problematic isn't the use of IPs per se, but the namecalling and the editwarring. They aren't using multiple IPs to sock per se (e.g. pretending to be multiple humans in order to sway RfC outcomes or whatever), nor are they *particularly* intending to block-evade by IP hopping, they are apparently some kind of consulting businessperson and/or heavy-duty traveller, who spends time all over, and edits from whatever IP is available at their location.  In other words, they are just editing like they are used to editing, which happens to result in block-evasion... but they didn't *start* IP-hopping after getting blocked, as I understand it, they have *always* used different IPs from all kinds of different cities.  That's not the profile of intentional block-evasion, any more than User:HighInBC is an improper name-change; editing from a series of IPs is allowed, as long as behavior is otherwise within the wiki-policies, just as editing from a series of usernames is allowed, ditto the qualifier.
 * My further understanding is that although behavior has NOT always been otherwise-within-wiki-policy (WP:NPA and WP:EDITWAR specifically), they respond well to reason, sometimes at least, so if they can be bothered to have a chat with me, perhaps some agreement will be possible, that satisfies the (growing) number of extant blocking-admins. It is too soon to say what said putative agreement might look like specifically, but I think stopping editing for six months is unlikely to be a real solution, since the problem here is about perceived injustice:  block-evasion (intentional or otherwise) is seen as an evasion-of-justice by some folks involved here, and blind rollback of otherwise-good edits is seen as inherently-injust by other folks here.   (Personally I'm more a fan of WP:NOJUSTICE and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, than either of those stances, but I see the respective points.)
 * Finally, I'm also pretty sure that the person from England-slash-Santiago -- and apparently sometimes Lima, Peru from the geolocation of the latest rangeblock User:Ritchie333 applied -- has some thoughts on wiki-justice as well, and my hunch is their editwarring is rooted in their vision of what is wiki-just, and what is wiki-unjust. The question I'm trying to answer is whether a proper unblock can happen; I think the blocking admins are reasonable folks, so mostly it is a case of getting in touch with the blockee, and helping them work out a better unblock-rationale than tersely saying "no reason for this block", and/or "straight reblock after a reasonable edit is completely over the top".  If so, and if the hypothetical agreement can be made to stick this time, why then, we could all get back to Improving The 'Pedia, with any luck.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have tried, but all I get is "you created this attack page" thrown in my face every time and he acts like a Shakespearean drama ... 75, if you can sort this one out, then I wish you well. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is unrealistic to think that their socking is an innocent result of their circumstances. They keep the same IP for days then switch after being blocked. I don't know where 227 got this idea from but it is wrong, the evasion is very much intentional. Even if the currently existing block did go away their behaviour would just result in another one. Really if they wanted to come back they could just fly under the radar by not engaging in the same behaviour. <b style="color:Green">HighInBC</b> 16:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Back again
‎ 192.121.113.22

Usual childish taunting via a revert that he was back. WCM email 19:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked the edits, all reasonable copyedits aside from one bit of section blanking. I whine about article quality too (I know, we shouldn't, but we're human). I'd leave be unless there's edit warring or incivility. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Its still block evasion. Why should an IP be treated different to a named account? WCM email 20:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

And another one. WCM email 20:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

And another one. WCM email 22:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous, you can't discuss anything with this guy and he always responds with abuse. WCM email 22:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is clear evidence of incivility,, that should be struck. Anyone else would be blocked for that. Oh wait... Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not at the level of being struck, for that you need grossly offensive comments. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Can someone really call someone else a racist and get away with it, even though they're already block-evading? He's even taking the piss on your own talk page, it's farcical. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ‎ And another. WCM email 00:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Another. There is no "live and let live" policy in regards to LTA editors - they are de facto banned, and as such I am rolling back alll of their edits. Any editor in good standing who want to take personal responsibility for their edits by restoring them, that's fine with me, but we do nothing but encourage these editors by not at least attempting to shut them down.  Also, I am normally very appreciative and supportive of our admins, but if they were doing their job and blocking these IPs, a rank-and-file editor such as myself wouldn't have to do this. BMK (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * is him as well, isn't it? poor edits + actually slaps warning on other users' page. Mezigue (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like him. Already past 3RR on Twelfth Doctor. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, already logged as one of his IP. WCM email 15:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked; that admin didn't fall for his crap. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Back on some of the same topics. Mezigue (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on subject matter and the comments in talk pages, another IP used by this editor. WCM email 15:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * . Actually resumes recent conversations with new IP address... Mezigue (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wireless hotspot in Belgium, likely to be travelling based on past behaviour. We will likely see a number of different IP addresses scattered all over the world based on previous behaviour.  WCM email 15:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh joy. Mezigue (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * and (Back on some of the same topics. Mezigue (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * and again. Mezigue (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Cadiz returns
was blocked yesterday, they're right back today as and their edits are totally unsurprising. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

July 2016 - 85.133.27.17
returned as IP. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * at Genetic Studies of Genius. Any chance of any action on these?  Andy Dingley (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * at Genetic Studies of Genius. Any chance of any action on these?  Andy Dingley (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * More Norwegian IPs

Added another one, seems he is on his travels again. WCM email 07:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)



And another one. WCM email 15:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , slipping under the .192./18 rangeblock. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , after the expiry of the 24 hour rangeblock. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * is today's Andy Dingley (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * is almost funny. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah. I really wonder what kind of world this guy lives in. He can't seem to understand he's been around so long that so many of us can spot him at fifty paces. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * is almost funny. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah. I really wonder what kind of world this guy lives in. He can't seem to understand he's been around so long that so many of us can spot him at fifty paces. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)



Any views on this and this? Not an IP range I recognise but habitual behaviour seems to match. Maybe we should wait until other edits from the same range turn up? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * looks like him too. Mezigue (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That one is definitely him; he does so hold a grudge. Kuru   (talk)  23:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

 * is also clearly him. Same MO (tell-tale "Best known for" edit here), same mix of correct and tone-deaf or pointlessly pedantic edits, and the amazing chutzpah of reporting  for edit-warring.  Mezigue (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * .  Mezigue (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sro23 (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Kuru  (talk)  12:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Geographically, exactly the same spot as some other IPs, same kind of behaviour, one or two of the same, obscure articles... Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked; was also editing as . Kuru   (talk)  22:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that; I've never seen him edit as one of that type of IP before... Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

 * Same again, same article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

 * Same old, same old. Already edit-warring on day 1. Mezigue (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Morphed to a new IP. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * revisiting their old edits Andy Dingley (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked. There were two other hits from asian IPs this morning. Presumably he's travelling again and revisiting old edit wars in short bursts. Kuru   (talk)  18:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * A new one Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked. as well at another hotspot.  Kuru   (talk)  02:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

 * Another one. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

March 2017
Thoughts on ? Edit warring over trivial matters, calling editors who disagree with him "vandals" and generally throwing a strop (also paging, and  who also declined his unblock requests) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems plausible. Has some understanding of policy but seems to willfully disregard standards on edit warring.  Their edits are not "technically" wrong, but edits with highly combative tone.  Geolocates to London, so several pieces fit.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 18:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
and clearly our guy, making the same edits to the same article as was perennially visited by many of the other IPs, namely 1977 South African Grand Prix. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And another, same article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See this SPI archive and . The whole /24 range is him and has been rangeblocked for three months.
 * Definitely all the same guy, no question. Same pompous, self-righteous protestations; like a scratched record. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

June 2017
At it again as and. Kept insisting that describing a paper as "influential" violated NPOV, despite multiple reliable sources and common sense. That word should be on the edit filter, if it's not already. Pinging User:Beyond My Ken in case you want to mass revert. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 109.180.164.0/24 range and 144.82.8.0/24 range both blocked three months. Admins should start searching the ranges that he is using and blocking more aggressively in terms of time. Look at those two ranges and the one I blocked in the section above...he is predominating in them and by not blocking the ranges, he is having an easier time getting in. I'm not seeing hardly any collateral damage at all. Please review the ranges for second opinions concerning whether you think it is him and how much collateral you see.
 * Probably need to broaden that 144 range. The previous six-month rangeblock there was on the /16, which recently expired. Still zero to low traffic. Kuru   (talk)  13:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that your 109 range block picks up this incident being actively worked by and . No question that it's him.  Kuru   (talk)  13:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I've broadened to the /16 range with another 6 month block. I hadn't done a wide enough search for collateral at that point... /24's are easier to get server responses. I got the "Whoa! Finding a lot... (Warning: May bog down browser!)" message for the /16., anytime that you want to widen or extend one of my rangeblocks because you find reason to, feel free. I trust your judgement. I wish that we could have saved Andy, Prioryman and the other editors the grief they've been enduring.
 * , just wanted you to see that I've placed some rangeblocks that cover the issue that you've been watching.
 * Thank you. Range-blocks are not something I have the know-how to perform...and I'm new to this particular LTA in any case, so still learning what's been done in the past/what the response needs to be for it to work. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I got into the habit of doing 6 month rangeblocks on a /16 range at one point, though I haven't done any for a while as other admins have picked up the slack. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
One of this guy's obsessions has been removing details of the car in the article Ian Gow. . It's an easy tell for spotting the guy. WCM email 07:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I just [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axial_Seamount&curid=12730246&diff=797618167&oldid=797596085 reverted] a WP:DUCK edit, geolocated in Japan this time. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Found an account messing with BKF, probably just an unrelated vandal?
In Joe Alwyn new user was messing around with BKF in the lead. However, rather than deleting the phrase, s/he was just changing it. diff That plus the fact it is an account makes me think they aren't the same ab/user but are just a vandal, also their lame attack on an admin's user page, but I wanted to just check.L3X1  (distænt write)  22:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ab241 is now indeffed as a VOA.L3X1 (distænt write)  23:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Looks very likely to me, mainly from his pompous edit summaries. Then, when you look at the abuse he's aimed at other editors on his talk page... has to be our man. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ - no doubt. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)



— Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * He looks to have also been using 109.180.164.71 undetected. No doubt. He returned to this range after my last block expired so 109.180.164.0/24 blocked six months.

November 2017
Nothing problematic yet but this sure looks like BKFIP. WCM email 15:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No doubt, all the same markers including the obvious. Kuru   (talk)  15:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Are they still blocked? WCM email 16:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * His accounts are still blocked and the community ban is still active. I've blocked this IP. [[User:Kuru|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#cd853f;

text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Kuru ]] (talk)  16:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a ban, not a block. With 13 years of ongoing abuse of editors and processes, it will thankfully never be lifted. "Nothing problematic" -- that's not relevant. Revert on sight, regardless of content. And of course it isn't true -- the bannee's rapid fire edits, including his signature wrongful removal of the word "famous" -- are extremely problematic. The IP ban should come with an automatic reversion of all its changes, but unfortunately WP does not seem to have developed the needed tools despite 13 years of abuse. -- Jibal (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Another one. WCM email 07:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Another now. WCM email 15:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

June 2018
Not 100% sure so bringing it here for a second opinion. Is this the guy? WCM email
 * I don't think that's the same person. While were at it, could someone also take a look at ? Sro23 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Another sock account...?
This 's edits appear to follow the same pattern as BKFIP. (fyi) - wolf 11:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes that's clearly him. WCM email 11:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - Hi, do admins like you follow this page for notice of possible socks or do they need to be reported elsewhere? Thanks - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  23:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it's him. Sro23 (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But doesn't this diff you've provided show one of his supposed signatures? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  00:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * His signature is the opposite: removing unnecessary superlatives. Kuru   (talk)  00:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

87.54.9.210, maybe. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

- I do follow here; just missed that one. That account does not seem like him, but I would defer to checkusers before blocking accounts since he's going to play the "who me?" game every single time. 87.54.9.210 absolutely looks like him, but travelling/out of the UK. Kuru  (talk)  00:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank for the reply. My only experience of note with this person was with their "Boredkarla" personae. But the instant knowledge of WP P&G, edits that are almost exclusively content removals, and the rather blunt edit summaries, all from contribution #1, immediately reminded me of that user. Anyway, I'll leave it ttptb. Cheers - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  00:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 redux
sure sounds like him again: obsession with notoriety, hyperbolic edit summaries. Mezigue (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * looks like a shoo-in. First four edits, straight in with the wordy, haughty edit summaries, and removing wording which our friend has removed about a hundred times before. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
Sounds very much like him again. WCM email 07:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC) is the same user. See Talk:Kelpers. WCM email 21:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked, along with the IP. Obviously him; many old scores there. Kuru   (talk)  21:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the two suspects in the above section? Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * They do look like him as well IMHO. WCM email 23:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Kuru, this guy is still arguing the toss over the same old wording at 1977 South African Grand Prix. He is our man, the only editor ever to have a problem with this wording, which he has done countless times. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Cycological is ✅

December 2018
Edits and summaries fit the pattern. Bahudhara (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

February 2019
back again, removing all mentions of "famous". --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, a perfect match indeed. Favonian (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
Pretty sure this is them – obsession with WP:MOSBOLDTITLE and removing "famously". Number   5  7  21:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, . Our friend is once more on the road, physically or virtually. Favonian (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Just appeared to undo my reverts of previous BKFI socks. Number  5  7  23:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Also now editing from. I'm semi-protecting the articles in question until they're blocked. Number  5  7  23:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Blocked both. The range is rather busy, so we'll have to make do with a game of Whac-A-Mole. Favonian (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
More here, edit warring at David Purley, removing the "best known for" stuff, even though it has a reference (added when he argued about it years ago).

,, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

And another, he's on a roll here Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Article protected for a week. Favonian (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ta, quick work. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Another possible IP - –  The Grid  ( talk )  21:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup! Favonian (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Another one at, which I've just blocked. Number   5  7  22:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And . Number   5  7  19:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And (I think they're going to be following me around for a while now).  Number   5  7  17:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't wish to be left out: 146.198.165.110. Favonian (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Even though this IP did do a discussion at ANI, was this one checked? – The Grid  ( talk )  20:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Might as well add to it (and  the minor edits to the Booth family connect with the other IP. The IP range also provides a nice match in times -  –  The Grid  ( talk )  20:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like he poked up again,. – The Grid  ( talk )  23:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And at . Number   5  7  15:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , you didn't mean to give that IP an indefinite block, right?
 * My mistake. Reduced to a fortnight. Number   5  7  16:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
User:Limetasha - another possible user account, with very similar edit summary style. Bahudhara (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like it, it's triggering the edit filter – The Grid  ( talk )  12:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Clearly him, the edits on Ian Gow are a dead giveaway, he's obsessed over that article for years. WCM email 11:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Clearly the same editor. WCM email 18:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
Fairly obvious example of BKFIP. WCM email 00:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
. Another obvious example. Number  5  7  11:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And . Number   5  7  11:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also at Sro23 (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And now . Number   5  7  10:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

More obvious examples at one of the usual places and articles closely associated with that one. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And . Number   5  7  14:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Any action on these,, ? The 51.7 IP started to get difficult as well, no question about who he is. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked 51.7.229.136, but the others are stale. I routinely block obvious incarnations in the 82.132.0.0/16 range, but the range itself is too broad + busy to block. Favonian (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, cheers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * . Zoolver (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * . Zoolver (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * . Zoolver (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * . Zoolver (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * . Zoolver (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * . Zoolver (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)