Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Question for the volunteers

Does it actually make it easier for blocking admins when I report rapid-fire whack-a-mole instances like 176.7.8.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) returning 8 minutes later as 176.7.4.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on the same pages? I'm very eager to nip things in the bud but I'm curious if there are any common reporting behaviors that accidentally create more work for admins rather than expediting the process as much as possible. Remsense ‥ 论 03:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Any administrator can answer this, not only functionaries – If they're on the same small number of pages you're better off requesting page protection. If they vary their targets but their IPs are on a small range (WP:RANGE), you should post about it with the appropriate evidence at WP:ANI. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 09:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I was using that word for flair, I actually didn't know that was a role, oops! Thanks for letting me know so I can stop confusing people. Remsense ‥ 论 09:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably worth pointing out that this in fact now at ANI (currently here). I don't have a better answer for you. It kinda depends how whac-a-mole things are and how well it can be reported. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it was entirely just the tangent point—I've been meaning to ask admins on the other side of the AIV process if certain things impede or help them for a bit. Remsense ‥ 论 09:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I hear that, and it kinda depends (and opinions may differ). When there's something like a board invasion involving hundreds of IPs on a limited set of articles, it's sometimes not worth blocking individuals and going straight for protection. If it's a limited set of IPs, say within a small range like 176.7.* above, there's no harm and some benefit to reporting them individually. The admins will see the range patterns, and the bot will clear them all if range blocked. Some people can actually report ranges, but admins need to see specific examples. For more complicated scenarios, ANI makes sense. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Bot removing entries when including a link to a blocked IP to show block evasion

At 13.44 - I added a report "43.247.122.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) block evasion by 43.247.122.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) same falsification of statistics - rangeblock requested"
At 13.48 - HBC AIV helperbot14 removed my request with an edit summary of "5 users left, rm 43.247.122.4 (blocked by Joyous!)"
It appears that the bot will not let me be helpful and show the edits by the original IP that the new IP is block-evading around
Can this problem be avoided or at least warned about? - Thanks _ Arjayay (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Arjayay: The bot just looks for the templates 'vandal', 'ipvandal' and 'user-uaa' in the report, and if any are blocked it removes the entire thing.

I think that you can use redirects like iplinks or IPvan, since that's not one of the 3 it uses. – 2804:F14:80E8:FC01:C4BA:71FE:6F4D:7E5E (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

For this I just try to do either the IP range, and leave the former sock unlinked so that it gets admin eyes and they know what to do. Nate • (chatter) 17:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The official Wikipedia page for the Golden Spiral is being vandalized by fans of the show JoJo's Bizarre Adventure who purposefully change the name of the inventor of the Golden Spiral from Euclid the greek mathematician to a fictional character in the show known as Gyro Zepelli and this isn't tolerable

The main user contributing to this issue is known as Tukumslativian and the other being Goldminer24 2A02:C7C:66C8:B800:2D00:918E:8D03:ADC1 (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

And now that a Reddit community spread this its only gonna be more people messing up the wiki page 2A02:C7C:66C8:B800:2D00:918E:8D03:ADC1 (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Golden spiral article semi-protected for two weeks. Favonian (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism and missinformation on the articles about argentinian nineteenth century parties

This is about these articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federalist_Party_(Argentina) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Party

The user Vif12vf keeps reverting my edits correcting the misconception that the Unitarian Party is left wing and the Federalist party is right wing. I have provided arguments in my comments on the edits and on my and his talk page but he just erases it.

No argentine historian has ever said that the unitarians were left wing, this is just a stupid childish interpretation. EmpyrosHunyadi (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@EmpyrosHunyadi: This is not the page for reporting vandalism – you're looking for Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. This talk page is for discussing that page. Anyway, Vif12vf's edits don't seem to be vandalism. The two of you are having a content dispute, so please use the methods for resolving content disputes. I suggest starting a discussion at Talk:Federalist Party (Argentina) and/or Talk:Unitarian Party. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Sleeper PR/spam accounts

I often come across sleeper PR role accounts while jumping between articles. Those that are used cyclically or only as needed under company's control. For example and go hibernate until there's a change they want to make. How should these sleeper accounts be handled? Sometimes they're accepted. Sometimes they're rejected as "stale" for not having edited for xx days, weeks, months. Asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Handling_of_promo_only_role_accounts_in_AIV also. Graywalls (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)