Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

"Best Known For" IP
Shortcut:
WP:LTA/BKFIP
Wikilifespan2004–present
ISPO2 (UK), EE Limited, The Bloomsbury Computing Consortium, various open Wifi services
Known IPs
Physical locationLondon, usually central UK, active traveler (Chile, China, Greece, Spain, Italy)
Sockpuppet investigationsWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Best known for IP
InstructionsReport excessive verbal abuse. Please link WP:ANI / WP:AN3 reports to this long-term abuse report, and then please update this report with the latest information. See logs in Special:AbuseFilter/667
StatusActive

Basic information

"Best known for" IP (BKFIP) is an editor who has been repeatedly blocked since 2011 due to edit warring and incivility. They were community banned in 2016.[1]

Often editing from IPs around London but has also edited from Chile and other foreign IP and appears to travel frequently, the editor will regularly remove the phrase "best known for" or other superlatives claiming violation of WP:NPOV and edit war over it with personal attacks. In 2017, BKFIP started using sockpuppet accounts, and has continued to edit both logged in via sock accounts and logged out via IPs.

Targeted areas, pages, themes

  • Varies widely, from sports to astronomy to music to pop culture TV and film.

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 many 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.

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

They may also make accusations of poor English against editors with whom they are in dispute (example).

They have a limited knowledge of wikipedia policy and guideline and will attempt to bluff/bullshit their way through related discussions (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145#User:Levivich and Self-referential humor).

Cases

Other notes

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

Many are near London: 46.37.55.80, 82.33.71.205, 83.223.124.17, 92.234.25.254, etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also near London 51.7.229.224, 51.7.34.168, 51.7.229.207. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP can geolocate pretty much anywhere, I've noticed Canada, California, Australia. Appears to travel frequently. WCMemail 07:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Latest "contributions" appear to be from New Zealand. Usual aggressive comments and poor editing, see Wow! signal. Blocked again. David J Johnson (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User comments

Extended content

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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", [8]. He has no concept of consensus or reliable sources and rides roughshod over both.

This editor has also been blocked for block evasion [9], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive729#Editor from Chile using multiple ip addresses to evade blocks Discussion from 2011 at WP:ANI. Note the diff [10], where he admits to manipulating his IP to block evade. There is also an extreme example of 8RR and block by Bongwarrior. See also Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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 [11] "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)[reply]
I went back this evening to a couple of posts that the IP made. In particular this one [12], where the IP editor states:


I've quoted it in full this time as Drmies states in this follow up edit summary [13] 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:


This is the exchange referenced. The sequence:
[14] IP makes 3 edits - the tag notes references removed
[15] 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.
[16] IP reimposes his edits again - the tag notes references removed
[17] OberRanks citing this abusive personal attack on Kierzek's talk page
[18] IP simply reverts with an abusive edit summary
[19] Kierzek reverts and again goes on to edit to improve the article, suggesting a compromise
[20] IP reverts
[21] OberRanks reverts
[22] Kierzek suggests another compromise edit
[23] IP reverts, the edit summary begins "When you apologise for then offensive false accusations, then maybe we can start talking about "compromises"
[24] No one used the talk page.
However, [25] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius

I have encountered this user on occasion, but when I do, I notice that while this IP may make good edits, their edit-warring and personal attacks n the few edits that are bad outweigh anything that they add to the articles. As above, they do not care about BRD, NPA, or 3RR, and they sometimes will do this even while blocked; for example, on this talk page. More on this later. Epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this block was lifted after the user agreed not to edit war or make personal attacks (see below). I'll accept the IP editor's apology as long as he does good with his promise. Epicgenius (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AlanS

I have encountered this user on occasion and I most say that whatever potentially good edits they make are vastly outnumbered by the snide personal attacks and reverting against consensus. No good ever comes from anything they touch. If they were able to be pinned down to a username a indef would be in order. AlanStalk 12:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yngvadottir

Per discussion at User talk:190.163.4.132#Unstoppable trolling, where the editor undertook not to make personal attacks or edit war in response to reverts and instead to bring them to my or others' attention for consideration, the 6-month block placed on that IP has been lifted and I will be provisionally unblocking all other IPs blocked as being used by this editor. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ATinySliver

Active edit war at Larry Ellison. (82.33.71.205 seems likely the same editor.) I've attempted what I think is a reasoned response; we'll see what happens. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 06:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No question its the same editor (see note below). - SummerPhD (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Slon02

I'm finding it difficult to determine whether the edits to the articles themselves are constructive or destructive. Some of the more recent ones are in [26]. While situations that result in edit warring, personal attacks, or block evasion should result in blocks, I don't see the article changes themselves as being patently disruptive. My question would be if those changes should be reverted, or if it should be handled on a case-by-case basis per article.--Slon02 (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Beyond My Ken

It is completely irrelevant whether this editor's contributions are "productive" or not, or, rather, if they would be acceptable if they came from another editor. The "Best known for IP" is blocked, and any edit they make is therefore block evasion. Further, any editor with a history of long-term abuse such as this one has should be considered de facto banned, and their edits reverted on sight. Any worthwhile changes which an editor in good standing wishes to take personal responsibility for and revert back, that's fine, but we should not put ourselves in the position of having to evaluate the quality of a blocked or de facto banned editor's work - it simply plays into their hands, encouraging them to feel as if they are justified in breaking the rules and editing through a block because they are "improving the encyclopedia". This is dangerous as it undermines the entire purpose of blocking and banning, which are among the very small number of tools that are available for keeping things in proper order around the place. Deletion on sight, followed by a block, is a reasonable and practical response to disruptive and tendentious editors such as this. BMK (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Robert McClenon

There have been recent reports of a disruptive editor who, on first glance, appears to be the Best Known for IP, but whom User:Berean Hunter has concluded is not the Best Known for IP. The recent editor is editing from the United States and uses American English spellings, such as "behavior", and so is probably a Best Known for Copy-Cat. The copy-cat makes large numbers of edits removing "best known for" phrases in lede paragraphs. As with the original, the edits might be appropriate if discussed properly. It is the indiscriminate nature and number of the edits that is disruptive. The proper response by a non-admin editor appears to be: revert the edits; request semi-protection of the page; report the copy-cat to WP:AIV, noting that this is a Best Known for Copy-Cat. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lithopsian

More not-quite BKIP blocks here. I had "exchanges" with User:Pe19 and have come across edits by User:Reedsrecap (which I just added to the list, block log reports WP:BKIP), two of the most recent blocked socks. In both cases, the m.o. has changed from classic BKIP, and I wouldn't have associated either with the other or with BKIP. Both sets of edits could be considered good-faith for the most part. The responses to any challenge were hardly exemplary, although tended to stop short of outright abuse. Not to say they shouldn't fall under this umbrella, just curious variations. Lithopsian (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Incnis Mrsi

Edits articles of every kind, not only biographies. Doesn’t conserve quantity of edits, preferring to edit sections separately in a fast sequence. Makes characteristic[1] edit summaries, sometimes detailed and conveying a pretense of wide knowledge of policies and guidelines. In fact, the puppeteer’s understanding of the Wikipedian style is shallow. When confronted, usually goes to war without any diplomacy, but is also capable of deliberate delays (e.g. to avoid a determined opponent). Is completely obsessed with problems of style and doesn’t contribute in sensible fixes, let alone creation of content of any value. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Won’t describe in detail how namely is his language characteristic on a publicly visible page.

Comments from XOR'easter

BKFIP has a penchant for deleting image galleries (calling the pictures within them redundant even when they are varied), removing inter-language links ({{Interlanguage link}} may be used on over 55,000 pages but it's still somehow a deplorable practice), expunging bold text ("per MOS:BOLD" even when MOS:BOLD would allow it), and cutting "jargon" (even when explained, wiki-linked and appropriate for the context). XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Andrew nyr

I made the mistake of reverting an edit from this user while I was on rc patrol. The user resorted to verbal attacks and talked about how I was on a "revert spree" because I was doing rc patrol. He claimed that I should not blindly revert, which I was not doing. I truly wish the user could have just engaged with a civil conversation with me instead of using unkind language in edit summaries. As happened in the past, this user will be back and more ip's will be added to this page.
Until then, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 05:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

BKFIP has a perennial problem with the word "common" in the lead of Tourette syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wizzito

I believe that he is also using VPNs and proxys to circumvent his blocks. wizzito | say hello! 01:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Ad Orientem

I have blocked the 82.132.192.0/18 range for three years. The history of WP:DE in that range, much of which looks like him, is extremely long. As is the already existing block log for the range. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed and suspected IP addresses

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

Known range blocks

The user regularly switches IPs to evade blocks. Former and ongoing range blocks include:

Range Expiry date
85.13.238.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2016-07-16
190.20.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2016-10-17
181.114.128.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2016-10-21
190.49.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2016-10-22
190.45.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2016-11-02
190.232.70.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2016-11-27
2.25.45.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2018-09-16
95.145.130.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2018-10-09
82.13.100.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2019-01-28
202.134.28.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2020-07-19
51.7.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2019-08-25
37.152.231.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2020-04-08
46.208.236.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2021-06-20
92.41.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2020-01-29
46.208.128.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2020-04-21
51.7.0.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2020-05-21
37.152.192.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2024-01-19
2a00:23c8:8e86:f400::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2020-06-17
82.132.220.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2020-09-14
46.208.152.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2022-08-28
82.132.192.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) 2025-09-04

Named accounts

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP

Leave a Reply