KP wrote:
I'm not "refusing" to provide the name. I would like to understand the situation from a general standpoint. The Wikipedia community has a tendency not to deal with generalities... If we start with names and posts the conversation will degenerate into a discussion of this specific incident...
Okay, fair enough. (I've done the same, for the same reason. And "refuse" was too strong; I should have said "decline".)
At the end of the day, though, pretty much Wikipedia's only real defense mechanism against a determined, persistent vandal (or other anticonstructuve editor) is determined persistence on the side of righteousness and truth. There's no silver bullet; we just need to make sure the good guys substantially outnumber the bad guys, and that the bad work stays visible so it can be fixed.