User talk:IamNotU/History cleanup

"Adventure" vs. "History"
, thanks for adding the new IPs recently. Just fyi, I've decided not to list IPs that only show the childrens's and adventure films behavior. I added a new section explaining the reasons for that. I'm still not 100% certain whether they're the same person or not, but in any case, it doesn't seem like the "adventure" edits really need checking. By the way, I added a couple of IPs that show both behaviors, going all the way back to 2013! I think I'll try to open a Contributor copyright investigations case for assistance. At the rate it's been going, it would take me many months or even years to check all the contributions, though going through them I've seen that you've already taken care of a lot of them, so that's very helpful, thanks again... --IamNotU (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed the 2013 one – well spotted! I'll leave off the adventure/children's edits, then; they're useful for starting range searches, but no need to note them. If they edit TV shows, they may be, a block evader who shares the Queensland IP's interest in Australia, whom Berean Hunter's been dealing with. PetScan could be quite helpful. As a test I used it to search for articles in both Category:Australia and Category:Articles to be expanded. I've not found a way to link to the results, but you can see the same query here; simply click on the 'do it' button. That's my first go at it; I expect I can improve the results with a little fiddling. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know about PetScan, I'll have to find some time to try it out. What would be really useful is to be able to search for individual edits, including by geolocation. PS, this is definitely not Gareth; they have never left an edit summary or used a talk page, and their English language ability is very poor. Compare to Gareth here: . --IamNotU (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was unclear. I meant that if an IP you're looking at is editing children's shows, they may be Gareth rather than the Queensland IP editor, not that the Queensland IP might be Gareth. The Village pump's probably the best place to ask about complex searches. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Leaving comments about cleanup
, thanks for adding the new IP from 9-10 January. I checked the range it's in, and discovered a bunch more, which I've added. When you're cleaning up, it would be good if you could note whether you checked just the edits of the particular IP, or whether you checked the history of the article for related edits by other IPs. For example in Muslim world, the empty section added by that IP had been removed, but it looks like there were some unsourced additions to the History section from the same person via other IPs (193.116.198.180, 101.179.72.37, 121.222.88.51, etc.) that I guess haven't been checked. I'm trying to compile a list of articles that have been fully checked, so they can be ignored when going through old IP histories... --IamNotU (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, no worries. I was working on my tablet at night and it's rather slow and clunky with Wikipedia editing and switching between the app and the web versions (which it does with history and talk pages), so ended up mostly just doing what was quick and easy. So only that user. I then went through a few of the articles which popped using your search, removing the empty section but not following up IPs. I will try to do a session at the computer sometime - it's much quicker there, but I'm usually sucked into editing one of the articles I've been working on when I'm there... How do you discover the range they're in, btw ? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Under preferences > Gadgets > Advanced, there's an option that says 'Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms, as well as wildcard prefix searches'. Tick that, and then when you're looking at an IP's contributions, replace the end of the IP number with an asterisk. For example, with 223.252.62.38's edits, you could search for 223.252.62.* or 223.252.*. With the IPV6s, slice off a bit more. The more you cut off, the larger number of possible IPs you'll find; it's like an address: leave off the name of the street and the house number, and you'll end up with more possible addresses than if you only left off the house number. You'll want to limit the date range of the search, too, as these can capture a large number of IPs, and some are prolific (and not evading blocks). IamNotU likely has a better grasp of this and can explain more. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , any work helping with this is appreciated! Every day I'm finding more and more IPs and edits, it's astonishing how much effort they have put into this - and how much it will take to clean up... Btw., there's more information about IP ranges at WP:RANGE, and ip-range-calc, and other helpful websites like https://www.ultratools.com/tools/netMask. For example you can just add "/64" to the end of the URL on the contributions history page of an IPV6, and get several related addresses that are usually also used by the same person. You can also go all the way to "/32" with IPV6 numbers, but that gives a large number of results that take a lot of time to look through. IPV4s are similar, but the ranges are a bit different; "/16" is the widest you can go. --IamNotU (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra explanations, and. I'll try to have a good go at it once I've finished my current bout of editing. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

, thanks for your continued work on this! I've moved a couple of your questions here. I suggest that we try to use this page for questions, as the main page is meant more for keeping status notes, rather than discussion. I hope that's ok.


 * I think you'll find in general that many edits have already been undone at some time in the past, since almost none of them have been helpful, and most of them disruptive. People may not have been going through it in a methodical way, or keeping track of what they did. Unfortunately there will be some duplication of effort in re-checking edits.


 * The IPV6 numbers are listed in ranges, mostly /64 (see above) so you'll see several related IP numbers. --IamNotU (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I this is inevitable, I suppose. I'm getting a bit faster now that I've evolved a method for checking, so it's better now.
 * And ah yes, of course - that makes sense (re IP addresses). Thanks for that, IamNotU. Yes, makes sense to keep discussion here. I'll just update where I got to on that range again. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What's your method for checking? PS, the List of checked articles could maybe be helpful, to see which articles have already been checked. For example, here is the list of articles from the Special:Contributions/2405:7F00:981A:2F00:D076:67B5:A9F0:E0E3/64 range you're working on, with the already-checked articles filtered out:

Bahamian cuisine Kuwaiti cuisine Uncle Tetsu's Cheesecake Miso soup Czech cuisine Point Clare, New South Wales Koolewong, New South Wales Wondabyne, New South Wales Peruvian cuisine Eritrean cuisine Ethiopian cuisine Nepalese cuisine Staple food Malaysian cuisine Balinese cuisine Berber cuisine Merguez Tunisian cuisine Passiflora edulis Visual arts Mongolian cuisine Afghan cuisine Pastilla Boxing Yemeni cuisine German cuisine Arsonic acids Swimming Neapolitan ice cream Apple cider Cadbury Creme Egg Pain au chocolat Marshall Islands Lao cuisine Panzer Le Bourget Pennefather River Tomago, New South Wales Coke (fuel) Rowsley, Victoria Edgeworth, New South Wales Glendale, New South Wales Guildford, New South Wales Thorntons Brie Cream cheese Japanese cheesecake Marla, South Australia Coolac, New South Wales Walnut Ma'amoul IRT Lenox Avenue Line Saudi Arabian cuisine East Maitland, New South Wales Oyster stew Milk coffee Ōmiya Palace Massacre Attic Yandina, Queensland Eerwah Vale, Queensland Mapleton, Queensland Buderim Kunda Park, Queensland Old Cairo Wombarra, New South Wales Yenda Red wine Morne Trois Pitons National Park Midtown Manhattan Tasman Bay Bouarfa, Morocco Burradoo, New South Wales Cringila, New South Wales Bulli, New South Wales Nightlife Necrophilia Izu Ōshima Mooloolah Valley, Queensland Mooloolah River National Park Mount Coolum National Park Aratula Venice-Simplon Orient Express Restaurant Kettle Koreans Australia–Turkey relations Pranjani Plains zebra Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Christianity in Africa Namibia–Russia relations Seal Rocks, New South Wales Moreton Island East Asian people Russians Vanilla planifolia Rothwell, Queensland Kurwongbah, Queensland Allandale, Queensland Japanese cuisine Arterial road Griffin, Queensland Northgate, Queensland Geebung, Queensland Amusement park Yass, New South Wales Kooloonong, Victoria Granya Boonah, Victoria Axe Creek, Victoria Tirrannaville Brisbane Grove Joadja, New South Wales Bungonia, New South Wales Yelgun, New South Wales Mullalyup, Western Australia Mária Valéria Bridge Boggabri Clarence River (New South Wales) New Brighton, New South Wales Luxembourgish cuisine Judd mat Gaardebounen New Strand Shopping Centre Brown bear Black rhinoceros Western black rhinoceros Quagga African bush elephant The Physician (2013 film) Germany–Iraq relations Maratha Empire Quick Draw McGraw Pixie and Dixie and Mr. Jinks Fred Flintstone Barney Rubble Huckleberry Hound Caroline Islands IGA (supermarkets) Mollusca Nerang River Beerwah, Queensland Royal Natal National Park UKhahlamba-Drakensberg Park Namaqua National Park Maleny, Queensland Five Points Correctional Facility Hunchy, Queensland Guanaba Mitsubishi Delica Tallebudgera, Queensland Burleigh Heads, Queensland Tugun, Queensland


 * I can add articles to the "checked" list, if people indicate that they have fully checked articles' histories for edits from other IPs and fixed all problems, particularly unsourced or copyrighted material. Several times I've seen that they added copyrighted material that was reverted but not redacted, then came back later and added an empty section again. It takes a lot longer to check that, so I'm not saying everyone has to do it, just removing the empty sections is also helpful. But it would be good to indicate which one has been done. --IamNotU (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I recognise some of those titles. I've just been clicking on diff, and found nearly all of them have been empty history sections. After a while I realised it was quickest to look at the current version of each article and check for history sections. I removed any empty ones, and in a couple of places made other minor tweaks to improve the article. I didn't really scrutinise the rest of the article content, except in one case I googled to check some text that looked as if it could copyvio, but the only matches were sites that had copied from Wikipedia. I'll try to get back to it in the next few days. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, good, thanks. Btw, you might find the "common history" script useful, it lets you inspect diffs directly from the history page. Copy this: User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/commonHistory.js to your common.js page. See also User scripts/List. Since I started using it, I still waste as much time on Wikipedia, but I get a lot more done! --IamNotU (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I find it more difficult/time-consuming to check a list of articles, and to add to it, than to simply click on the history links, so I'll continue with the cleanup and reporting new IPs as I find them. As I keep JavaScript turned off most of the time, it's unlikely I'll be using the script. It's good to know about it, all the same. I've been reviewing PetScan lists of articles in overlapping categories of Australia (and up to five levels of subcategories) and articles to be updated by month. I started with November 2016 and have got through July 2017. All I've found thus far are several Australian editors who are keen to add empty/expand section tags, but who aren't, as far as I can tell, the Queensland IP. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, whatever works for you! I find being able to instantly open and close diffs right in the history page, and to see and compare several diffs at once, is a huge time-saver, but if you don't use javascript it's moot... I also find going through everything IP by IP is helpful for me, because I can cross them off when they're finished, and that serves as a record of what's already been checked. I've been using searches mainly to identify new IPs that I put in the list. If people prefer to go through and check/repair by search results instead (I'm not sure if that's what you're doing - I do see that you've marked several IPs as checked), or some other method, that's also fine, as I said every effort helps. It's just that it's a bit more scattershot and if it's not possible to keep track of what's been checked, it may mean more duplication of effort, since people going through an IP edit history may find half of them already done, as Laterthanyouthink noted above. That's to be expected, since many editors have been cleaning things up in the past, but generally if there's a way to keep track it would be nice.
 * About the list of checked articles (about 400 so far), that's also something I'm doing mainly for my own workflow, though maybe it could be useful to others. I use it to filter out articles not to check in edit histories. I don't expect people to add to the list, but if they note that they've finished a particular IP or range, then I can take that whole edit history and add it. The only problem is that I'm still not completely sure what other people mean by "checked" or "finished"...
 * The way I'm working is to look at an IP's edit history, and then look at the edit history of each article they edited. I'll look at their edit, see if it's been reverted or needs fixing, and also look at any related/suspicious edits to the "history" section, since they often come back to the same article multiple times from different IPs. When I'm done with that IP's edit history, I add all the articles to my list of checked articles, since I know I don't need to come back to them. When I go to the next IP's edit history list, I paste it into a text file and generate a filtered list, taking out the ones that are already finished, and the duplicates. That sometimes significantly reduces the number of articles to be checked for each IP, especially if there are a hundred or more edits in the history. --IamNotU (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've just updated the one I've finished. Sorry, didn't update list of articles and no time now. I think I have that Java gadget because when I hover on "diff" it shows the change(?). I'll come back to it when I can. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! You don't need to update the list of checked articles. When IPs or ranges are finished, I'll add them. I have some scripts on my computer that I'm using for that. I've never seen it show a diff just by hovering, maybe I'm missing something. The Javascript produces some green links that say "inspect diff" and you can show or hide them. --IamNotU (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Changes to "Heritage listings"
What has everyone been doing about changes to "Heritage listings" that put them as subsections of "History" etc.? I've generally been reverting them for consistency with other articles (though it's difficult to say now whether the majority have been changed already). It looks like it's the preference of, who has done a lot of work on them, I've seen that she has reverted a number of them too. It seems to me that a "History" section is about past events over time, in chronological order. So the listing of buildings doesn't seem to fit into that. I could see it in an "Architecture" or similar section I suppose, but this just seems like part of the user's obsession with putting everything under "History", and I don't think it's an improvement. Also, the one extra level of subsections just makes the layout visually more complicated than necessary, when most of these articles have only the first level of sections. Does it seem worthwhile to undo them? --IamNotU (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just been grappling with the same issue! I have mostly been reverting, although in one or two cases seemed OK as was (near other stuff about buildings) and in one case moving down to a more appropriate section about architecture and old buildings. I've given up for now though (tired and slow tablet). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Having spent a month reading Wikioedia from a mobile device, I learned an important lesson. You get offered a table of Contents only of the Headings not the Sub-headings and below. So unless it’s 100% obvious that a subsection belongs in a section, leave it as a section or else the reader won’t find it. I note that over 50% of our hits are from mobile now, which is something we don’t appreciate as writers of a Wikipedia (who mostly sit at a desktop/laptop). Also as the heritage listings is a list section, I tend to put them towards the end of that article with other lists, and have the earlier sections be more narrative in character, but I am not sure if this is a MoS guidance or just my personal preference. Anyhow that’s my 10c. Kerry (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Active again
I had a notification about a change on Abbisad Caliphate this morning, by Special:Contributions/58.161.97.90, and it is within this range which you have listed already: Special:Contributions/58.161.0.0/16 (which link, I have just realised, includes the whole range - handy!). Obviously active again/still. Looks like most have been reverted, but will have to keep an eye on them. Can the whole range not be blocked? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , ask about the possibility of a rangeblock. (Just as a note, I'm here but scarcely editing due to gloom over the whole Fram (caution: very large page) thing.) BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I tried at the AIV page, but Oshwah said the range was too large, didn't block any, but has left the comments there...? (I'm only .1% here just now owing to travel planning stress - so your link is a bit TL;DR for me today!) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Try posting on NinjaRobotPirate's talk page. They're a good judge of what can/can't be blocked, and familiar with this issue. The Fram page would be tl;dr for almost anyone not 1) desperately insomniac and/or 2) stuck in an airport/bus station for well over a day with nothing else to read. This Buzzfeed story isn't entirely accurate, but is a reasonably good starting point and can be read in under an hour. It's serious. Several hundred editors have posted about what's going on, and over a dozen admins have resigned. (See WP:BN or WP:Former administrators/chronological/2019.) BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Buzzfeed link,  - that was about as much as I could deal with, but sad to read. I hope that a solution is reached via discussion and consensus - it is disappointing that Wp seems to be suffering some of the ills of "social media". I have posted on NinjaRobotPirate's page (didn't tag you or IaNY, figuring there was enough else going on for now). I will keep an eye on that group of IPs when I remember and have time. Thanks for your ongoing participation in this pesky problem. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not around much these days either... thanks for spotting that IP. Yes, unfortunately the 58.161.* range is too large, 65,000 addresses would have to be blocked to cover it, and that has included numerous other good-faith editors recently, so they'll have to be done individually as they're discovered. There isn't a smaller range that would cover it. We can try to keep an eye on it, and NinjaRobotPirate knows about the sitation so is a good person to ask about blocking obvious socks. --IamNotU (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, and thanks for doing more clean-up work. I should be able to find more time after next week. Should I be reverting whatever they do now, regardless of quality (I have found the odd trivial one which is just passable), on the grounds of block evasion? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

, there are two policies which might apply. The policy on edits by banned users says edits by banned editors should be reverted. The policy on edits by blocked users says '(H)elpful changes...can be allowed to stand.' Is the IP a blocked user or a banned user? You and I don't know; NinjaRobotPirate does. Although obligated as a checkuser not to connect IP numbers and user names, I don't think that clarifying whether this person is blocked or banned will violate that. Tl;dr: Ask NinjaRobotPirate whether the IP is evading a block or a ban and act accordingly. And let us know, too, of course. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, . I haven't investigated further re that IP, but just had a quick look at the range and noticed that they'd gone quiet but 58.161.79.235 has been busy, until a few days ago. I think that I reverted all but one. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , you can revert whatever they do on the grounds of block evasion, regardless of quality, but you don't have to. Whether you should is a judgement call that you have to make yourself. Most block evasion should be reverted but there's some leeway. Some editors will ignore edits that seem "helpful", others will revert pretty much everything. My own approach is to always revert block evasion, unless the revert would significantly damage an article. The overall damage done by allowing a blocked user to evade their block is almost always greater than the value of any particular edit. The hope is that they'll see that all their edits are being reverted, and get bored and maybe find another hobby...
 * JohnLickor372 is banned according to WP:THREESTRIKES, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JohnLickor372. Whether any particular IP editor is the same person can't be divulged by checkusers like NinjaRobotPirate, as noted, so it can only be surmised by the WP:DUCK test. If an IP is very obviously a sock of a blocked and/or banned user, you can revert. But you have to take responsibility for that, because accusing another editor of sock puppetry without sufficient evidence is against WP:AGF. If there's any doubt, a WP:SPI report should be opened.
 * , my understanding is that there's no real difference between a blocked and banned user, in terms of whether their edits can or should be reverted. The only practical difference is that any admin can unblock a blocked user, but a community discussion is required to unban a banned one. According to WP:BLOCKEVASION and WP:BANREVERT, which both say the same thing, all edits can be reverted, but it doesn't mean they must be, and obviously-helpful edits, even by banned users, can be allowed to stand. But again, it says "can be allowed to stand", not "should be allowed to stand". WP:BMB explains the rationale for reverting even "good" edits rather than letting them stand, and although it's only in the banning policy and not the blocking policy, I think the principle is still valid for both. --IamNotU (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * PS, Lately I've been mentioning block evasion in reverts of some of the older edits, because some of the recent editing clearly shows that the "adventure films" and the "history section" person are one and the same, meaning that "history section" person has been blocked for a long time already. I think it sometimes helps explain why I'm reverting something, like a change in section header levels that's not helpful, but not obviously harmful, where otherwise it might not be really obvious why I'm reverting it. --IamNotU (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment on one group of IPs
I put a note under one of the groups listed to refer here for comment... I've just checked recent changes by that group of IPs and they seem mostly legit (some uncited sports stuff, but original uncited too so left those alone), apart from the last one by 1.132.107.88, which was outright vandalism of a different type. The changes don't look like the work of our usual History Man. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Belated update
I've just requested a block by NinjaRP on Special:Contributions/1.128.105.47, and previous to that Special:Contributions/124.19.16.206 and Special:Contributions/144.130.156.129. (I've reverted their changes. Adventure films and History sections.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks... I checked those IPs for related ones, and found a bunch in 1.128.*, and cleaned them up. Fyi, I've been putting block requests at . --IamNotU (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

New worker, checking in
As may know, I am not familiar with the technical stuff you are discussing above. I chose one IP, under the IPV4 heading, 100-199 range & checked that exact number, Special:Contributions/120.151.0.112. Starting with the oldest diff, I examined each edit. Although none appeared to be malicious, some of the older movie categories and edits to NON-"list of adventure movies" been changed. Most of the text was movie entries and categories. I did not find any empty sections, CCI material, etc. Guess I was lucky. It allowed me to check for bare urls, my bete noir, along the way.

I will strike this number off the list and keep going, unless you think I should do something in a different way.  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  18:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pitching in, ! Personally, I'm not bothering to examine any of the old "adventure film" or "visa requirement" edits, though you're welcome to if you like. I don't know whether there's anything wrong with them or not. At first I wasn't sure whether it was even the same person, and I've just been focusing on the obviously-disruptive changes to history sections, and especially looking for unsourced contributions and copyright violations. The first number you chose, 120.151.0.112, seems to have only the former types of edits; if I'd known that I wouldn't even have put it on the list.
 * Fyi, when I cross something off, or write that it's finished, it means that I've not only checked all the edits from that IP, but that I've checked the entire history of each article they edited (unless it's a film or visa etc. article), looking for edits of theirs from other IPs, because that happens often. So I've made sure the article is clean. Then I add the article to a list of already-checked articles I have, so that I don't have to check them again when I find them in the other IPs' histories. It would be helpful if other people could indicate whether they've only checked the specific edits of a particular IP, or the whole articles that the IP edited, so I can know whether to add the articles to the "already-checked" list.
 * If you want to work on an IP or range that has a lot of edits, I can generate a list of articles to check, with the already-checked ones removed, if that helps. One other thing, I avoid the word "vandal" in edit summaries etc., because they seem to believe they're actually helping Wikipedia, misguided as it is... --IamNotU (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * , Starting with the easiest part: I believe the difference btwn a Vandal and a good faith, but misguided or misinformed edit is "intent". "Jimmy is a poopyhead" (and worse) is vandalism. Despite the block evasion, I've only seen one vandal-type edit, which was a wikivoyage link for Gollum, the Tolkien character! I was greatly daring & wrote block evasion on two "empty history" edit summaries today, but I am happy to skip that, per WP:BEANS. Perhaps if they think we don't notice, it won't be fun? The copyright removals do need to be explained, of course.


 * Special:Contributions/120.151.0.112 has 163 edits. Only seven of them are NOT to movies, tv, travel or visas. How do you find other edits that they may have made? Do you check the IP edits to see if they geolocate to Australia? Because I am looking for reference problems also, I first look at the diff, and then I look through the article to find their edit & make a determination. Then I fix the IP edit & move on to the refs. Not sure if this is detailed enough to find all the problems. Let know your thoughts...


 * Same for Special:Contributions/120.151.85.96, which I have pursued today, and have found a couple of History sections. I will start skipping the "List of" movies and Visas from now on, and check the full article, per your direction, as requested above.


 * If you want to generate a list for me, that is good too. I am retired, but still have to cook. Will be back later. Regards,  Tribe of Tiger  Let's Purrfect!  23:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity :-) You're right that one in Gollum is really bizarre, but I still wouldn't call it vandalism, knowing their history I'd say it's still serious incompetence... Anyway, I've been starting to write "block evasion" for some of the older history-related edits. We know for sure they are blocked/banned since 25 May 2019; before that it depends on them being the same person as the one doing the adventure films etc. edits, who was blocked long ago. For a while I wasn't sure, but I think its been established beyond a reasonable doubt now. For empty sections it isn't necessary, they can just be removed. Sometimes though, there are edits that don't stand out as obviously harmful, though they're not helpful, and I mention the block evasion so it's clear I'm not just arbitrarily reverting another editor in good standing.
 * When I'm working on one of the IPs, first I look at their edit history, and filter out articles I've already checked using some scripts on my computer. Then I open the edit history of each of the articles, and find the edit by date. A lot of the time it's already been undone. But I also look through the whole article edit history, usually back to mid 2018 or so, for other suspicious IP edits without edit summaries to the History section, etc. By now I can usually recognize the Queensland IP numbers. I use the User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/inlineDiffDocs script that speeds up looking at diffs on edit history pages tremendously. Then I fix those edits too. If necessary I'll check that IP's edit history for typical edits, and check the geolocation to the Brisbane area, and add it to the main list if it's not already there.
 * For example, with Special:Contributions/120.151.85.96, first I wouldn't look at the edits prior to January, because they're all adventure film type stuff. Then I'd filter out the articles I've already checked, which leaves:

Edit of list by Tribe of Tiger
22Aug 18:30
 * Bouzigues ✅
 * Kyle, Texas ✅ IamNotU. Sorry, I did not realize I should have removed the wikivoyage.
 * Gollum ✅
 * Wallerawang Power Station ✅
 * West Bali National Park ✅ Blackcurrant
 * Tlahuelilpan ✅
 * Nyngan ✅ (tiny copyedts to section size, fine)
 * Maroochy River, Queensland ✅
 * United States–Uzbekistan relations ✅ Raywas92
 * United States–Zambia relations ✅ Raywas92
 * Imprisonment ✅ History section added, but article has been expanded, so appropriate now
 * Floor ✅ Laterthanyouthink
 * Benin–China relations ✅ added a space, fine
 * Christmas in Australia and New Zealand ✅ Ajf773
 * West Woombye, Queensland ✅


 * Starting with "Bouzigues", I'd check that the 12 February edit has been undone already, and there isn't anything else before or after that. In "Kyle, Texas", I'd find the 29 January edit, and I'd also look back and find on 5 January the same edit by a similar IP, 120.153.204.176, which was reverted by an admin for block evasion - so because of that I'd revert the second one too, which I just did... though usually I don't bother with the Wikivoyage links. Then I'd check the edit history of 120.153.204.176. In this case I wouldn't add it to the main list, because it's all just external links on adventure films etc., and no "history" edits. Then I'd just keep going on more or less like that, and when done, add those article names to my "checked articles" list.
 * You don't have to do it the same way, the other people helping also have their own methods. If you want to deal with adventure film type edits too that's no problem, and for example NinjaRobotPirate usually blocks and reverts those. But I'd prefer to keep the IPs that are exclusively those out of the list, because I don't really care about them and there's already too much work for me just with the history stuff. On the other hand, if I see any new edits of that type I'll revert them, though NinjaRobotPirate usually finds them first. Hope that helps. --IamNotU (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!
Yes, this is very helpful. I see why checking the entire article history first is preferable to looking at the article. The list of articles above is familiar, because I "looked" at all of then yesterday! I will now go back thru and check the history of each. I will make notes on any new/possibly new IP numbers to check against your master list.

But I also look through the whole article edit history, usually back to mid 2018 or so, for other suspicious IP edits without edit summaries to the History section, etc.

This stmt is encouraging bcause I had a moment of panic when I opened one IP on the list and saw edits dating back to 2010! Whew! I will be generous with the "or so". And skip the adventure films which will save time. Will investigate WritKeeper, too. Thanks & will keep you posted.  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  17:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The oldest I've found for them is 2013, they're already doing the same type of history edits to the same articles: Special:Contributions/60.228.88.169, Special:Contributions/60.231.92.206, Special:Contributions/124.186.78.177. It's so similar that it's hard to believe it could be a different person. But then they sort of disappear for a long time. I haven't found anything in 2014. There's very little in 2015, 2016, then it seems like they focus on the adventure film stuff for a long time, and then start up with the history stuff with a vengance again only in late 2018. So searching back any further than that has diminishing returns... --IamNotU (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * They are strange! I will focus on 2018 to present. I edited your list above, with notes. Will recheck the first IP I did (120.151.0.112) with the "new" system, and then move to the next. I will leave a note, as before, under the number I am checking.  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  18:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Notes and a question
Thanks for continuing to help with this! Just a couple of notes:
 * I undid the addition of Special:Contributions/2405:7F00:981A:2F00:8800:EF19:26BF:E37A, because it's already included in the one below, Special:Contributions/2405:7F00:981A:2F00:D076:67B5:A9F0:E0E3/64. The IPV6 numbers are always in a range, the smallest being /64. I don't add single IPV6 numbers. Strictly speaking I should write the above as Special:Contributions/2405:7F00:981A:2F00::/64, but in practice I've just added the /64 onto the end of whichever number I found first, and it amounts to the same thing.
 * The dates in brackets after the IP number are the dates the edits were made, not the dates the entry was checked/fixed. For that, I usually leave a note with my signature to show the date it was checked/fixed.
 * They often return to the same article numerous times. Could you tell me, when you strike one out or say "all done", have you checked through the history of each article for other edits from the same user but a different IP and date? Or have you just fixed the particular edits of that IP? In the former case, I can add all the article names to the list of checked articles, so that I don't have to check them again if I'm going through another IP's history. In the latter case, I'd prefer it if you didn't strike them out, but just leave a note with your signature that you checked the edits but not the full article histories.

Thanks again... --IamNotU (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm so sorry I've caused you more work. If it's easier, please feel free to revert my other changes. Your pages keep showing up on my watchlist, and I realised belatedly that I'm too distracted to help with this right now (and probably will be for a bit). When I struck through the IP or marked it all done, I checked that particular IP's edits. I do go back through the articles' histories: Almost all the IPs were already on your list; the few I didn't see I added. The only one I didn't get to is Special:Contributions/1.143.153.45. Apologies, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I've been meaning to drop a comment to express gratitude to for pitching in, and to apologise for going AWOL in recent times. I got caught up with a whole lot of connected articles, resulting in having to make notes about other things to come back to, etc., plus going away for a few weeks from Sunday has brought more distraction (not to mention travel anxiety!). I will check in sometime in October again and try to use your methods, IamNotU. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize and ! Your efforts have saved a lot of time already, and meant that a considerable amount of the cleanup was done much sooner than I've had time for. It's not very exciting work, and whatever amount of time you can afford to spend on it is very much appreciated...
 * BlackcurrantTea, thanks for letting me know that the articles' histories have been checked, I'll add the ones from the IPs you crossed off to the list of checked articles. Laterthanyouthink, hope you have a good trip, see you back next month! --IamNotU (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)