The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

---

The user User:Purgatory Fubar has been reported at WP:ANI for persistent abuse of vandalism tools. User has been "edit-warring" and using VP for quick revert purposes. Attempts to engage in discussion on his user page have been reverted, again using vandalproof.

Examples:

• [1] - no explanation of random revert with vp given

VP does not allow for personal comment in the summary At least not that I am aware of.This delinking by annon is what started this. PF

• [2] user warning given with vp, despite no vandalism having occurred anywhere

Test1 not vandal1 was given due to the delinking of legit link (wuxia) and (Hong Kong). At that point I was assuming good faith. PF

• [3] attempt to discuss issue on user's talk page ignored and reverted using vp

User being civil went out the door with this "attempt to discuss issue". PF

• [4] same again

Removing 3RR notice as there was no 3RR, I simply reverted delinking of valid links as per above. PF

• [5] again removing attempted user talk page discussion using vp

Removed personal attacks. PF

• [6] using vandalism reversion with vp to revert non-vandalism edit on another article

Rollback edit by annon no test or warning was given, and later Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) did the same. (revert speedy tag from notable article) P.F

• [7] when the other user clears *their* user talk page suddenly its vandalism and he uses vp to revert

See user page link below. P.F

• [8] he issues a "last warning" to the user with vp

to be fair let's see he whole user page F.P

• [9] another article - vp revert to non-vandalism edit

Rollback annon removal of a disambiguation. No warning was given. P.F

• [10] another article - vp revert to non-vandalism edit

Revert unexplained removal of image with false edit summary. (Vandalism) and user page blanking Final warning given. P.F

• [11] attempt to "block" the user as a vandal (subsequently removed by administrators [12] and given warning by User:Ryan Postlethwaite [13])

No warning was given to me by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs) See my above comment. P.F

• [14] removing valid warnings (abuse of vandalism templates) from user talkpage without expln, using vp revert

Revert Trollery P.F

• [15] - removing valid warnings from somebody else's talkpage without expln, using vp revert 86.27.68.151 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Trollery P.F

User suspended until dispute satisfactorily cleared up at WP:ANI - see here. Ale_Jrb^talk 15:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The annon has resorted to Trolling via Sock puppetry (talking in the third person) to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint.

• 86.27.68.151 (talk · contribs) WHOIS report [16]
• 86.31.159.179 (talk · contribs)WHOIS report [17]
• 86.31.156.253 (talk · contribs) WHOIS report [18]
• 86.31.144.47 (talk · contribs)WHOIS report[19]
• 86.27.130.242 (talk · contribs) WHOIS report [[20]]

All have had their hand in this. Not trying to assume bad faith here but my guess is that this annon is a banned user. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 18:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having a dynamic IP != sockpuppetry. Prodego ^talk 01:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being sarcastic? Speaking in the third voice to from multiple IP's is a blockable offense, or is it soap boxing? Either way it is against Wikipedia policy, Being an Admin, I would have thought you would have known that. Any way feel free to read my comments at the ANI link above. and maybe give me your two cents there. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 02:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't block people for speaking in the third person, I think everyone knows this is one person behind the IP. The user is not objecting to being classified as one person, and WP:AGF applies. Prodego ^talk 02:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying hard toWP:AGF But looking at the situation it is hard I added comments to the annon comments above incase you didn't see them at ANI. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Purgatory Fubar is now blocked[21] by admin User:AGK. 86.27.129.210 11:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue, should be at RFC[edit]

In a discussion with mangojuice via my talk page, mango said that this should have been at RFC. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 17:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This mess wasArchived and no further comments have been made. So I guess it's up to you. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 22:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. As per vandalproof policy, if any user of this tool is legitimately blocked for any reason (especially for vandalism or violation of 3RR) and it is reported to a moderator, he/she will no longer be allowed to use VandalProof. User Purgatory Fubar was blocked here [22] and a request to be unblocked was furthermore declined here [23]. User Purgatory Fubar is now being investigated for possible evasion of the block via sockpuppetry [24]. 86.27.59.243 23:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion between Ale jrb and myself, we have decided to restore access to User:Purgatory Fubar. Some of the edits made with VP were in appropriate, but we have been assured that there will be no problems in the future.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Levine2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

VP was used for this edit in a current edit war. The user has been blocked twice since his VP authorization, once for 3RR and once for outing another editor.

Avb 17:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is under review and VP access is currently withdrawn. Ale_Jrb^talk 12:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Disputed accusations removed, see User talk:I'clast#Explanation required)

After review, the user has been warned and access will be restored ASAP. Case closed.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I wasn't sure if this user should be prevent from using Vandalproof or not, I guess I will put the facts here and let people decide.

1. He threatens to use Vandalproof in an edit way. quote "Vandalisms masked as POV issues

This is absolutely ridiculous, I'll block anyone who furthers this assassin/terrorist stuff in any of these articles about Korean independence activists :using VandalProof as a legitimate vandalism. (Wikimachine 21:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC))"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yoon_Bong-Gil

2. He has been banned more than once, twice in the last month for 3RR and for disruptive behaviour

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Wikimachine

3. He is currently facing a possible one year block for edit-waring and is banned from editing particular articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Liancourt_Rocks/Proposed_decision#Wikimachine_banned

I don't know if this violates the Vandalproof user agreement or not, but it may be worth looking into.Sennen goroshi 15:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Block of 1 year is confirmed as a result of the RfAr case listed above. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Access removed anyway. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.