Misplaced Pages

:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:25, 4 September 2014 view sourceSchroCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,908 edits →Comments from SchroCat← Previous edit Revision as of 10:02, 4 September 2014 view source Ritchie333 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators125,300 edits →Comment: WP:DENYNext edit →
Line 119: Line 119:
====Briefly, from Drmies==== ====Briefly, from Drmies====
All the edits to articles I've seen this IP editor make are quality items: I strongly disagree with some of the other posters--the IP editor has a nose for language and that they disregard reliable sources, I haven't seen it. Their combative style is clear, though, and typically it provokes a strong reaction and quick revert, often a dismissive revert without explanation which smacks of an all-too easy backlash against IP editors. On the other hand, many of their comments are totally unacceptable. I find this a difficult case: they've never been abusive toward me, and in content discussions they typically tone down that rhetoric. Problem is, of course, that too many opposing editors have nothing better to offer than "rv", and then tag-team in their reverts with the predictable result that the IP gets blocked for 3R. These are shameful practices.<p>It seems to me the IP is editing from some sort of principle, conviction, and I also think that frequently their point is valid--it's just that they express it in provocative ways and enjoy the fight too much. If it weren't for the cuss words this would be a very different conversation and I might side with them as a matter of course. But given the situation, I see the bad on both sides, with some dismissiveness and passive-aggressiveness on the named editors' sides (not always, and not from all), and way too much cussing on the IP's side, which is unacceptable. ] (]) 13:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC) All the edits to articles I've seen this IP editor make are quality items: I strongly disagree with some of the other posters--the IP editor has a nose for language and that they disregard reliable sources, I haven't seen it. Their combative style is clear, though, and typically it provokes a strong reaction and quick revert, often a dismissive revert without explanation which smacks of an all-too easy backlash against IP editors. On the other hand, many of their comments are totally unacceptable. I find this a difficult case: they've never been abusive toward me, and in content discussions they typically tone down that rhetoric. Problem is, of course, that too many opposing editors have nothing better to offer than "rv", and then tag-team in their reverts with the predictable result that the IP gets blocked for 3R. These are shameful practices.<p>It seems to me the IP is editing from some sort of principle, conviction, and I also think that frequently their point is valid--it's just that they express it in provocative ways and enjoy the fight too much. If it weren't for the cuss words this would be a very different conversation and I might side with them as a matter of course. But given the situation, I see the bad on both sides, with some dismissiveness and passive-aggressiveness on the named editors' sides (not always, and not from all), and way too much cussing on the IP's side, which is unacceptable. ] (]) 13:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

====Comment====

This page is an absolute disgrace and an abuse of Misplaced Pages procedures. The long term abuse page says:
:;'' Don't use LTA unless needed: Only add vandals that have a need to be pointed out, such as sneaky sockpuppeteers, prolific trolls, etc.''


==Confirmed and suspected IP addresses== ==Confirmed and suspected IP addresses==

Revision as of 10:02, 4 September 2014

"Best Known For" IP
Wikilifespan2004-present
ISPVTR Banda Ancha S.A. (Chile)
Entel PCS Telecomunicaciones S.A.
Known IPssee list, typical ranges 190.44/16, 190.162/15, 200.120.128/17 (VTR), 186.37/16 (Entel)
Physical locationSantiago, Chile
InstructionsReport excessive verbal abuse. Please link WP:AIV reports to this long-term abuse report, and then please update this report with the latest information.
StatusActive

Please report all ongoing incidents of abuse to AIV or ANI.

Basic information

IP editor from South America, regularly removes the phrase "best known for" claiming violation of WP:NPOV and aggressively edit wars over it with personal attacks. Has been blocked regularly since October 2011, and often deliberately switches IP addresses during a block.

Targeted areas, pages, themes

  • Biographies of living people

Habitual behavior

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

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

In other cases, minor disagreements over content can become needlessly heated when the editor responds in an aggressive manner.

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

Cases

Other notes

The IPs geolocate to South America, often Santiago, Chile, but sometimes from Brazil.

Comments from Chaheel Riens

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

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


Comments from SummerPhD

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

Comments from SchroCat

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

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

For someone who can't distinguish "there" and "their", and who engaged in edit warring to try to force the phrase "described in the UK press as being best known for starring" into an article (, , , , , , )to describe anyone else's edits as "downright awful" is desperately ironic. Thanks for the laugh. 190.162.88.128 (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I have no wish to engage directly with you under any circumstances, but I will correct your falsehood here: I am all too aware of the difference between "there" and "their". - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Bretonbanquet

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

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

You wanted to describe Jeremy Spencer as being "best known" for one particular thing. But you never were able to explain the value of attempting to judge what people think of a subject, and why that's preferable to stating objective facts about the subject. Nor were you able to explain who ever asked anyone what they remember the 1977 South African Grand Prix for, and what proportion of people said in a verifiable source that they remembered it specifically for what you think they must surely have done. You really have no clue about the concept of objectivity, do you? 190.162.88.128 (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not entering into a discussion about objectivity with you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Wee Curry Monster

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

I aware that Antandrus, Born2cycle, Drmies, Dennis Brown and Dpmuk have at various times tried to convince the guy to be civil. This editor has frequently been blocked for edit warring and extreme violation of WP:CIVIL. I have observed over a period of 5 years, that as the IP cycles he appears to get away with much of his excesses. Whenever the IP cycles it appears the block counter is reset back to 24 hrs and wikipedia seems to forget about the previous IP. Frustratingly I have also had a series of admins insisting I had to discuss matters with the guy, for which you're rewarded with abuse eg Censored, Censored Censored You dopy little Censored, "wee curry monster".. In comparison with some of the epithets he's coined "fucking moron" is almost a term of endearment. WCMemail 08:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive729#Editor from Chile using multiple ip addresses to evade blocks Discussion from 2011 at WP:ANI. Note the diff , where he admits to manipulating his IP to block evade. There is also an extreme example of 8RR and block by Bongwarrior. See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive728#Hate Filled Personal Attacks by Anon IP. I could post more, what is depressing is the number of times its been there and been dismissed. WCMemail 10:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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


“ These arbitrary reverts are a real slap in the face. I get more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely, and the end result is exactly the same. It's very, very depressing to see how reasonable, sensible people like yourself became the minority. Believe me, if you were the majority, I would not be viciously slagging off anyone. ”
I've quoted it in full this time as Drmies states in this follow up edit summary his belief that "well, if we're going to cite him, let's cite him correctly: this not rephrased incorrectly and pulled out of context" Well if my edit was misleading I thank both editors who followed up for fixing it. I went on out of curiousity to look at the exchange, which prompted it. Quoting Drmies:


“ I will say this: I think you got a rough ride at Hermann Fegelein, but "fuck you cunt" (to paraphrase some of your commentary) is not a productive avenue and it is likely to get you blocked, in which case no one wins. ”
This is the exchange referenced. The sequence:
IP makes 3 edits - the tag notes references removed
Kierzek reverts to restore the information but subsequently edits to include many of the changes proposed by the IP. Its not uncommon for editors to revert material to restore deleted content to then go on and improve it.
IP reimposes his edits again - the tag notes references removed
OberRanks citing this abusive personal attack on Kierzek's talk page
IP simply reverts with an abusive edit summary
Kierzek reverts and again goes on to edit to improve the article, suggesting a compromise
IP reverts
OberRanks reverts
Kierzek suggests another compromise edit
IP reverts, the edit summary begins "When you apologise for then offensive false accusations, then maybe we can start talking about "compromises"
No one used the talk page.
However, Kierzek does inform the IP he reverted him for removing citations - which if you check the edits is correct. The only time vandalism is referred to is when the offensive comments are removed from Kierzek's talk page. Kierzek's edits arguably further improved on the original suggestion by the IP but they still met with nothing but unwarranted abuse. And that is my point, whilst I reckon most of their edits do improve articles, when they don't they react to the editors who follow up their edits in exactly the same way. WCMemail 23:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
You are a liar, as you've shown repeatedly. Your dishonesty is truly disgusting. You show with your regurgitation of diffs from Hermann Fegelein that you are not capable of understanding simple edits. If you check the edits, it's very easy to see that no citations were removed. Why would I remove citations? My edit summaries clearly described what I was doing. I moved text from a footnote into the main body of the text, and the removal of the footnote triggered the automatic edit summary.
Remember that you stalked my edits to begin attacking me, having never previously edited Ian Gow until I did so. You stalked me there because you disagreed with a simple edit I made to Falklands War, which you falsely claimed had changed the meaning of a sentence. The wording I removed was obviously unacceptable, and if you thought the meaning had been changed by my edit, and if your interest was in improving the encyclopaedia, you'd have fine-tuned the text to get the meaning correct. But you didn't. You simply reverted wholesale, and then stalked my edits so that you could harass me.

Briefly, from Drmies

All the edits to articles I've seen this IP editor make are quality items: I strongly disagree with some of the other posters--the IP editor has a nose for language and that they disregard reliable sources, I haven't seen it. Their combative style is clear, though, and typically it provokes a strong reaction and quick revert, often a dismissive revert without explanation which smacks of an all-too easy backlash against IP editors. On the other hand, many of their comments are totally unacceptable. I find this a difficult case: they've never been abusive toward me, and in content discussions they typically tone down that rhetoric. Problem is, of course, that too many opposing editors have nothing better to offer than "rv", and then tag-team in their reverts with the predictable result that the IP gets blocked for 3R. These are shameful practices.

It seems to me the IP is editing from some sort of principle, conviction, and I also think that frequently their point is valid--it's just that they express it in provocative ways and enjoy the fight too much. If it weren't for the cuss words this would be a very different conversation and I might side with them as a matter of course. But given the situation, I see the bad on both sides, with some dismissiveness and passive-aggressiveness on the named editors' sides (not always, and not from all), and way too much cussing on the IP's side, which is unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed and suspected IP addresses

Statement from IP that this list is "massively incomplete".

Categories: