Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 181 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.

146.198.193.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sounds very much like him again. WCM_email 07:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC) Reedsrecap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same user. See Talk:Kelpers. WCM_email 21:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, along with the IP. Obviously him; many old scores there. Kuru (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the two suspects in the above section? Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They do look like him as well IMHO. WCM_email 23:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kuru, this guy Cycological (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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)[reply]

Cycological is  Confirmed
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tffq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edits and summaries fit the pattern. Bahudhara (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

80.189.156.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) back again, removing all mentions of "famous". --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mrjulesd, a perfect match indeed. Favonian (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

89.115.226.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Pretty sure this is them – obsession with WP:MOSBOLDTITLE and removing "famously".[1] Number 57 21:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, Number 57. Our friend is once more on the road, physically or virtually. Favonian (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

82.132.242.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Just appeared to undo my reverts of previous BKFI socks. Number 57 23:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also now editing from 82.132.231.102 (talk · contribs). I'm semi-protecting the articles in question until they're blocked. Number 57 23:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).

82.13.108.124 (talk · contribs), 82.132.212.84 (talk · contribs), 82.13.100.9 (talk · contribs) Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And another, he's on a roll here 82.13.100.46 (talk · contribs) Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected for a week. Favonian (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, quick work. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible IP - 146.198.193.103 (talk · contribs) – The Grid (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! Favonian (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another one at 185.201.60.219 (talk · contribs), which I've just blocked. Number 57 22:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And 82.132.223.20 (talk · contribs). Number 57 19:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And 82.132.221.210 (talk · contribs) (I think they're going to be following me around for a while now). Number 57 17:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Even though this IP did do a discussion at ANI, was this one checked? 82.132.222.30 (talk · contribs) – The Grid (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well add 82.132.220.111 (talk · contribs) to it (and 82.132.221.44 (talk · contribs) the minor edits to the Booth family connect with the other IP. The IP range also provides a nice match in times - 82.132.223.20/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) – The Grid (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he poked up again, 82.132.221.2 (talk · contribs). – The Grid (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And at 2A00:23C0:AF01:0:BDDB:5F69:3A8B:9AA9 (talk · contribs). Number 57 15:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57, you didn't mean to give that IP an indefinite block, right?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: My mistake. Reduced to a fortnight. Number 57 16:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Limetasha - another possible user account, with very similar edit summary style. Bahudhara (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it, it's triggering the edit filter – The Grid (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

82.132.232.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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) 82.132.220.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Clearly the same editor. WCM_email 18:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

46.208.236.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Fairly obvious example of BKFIP. WCM_email 00:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

62.74.25.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Another obvious example. Number 57 11:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And 46.103.122.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Number 57 11:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also at 79.129.26.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Sro23 (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And now 80.106.73.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Number 57 10:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More obvious examples at one of the usual places 46.233.116.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and articles closely associated with that one 51.7.229.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And 146.198.193.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Number 57 14:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any action on these, Favonian, Kuru? 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for this, cheers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 51.7.34.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
• 51.7.229.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 51.7.229.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.220.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.220.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.222.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Zoolver (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 101.98.126.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 103.203.188.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 121.90.132.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 124.150.164.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 124.197.10.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 125.238.202.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.109.232.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (identified by @Minimumbias as a "possible sock puppet" [2])

This batch of IPs seemed to have the kind of familiarity with Wikipedia that comes with long-term editing, so I got curious. Their distaste for calling anything "unique" [3][4] was the kind of rejection of anything deemed subjective that made a connection with WP:BKFIP seem at least plausible. I went to the most recent IPs listed there and skimmed the edit summaries. This from one of those resembled this from this week. This edit by a "Best Known For" IP made a very similar complaint to 125.238.207.194 at Bogdanov affair; compare No reader is so stupid that they need a hint to find the rest of the article and Exactly who is supposed to be so dumb that they need help to find the article from the lead section? [5]. Parallel phrasing, in complaints about something I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about before (and which the Manual of Style explicitly gives instructions on how to do!). Also, the history of Alraigo incident indicates that this is the same editor as 124.150.164.201, who shares with a BKF IP a vehement dislike of supposed non-native English speakers making edits. 80.189.156.156 on the BKFIP list had an attitude about italics and boldface also displayed by one of the IPs from Bogdanov affair. Another IP on the list has a bugbear about "non-free text" and how it degrades "the encyclopaedia" [6], just like the IP at Bogdanov affair [7]. (They changed one word in a sentence, turning a close paraphrase into another close paraphrase.) Here is an IP from the BKFIP list asserting as this is English wikipedia, links to German articles are not useful, just like at Vienna bread here. Who else, ever, has complained about inter-language links? Ever? I'd never seen anyone gripe about that, and I spend an unhealthy amount of time here. Likewise, here is BKFIP last September removing an image gallery for the same reason as 101.98.126.25 on the 9th.

Full disclosure: I got irritated enough in trying to deal with this that I crossed the 3RR line, which was bad, and I have been duly admonished; I'd just really like somebody to take a look at all this so I can get back to editing occasionally rather than frequently, which makes me both happier and more useful. XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's BKFIP, without a doubt. I just blocked 210.55.232.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for a week. The obsessive edit-warring, obnoxious edit summaries and self-righteous unblock requests all fit. This person is known to travel quite a bit, and NZ appears to be where they hang out these days. Favonian (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You may wish to take note of the discussion they opened at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Links_from_lead_sections_to_parts_of_the_article, which pretty clearly seems intended to change the documentation so they can win an argument with me. (They clearly know how to find me, but I didn't get so much as a ping about it and only noticed because I happened to skim their contributions after I saw you add 210.55.232.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to the list. That seems less than cricket.) They may come back to that page with a different IP. Since a couple other editors have made good-faith contributions to that discussion, it seems the result may actually be productive. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another key sign it's them is debolding of text in the opening sentence like this. Every so often they follow me round election and referendum articles doing the same. Number 57 21:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is bold text just not their thing? XOR'easter (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Favonian: We have another candidate:

• 202.134.31.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Their very first edit was to remove content while asking if it's not in the article, why is it in the lead? — failing to notice that the line they cut was not in the lead. Repeated invocations of MOS:N'T. Geolocates to Tonga; maybe they've moved on from New Zealand. XOR'easter (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, that's our friend. I have a strong feeling that 103.237.136.221 is as well. NZ to Tonga via Melbourne? What's next? Favonian (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The vendetta against image galleries; the complaint "would be nice if people had a clue about how to write encyclopaedic prose in English"; the classic "npov" about which of an artist's works are the most memorable. That's him. XOR'easter (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also the repeated insistence that links are "pointless", coupled with the complaint about "jargon" (i.e., a term of maritime law in an article about a Coast Guard vessel). The link explains the meaning of the term; either it's "jargon" or the link is "pointless" — pick one! XOR'easter (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]