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

Formal restriction

* Note I have moved the next two comments from the project page to here. Chillum 23:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Two admins, Drmies and Yngvadottir, 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.

IP has breached the 0RR restriction, and is back to block-on-sight status.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs)

• 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. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, it seems to me that Drmies and Yngvadottir are clearly WP:INVOLVED in this case. Corrent? - SummerPhD (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)

@Chillum: SummerPhD is correct about their involvement. They have been involved with the content.[1][2] OccultZone (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. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yngvadottir, 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. Chillum, 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. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

As long as you are aware of these particular extensions, there should be no room for doubts. OccultZone (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. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Guys, been observing this guy for some time, as @Drmies: 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".[3] - SummerPhD (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "demonstrated that he has no intention" would have been better?—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. Chillum 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.—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. Chillum 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? - SummerPhD (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. Chillum 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.—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. Chillum 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. Chillum 22:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

He is the IP in question. Blocked.—Kww(talk) 22:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I know, I just wanted to see if he would lie about it. Chillum 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:

1. 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).
2. Are there any practical procedures that can be used, if this course is chosen?
3. 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)
4. 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?
5. 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.—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.—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.—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.—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! - SummerPhD (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ano 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.—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.) - SummerPhD (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)

SummerPhD, aside from the IP I blocked, can you point me at any new edits by him?—Kww(talk) 03:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

[4] 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.) - SummerPhD (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me know if you see anything more.—Kww(talk) 03:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Even the recently created article[5] has "BFK". 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 BFK? OccultZone (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. Chillum 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. OccultZone (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (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 Drmies and Yngvadottir) 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.—Kww(talk) 13:56, 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)