Jump to content

User talk:NinjaRobotPirate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Owynhart (talk | contribs) at 22:23, 25 March 2020 (→Topic ban at Cultural Impact of Michael Jackson page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Did you know that F5 is the "generate drama" key? Try it! Every time you press it, more drama is auto-generated on Wikipedia.
I hope you find my addition to your talk page aggravating and stressful, just the way you like it! :) Natureium (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Why have you reverted edits to this page [1] and deleted one of the sources that was backing those edits? 77.46.236.225 (talk) 09:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you'll see from your block log, it was because of block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
  • Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sock User:SwarSadhak is active again

Hi you have blocked indef the above mentioned sock but I think they are active again through their IP here [2] and here [3]. Their range of IPs are blocked but sleeper 140.177.205.223 is active again. Kthxbay (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I semiprotected the articles. That should help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would do. Regards. Kthxbay (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello just want to bring into your attention that another sleeper IP of the above mentioned master sock got active here [4] and here [5] with same type of abusive editing. Seems like they never rest. Kthxbay (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 31 hours. If more random IPs show up, I can semi-protect these articles, too. I'm not convinced these IPs are all controlled by the same person, but the behavioral evidence seems to indicate that something is going on. It's got to at least be WP:MEAT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay sure and you are correct it can be at least WP:MEAT. Shall let you know if more sleeper accounts show up. Regards. Kthxbay (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sock is active again throught the Ips on Tarana and Indian classical music. Please look into this. Regards.Kthxbay (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I semi-protected the articles for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Kthxbay (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are mentioned...

FYI. I mentioned you here: WP:AN/I#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral notice

As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you ninjarobotpirate for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Could you be my friend? Littelcat456 (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lonely, chimeric life, I suppose.-- Deepfriedokra 14:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might consider checking out the Teahouse, our forum for new users. It's very friendly and full of helpful people. But if you have trouble with something on Wikipedia, you could ask me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Quirke

Sorry i do not understand,her dob has always on here,it dissappeared,sorry i dont see why you call it poorly looked up and why you do not want Paulines dob on here?Sorry if this conflicts with you?.why did you delete it originally?It is everywhere on the net as this date,Can i ask which country where you come from? ~~ Drew270 ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew270 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick check request

Plotagontheanimator2918 and Xavior 3.10 match a pattern of editing of animation tv shows and adding unsourced "cancelled platforms" to video games (typically they claim that the game was cancelled for all other platforms of a given generation, even though it was never announced for them). I believe they're likely the same, and probably other sleepers or accounts in use. I don't have a list but I've blocked them on IPs in the past as well. -- ferret (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add BigTissycheesy to the list, started reverting me after I reverted and blocked Xavior for unsourced content. -- ferret (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret: Plotagontheanimator2918 and Xavior 3.10 are Red X Unrelated. They're editing from different continents, so I'm pretty sure of that result. Dreamcast28 is  Confirmed to Plotagontheanimator2918, though. BigTissycheesy is My Royal Young, an LTA vandal who sometimes screws with people like this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Well familiar with MRY but he's typically a little more.. obvious. Blocked Dreamcast28, but only tagged Plotagontheanimator2918 for now, no block. -- ferret (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, MRY is usually a bit more overt, but I've seen him do this before. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GOOD morning

It looks like a greeting, but it's a sock operator. Hi NRP, Ravensfire raised a concern on my talk page that Yevaraina might be a sock of GOOD morning, however, I'm sure that account info is way stale. What do you recommend here? There was also a suggestion that Yogirockrajesh, which has seen recent activity might be related to both. I see a lot of interest in the actress Jyothika and both Yevaraina and GOOD morning have a lot of intersections when the users only logged about 500 edits each. I'm not 100% sure about Yogi, since they made this batch of edits which was removed by Yevaraina, but there are a few intersections including at Jyothika. Anyway, your input/help is appreciated. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to take so long responding. Yeah, everything is totally stale. I don't really know what to suggest. I've seen people revert their own sock puppets before, but that revert looks like a genuine content dispute to me. I'm not familiar enough with the sock master to tell who's a sock behaviorally. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Googinber1234

Given the user's egregrious behavior, wouldn't harassment be a better explanation than WP:NOTHERE? ミラP 22:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTHERE includes many different behaviors, including this kind of harassment. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was a little skeptical because adding content was clearly building an encyclopedia. Courtesy ping Ferret who reverted them. ミラP 19:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
{{u}} doesn't work like that; it links to the first parameter user and displays the second. Anyway, no, that is not an example of "clearly building an encyclopedia". --Izno (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: Thanks, I'll ping Ferret to see what they think. ミラP 23:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Miraclepine: What exactly is the question? Good block, strengthen by the fact it had to have TPA revoked. If you're not here to follow our policies and build an encyclopedia, versus an indiscriminate collection of information, then *shrug*. The user wasn't blocked for harassment but disruptive editing and statements that they would refuse to follow policy. -- ferret (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret: My question is whether or not adding info of video game characters is "clearly building an encyclopedia". ミラP 23:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Miraclepine: I just caught back up on Googinber1234's talk page and no less than 10 admins have been involved in or reviewed this block, so I don't quite understand what you're looking for. Have you read WP:NOTHERE? It includes General pattern of disruptive behavior, Treating editing as a battleground, Little or no interest in working collaboratively, Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention, and Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia.... all of which apply to this case. NOTHERE does not mean "the user never did anything constructive." -- ferret (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret: Thanks, that's all for now. I'll take this somewhere else. ミラP 23:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope not AN or ANI. You'll be eaten alive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Block evasion".

Hello. May I ask, what does that mean and why exactly the TASS video in the Admiral Kuznetsov article had to be removed? It's not the first time I see the videos like that one removed from the external media section, and I am curious as to where in the Wikipedia guidelines there is a reason for that. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Evasion and enforcement. Blocked editors are not allowed to evade their block and continue editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought it had something to do with the those media links themselves. Thanks. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original reason was spam-related. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

You seem to be getting a lot of nonsense, especially as of late, so I feel like you could use a cup of coffee. Thanks for helping keep Wikipedia free of (most) nonsense! MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this kind of disruption flares up occasionally whenever you block vandals or sock puppets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NikkieTutorials

Hello, thank you for the information on how to deal with future gender related cases on | AN/I. I will keep those procedures in mind if the users in question repeat their behavior, but in the meantime the issue I am most worried about is the sensitive, potentially libelous content still published on Nikkie talk page. Would you be able to instruct me on the best avenue to request that content to be permanently removed from her talk page (including deleting of revision history information?), with basis on the "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page" policy? Also as a side note, I have a suspicion IP user is a sockpuppet account from Timmie1606, since they both created their wikipedia english accounts on the same day, both with the sole purpose of influencing the SAME BLP article, and seem to be geographically from the same country (Netherlands). What can I do about that? cave (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eurocave: I'm not sure that discussion qualifies for revision deletion. The criteria are a bit strict. I'll look into it. You can file a sock puppetry case at WP:SPI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

204.73.55.131

As you're the most recent blocking admin, you probably care about this. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 21:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a school. I reblocked the IP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

White Privilege at WP:ANI

I missed that discussion at WP:ANI. That is just as well. Nothing has changed in one-and-one-half years. I didn't offer an opinion, but I concur in the result. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the white privilege page and that ANI decision, might I request a CU on the recent spat of trolls? See Cavedswipe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Visewest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). EvergreenFir (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found a couple more and blocked them. It looks like a bored LTA vandal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Appreciate the check. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tseung kang 99 on UTRS

Promises no more socking and no more copyvio's. Gives an adequate explanation for avoiding copyvio's, though I guess his story has evolved. Do you have UTRS? How should we proceed? We are not hurrying.-- Deepfriedokra 23:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Sputnik deleted Draft:Bomsori Kim under WP:G5 as a page created by a sock. This seems to be the result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tseung kang 99/Archive#14 May 2019. Tseung kang 99 claims that isn't him/her. I would expect that to be addressed in an unblock request. Also, I don't understand how you could possibly "forget your account" so many times and continue creating sock puppets. Once, maybe – but not that many times. Also, I think the explanation of WP:SOCK/WP:COPYVIO that I requested seems poor. If I personally were to unblock an editor who made similar claims, I'd at least want them to say that they understand WP:VALIDALT and will follow the instructions in WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. The copyright explanation also completely ignores all mention of fair use. My recommendation would be to decline the appeal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 28596: Tseung kang 99. Has revised the appeal. I won't e around till Tuesday.-- Deepfriedokra 16:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again

I had found another IP related to User talk:NinjaRobotPirate/Archive2019-2#Possible Sockpuppet of GTVM92.

Did you see Special:Diff/935622986? It's interesting. Benyamin (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't see that. I guess GTVM92 is a sock of Arsan Faris. What IP address did you find? You could also file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arsan Faris. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
93.119.219.154 looks like him. Thanks Benyamin (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks like him behaviorally. Blocked for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thank you for sticking with the nom through all of it and engaging in a bit of wrongthink. qedk (t 桜 c) 15:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK: well, you fell for NRP's cunning plan. Now he gets you to do all his work for him :D ——SN54129 15:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't listen to those lies, QEDK. By the way, I need someone to clean my bathroom for me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did sign up for the mop. -qedk (t 桜 c) 17:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Britishtea567 is merely a new account with less than 10 edits but recently opened an AFD[6]. I highly suspect this account might be a sock from a UPE firm. Can you please have a look at this? Regards. Madhaberisl (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to tell what's going on because Britishtea567 is using a big ISP, and there are a lot of users on it. But Britishtea567 is  Confirmed to Sharing wisdom 143. You'd have to give me something to look for if you want me to find anything else; otherwise, it'd take hours to sift through all the logs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Bbb23 is checking, too. Someone just got blocked before I could even pull up their IP address. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Madhaberisl = irony.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why my talk page is catnip for sock puppets. Is it because I'm the most approachable CheckUser? I always thought Ponyo comes across as friendlier than me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ponyo's smarter than all of us. She's often not around.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Blum's birthdate

How is it unsourced? There is one source where he is interviewed in which he says he is 52 (as of 2012) and another of his twitter where he says he was born on April 28th. Two very acceptable sources where the information is provided by the subject. I am sorry, but I will revert your edits as you have not specified why they were removed and just put down "unsourced", which is false.Radiohist (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be guessing at numbers based on various statements, and I don't even think your guesses are correct. In the cited tweet dated April 28, Steve Blum said his birthday was "technically not till tomorrow". Guessing at dates like this is prone to error. I strongly suggest that you wait until it's published somewhere in a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not guessing at numbers. If it is not until tomorrow then he was born on April 29th. And in the Talkin Toons podcast it says he was 52 in 2012. If you want a time stamp, I would be glad to give you one. But you removing reliable source is completely unacceptable and unconstructive. Please refrain from removing or blocking sources or I will report you to an administrator. Thank you.Radiohist (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, yes, you are guessing incorrectly at dates in BLPs. I've already warned you about discretionary sanctions, so please keep that in mind. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not guessing. It is in the references. Would it help in any way if I were to add the timestamp in the Talkin Toons's reference like I did with Candi Milo's page?Radiohist (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tseung kang 99

Could you look at his UTRS ticket and see if it is compliant. I think so, but might have missed something.-- Deepfriedokra 05:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could restore talk page access if you really wanted to, but I still don't see a compelling unblock request. It's the same old thing, except that now it's a lot longer. He seems to be sticking to this ridiculous story about how he forgot his username or password or whatever. I'm not going to unblock a CU-confirmed sock puppeteer who says that. We've got a bunch of new arbitrators and CheckUsers, so maybe one of them is more lenient than me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [7]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:PvtHudson Backup 2.0

I'm wondering if we shouldn't just block the range--I checked it just now, and there's not so much going on besides them and one or two registered contributors. Blocking account creation might well be warranted here. Please have a look and act as you see fit--I gotta run. Thanks for your time. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on it and see what I can do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wiki guideline = primary source is a reliable source and can be summarized by editors in their own words

note the guide at WP:Primary "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." Thus a descriptive statement about the facts in a film review can be used--and editors can summarize the contents of the reviewsd if they follow this guideline. Thus an editor can say The film received mixed reviews. It is rated 26% on Rotten Tomatoes, as its "consensus" states: "A talented cast fails to save this unremarkable thriller." the primary source is the statement on Rotten Tomatoes "talented" together with "unremarkable" is reasonably summarized as "mixed. If you disagree you need to explain your reading of the Rotten Tomatoes quote on the talk page. Rjensen (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I say that it did not receive mixed reviews. You need to provide a source that explicitly says this if you want that in the article. Also, the very policy that you're citing says not to do what you're doing – adding your own interpretation of what the source is saying. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"adding your own interpretation " ???? i don't think so. of course the talk page is the place for you to make that allegation with evidence. The Rotten Tomatoes review is mixed --"talented" = positive and "unremarkable" = negative, [def= both good and bad opinions. Examples The music got mixed reviews because some people thought it was wonderful and others disliked it. https://www.englishbaby.com/vocab/word/4084/mixed-reviews]] Rjensen (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, adding your own interpretation. Unless the source explicitly says a film received "mixed reviews", it's not a valid source for that statement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are wrong-- I think my approach fits the explicit guideline "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.--That is the term mixed exactly describes a situation where some reviews are positive and some reviews are negative. Rjensen (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle this

Hello, NRP. I've been fixing and editing the List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2010s for a long time (besides this one, there are two other versions of the "dramatic series" lists: 1970s–2000s and 2020s). I always try to help inexperienced editors understand the purpose of the list, the importance of RS, and avoiding wikivoice. For the most part, editors get it. But how a description is worded can sometimes result in a misinterpretation, and now and then there's an editor who wants to inject his/her POV. This is the latest. I don't know if it's a sockpuppet of another editor, or someone else entirely, but as silly as the list may be for some, it's still subject to Wikipedia's content policies. I try to stay away from edit wars, but what can be done with an editor who wants to add information that's tilted? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of autistic fictional characters is kind of barebones, but it minimizes this problem by not discussing the topic. It's just a plain list – no descriptive content. I would guess that this kind of minimalism wouldn't go over too well in some articles, but it's something to think about, I suppose. It looks like that person is on a static IP – an IP address that generally doesn't change. If you left a message on the IP editor's talk page, they'd probably see it. It doesn't mean they'd actually bother to read it, of course. You could also run through the {{uw-npov}} templates, but this kind of sex/gender stuff is something that I usually tend to avoid nowadays. I used to edit those kinds of articles, but it got to be too much drama. Trying to edit articles on those topics did teach me to write more neutrally, though. Half of my edits were reverted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anything having to do with sexual orientation and gender becomes a bed of nails, particularly when someone's personal agenda is fueling their editing. And you're right, these kinds of articles are drama breeding grounds. At this point in the history of these TV-related lists, it's too late to strip them down to just the barebones. I hear you, but I don't make talk page contact with IP editors that leave confrontational summaries. As I see it, if they had any brass they would stop hiding behind an IP address. I do appreciate your thoughtfulness and response. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, NRP. As I stated in my above message, I've been editing these lists for a long time. I have become familiar with the edits made to them. I am now seeing a pattern of editing (re what the edits have involved) that makes me suspect sock puppetry is at play:
Special:Contributions/LunaLovegoods
Special:Contributions/Laurenfrey99
Special:Contributions/Toweal
Special:Contributions/Pennely.
I communicated with one of the names regarding how the list was being edited, and said editor then blanked his/her talk page. What next? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence, probably the best thing to do is file a case at WP:SPI under the oldest account's name. I skimmed over the contributions, but I didn't see them making the same edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not easy to catch if you're not familiar with the editing of these lists, but if you zero-in on a particular fixation you'll notice it -- for example, these edits about how a lesbian character is described ("is lesbian" vs. "is a lesbian", which was discussed in WP:MOS): 1 and 2. Bringing a hammer down on editors is something I get involved in only when a situation has become abusive, and it's why I hesitate to trigger SPI. Two accounts were created less than 5 months ago and the other two were created this month, but all of them have been predominantly or only involved in editing the List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

range block

I believe this IP is linked to my phone. I am editing through my account. I know you have given this IP a three month ban but I know this is not mine because of the edits. I just want this IP unlinked from my phone. Also sorry if I’m writing this in the wrong space, I’m fairly new to Wikipedia, I just don’t know where to put this. LucasA04 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the header to protect your privacy. This is a range block – it's designed to stop people from editing abusively while logged out but allow anyone with an account to edit normally. The block shouldn't affect you unless you try to edit while logged out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, how can I be so stupid. It literally tells me why I have been banned and what it is. Even though I didn’t know what a range block was I should’ve researched more about it. Thank you for the information and for changing the header because I wouldn’t have known. Also wouldn’t you just block the specific IP that is causing problems than just blocking a range of IP’s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucasA04 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel bad. It takes a while to figure some of this stuff out. Unfortunately, blocking individual IP addresses on some ISPs is kind of like a never-ending game of Whac-A-Mole. I can look into the range block again after a while and see if it's still necessary, though. It doesn't have to last that long. NinjaRobotPirate (talk)

Alright well thank you man for telling me this. Also it’s fine, I can just log in to edit. It isn’t too much of a problem for me. LucasA04 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are specific page restrictions on "AmericanPolitics2"?

I very recently got an "American politics discretionary sanctions notice" regarding my interest in post-1932 American politics from you.

While the notice says

"This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

My reading of the discretionary sanctions page mentions specific content restrictions, but your notice doesn't point to any editing restrictions specific to articles dealing with post-1932 American politics.

Could you point me to the restrictions in addition to good Wikipedia practices which pertain to articles on post-1932 American politics? So far, I've been alerted to the existence of an administrative ruling on post-1932 American politics, but cannot find a specific one which is currently in effect. Thanks in advance, --loupgarous (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vfrickey: I don't think there are any special restrictions for the pages that you've edited – sometimes the standard discretionary sanctions alerts come across as a bit scarier than they should. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive IP

Not sure if this IP needs a block (because I'm unclear about how accurate their other edits are), but these are disruptive [8] [9] [10]. They've been warned on their userpage (numerous times about problematic editing, but twice about these edits). Thanks. Grandpallama (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now this. [11] Grandpallama (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 31 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate you checking in on it. Grandpallama (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should be careful about 3RR, though... the exemptions are pretty strict, and it's easy to accidentally get carried away. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the reminder (and the spirit in which it's given), but that's a bright line I would not have crossed. Especially over animated characters. :) Grandpallama (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you an email

I don't know if you have received it or not.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Receieved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. This IP editor 175.209.244.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is very very highly likely a sockpuppet of the same editor.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland socks

Hi - I've pretty much finished checking and fixing all the past "history" edits I could find of the user from Brisbane - several thousand edits in about 2500 different articles. It's taken me almost a year... There are just a few left from 2013, then it will be done. I mostly didn't bother with the "adventure film" ones from around 2018 though. They've slowed down as far as I can find, but still persist: Special:Contributions/118.209.3.227 has made half a dozen of the usual edits over the past three weeks. --IamNotU (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Let me know if there are any obvious copyright violations to clean up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've been using the copyvio-revdel template for anything I've found. The only thing is some stuff from 2013 that's a bit complicated, and probably not worth losing access to seven years of history over, which is why I haven't finished it. I'll look at it again soon. --IamNotU (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I found another one just now: Special:Contributions/14.202.53.207. The last time they had one in this range it was for a few days, but then they were back on it almost a year later: Special:Contributions/14.202.62.16. --IamNotU (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked that one, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A short block on Special:Contributions/2001:8003:6453:1500::/64 might be in order... --IamNotU (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's like we're stuck in some kind of time loop, repeating the same day over and over again. Oh well. Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm sure I've heard that somewhere before... well for a little variety, nothing from Queensland today but it looks to me like Ufufcguc has patiently waited out your six-month block of Special:Contributions/2A01:111F:E1A:A400::/64 and is right back in the loop repeating their same behavior, edit-warring, and self-reverting on their special interests of Euro banknote trivia, languages, and the number of teams in European football leagues. --IamNotU (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you go six months without sock puppetry (even if it's enforced through a block), why not just ask for the standard offer? What a waste. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Special:Contributions/2001:8004:12C1:C95D:DCC:FD2E:E9E9:DA17 has made only two edits at the moment, but the one to honey bee caught my eye. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could be way off on this, but it looks like IP addresses on that range only stay allocated for a day or two, so I did a short block. There are some scattered edits to adventure films, visa requirements, and history subsections there, but they only make a few edits before disappearing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Special:Contributions/2001:8004:12C1:* for February, that makes sense. The other problem edits are different styles. Thanks. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 2001:8004 IPs don't last more than a few days, usually only one. Normally I don't report them. Here's another mole that does need whacking though: Special:Contributions/118.209.26.59. I've found about a dozen in Special:Contributions/118.209.0.0/19 since August, several have had edits over about a month. Maybe too much collateral damage for a range block, but before August there were no edits in that range for the previous year, though I don't see a block on it. There were also two others outside that, in Special:Contributions/118.209.128.0/19 in October. --IamNotU (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be best to block individual IPs for now. But I could look at range blocks again later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think so too. I was curious why there were no edits at all in that range for the prior year though, and wondered if it was related. Doesn't really matter I guess. PS, thanks for intervening with the Dominican Republic thing. I'm not too happy about being accused of all these terrible things. I left them a note, I hope they knock it off... --IamNotU (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, dunno what's happening on that article. Saw it on recent changes and thought it was simple vandalism at first. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back again

Given the usual image edits to the usual articles (e.g. Ariana Grande, hockey player Rasmus Dahlin) and the obvious variation on the "Faze" name structure, maybe you will agree that Fazevbucks is the latest incarnation of Fieryflames. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, does look like it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel?

Not the content, but the edit summary has personal information. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It might be better to use email or IRC for privacy issues, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likely new sock

Hello NinjaRobotPirate, I noticed you CU-blocked MayorSapsea (talk · contribs) last month (I am assuming as sock of the original Darryl Maximilian account?). Argincourt11 (talk · contribs) seems like a new obvious sock for the same case (see deleted contributions in the same draft). Could you double-check the user please and block if necessary? I am a bit hesitant to block such accounts without more background info, even in such likely cases. By the way, is there a formal SPI case page for this group of socks yet? GermanJoe (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe:} yeah, that's probably MayorSapsea. Unfortunately, I don't know if they're related to Darryl Maximilian Robinson. That account is too stale for the CU tool. I don't think there's any on-wiki documentation on this case, but I could be wrong. If you did want to file a case at SPI, I guess you could go with Darryl Maximilian Robinson as the sockmaster. I personally don't consider it of Earth-shattering importance who the sockmaster is identified as, though I know some people take that rather seriously. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not me (at least not in obvious cases). Thank you for your help checking this. GermanJoe (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Robert Rackstraw section of D.B. Cooper

Hi,

I was wondering if I could add information to the Robert Rackstraw section of D.B. Cooper.

Specifically, his birthdate - October 16, 1943 - and that he died from heart failure.

I have a few sources that say this:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm7109085/ https://dbcooper.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/DBC-Media-Release-3A-5-Cooper-Coded-Letters-BlackOps-2-1-18.pdf https://www.vhpa.org/DAT/datR/D09210.HTM https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Rackstraw-22 https://www.mcall.com/army-paratrooper-suspected-in-notorious-d-b-cooper-skyjacking-dies-in-bankers-hill-home-story.html

Is it alright if I add that information?

2601:1C2:4C01:4670:D199:E9D1:141E:BC47 (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The last source that you listed, The Morning Call, is a reliable source. The others are random websites that wouldn't be considered reliable. The newspaper articles identifies someone as a possible suspect but says D. B. Cooper was never identified. So, you can't say that D. B. Cooper himself was born in 1943 and died of heart failure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User Coltsfan

I've been watching the contested article, and not that I support @Coltsfan: in what he's doing - he reverted me for no good reason and didn't document it in the edit summary - but you say, somewhat sarcastically on his talk page, to count the Undo tags. Do you therefore mean that any undo, regardless of what it's undoing, counts towards 3RR? From what I can see there isn't a case of four undo events pertaining to the same edit, but maybe I've missed something. Please clarify. Incidentally, I would have placed this comment on Coltsfan's page, but being an inferior IP user I wasn't able to. Due to SP, his page is only available to anonymous users. 31.52.163.160 (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3RR applies to any reverts you perform on a page, though there are exemptions, such as obvious vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for clarifying. I didn't realise that and thought it was related to repeated undoing of the same edit. Regards, 31.52.163.160 (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
haha - yes, just seen the big red explanation at WP:3RR. Thanks again 31.52.163.160 (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a certain irony in that the more obvious someone tries to make text (making it red, putting it in boxes, etc), the more likely it is to be overlooked. I think it's related to banner blindness. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Push (2009 film) and fancruft

Howdy. Long time no type at, not sure if you even remember who I am since I'm hella hit and miss around here. But I know you and I have collaborated on bits and pieces of film articles in the past. I just wanted to give you a heads up that I deleted that massive OR section from the film Push since I saw in the edit history that you'd done so in the past as well (in fact I think I have, too, and I think maybe we've had this conversation before, like a decade ago). I noticed it had been in place this time for about 3-4 years and wanted to know if there was something I missed on the talk page about leaving it in, though based on what it contained and the sad excuses for referencing within, I can't imagine any good reason for doing so. I dug through the talk page and such but didn't find anything, but figured if there was such a discussion and I missed it, you might know something. I also added a note on the article's talk page about my removal so that any editors who wanted the section included could make their case and all of that.

Cheers and happy editing and all that. Millahnna (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I remember you. I don't think there was any discussion about that. Those things just have a habit of returning, I think. There's always some fan who thinks it's absolutely critical information. Trying to whittle down The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath was a bit difficult for me because I'm a Lovecraft fan. I kept thinking, "This part is critical information – we need to keep it!" NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I just did a polish on a plot a few minutes ago and kept catching myself leaving in details that really didn't matter for our purposes for the same reasons. Plot summaries on wiki are the weirdest and driest of art forms. But I've got mad writer's block on a story I'm writing so here I am. Millahnna (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha I don't care about Lovecraft so I'll be happy to slaughter the hell out of it. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nooo! The night-gaunts are very important to the plot. Plus, they're faceless gargoyles who tickle their victims to death. How cool is that? Lovecraft was a xenophobic racist prone to long passages of purple prose, but he came up with some crazy stuff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AIV question

Hi there. I'm a new admin, and keen to follow guidelines and procedure at AIV as best I can. You and I just had an edit conflict over your blocking of User:Toyonda. I realise you're a CU, and so my own response was about to be simply to decline the report and refer the OP to SPI with a {{AIV|spi}} template. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)}}. So, it's great that you stepped in, but I'm just checking that, had you not been around to step in, my non-CU response would have been the correct one as I saw insufficient evidence myself to justify a block.[reply]

As an aside, I am seeing quite a variation of editor attitudes, with a few people immediately giving level 3 talk page warnings for just one bad edit, and then immediately reporting the user at AIV - I am declining all these and pinging the reporters in the hope they'll be a little more fair-minded in future. Equally, I'm surprised by at least one admin today giving a 2 year block to an IP for relatively minor vandalism, scattered across a few years, which I questioned. I realise some discretion is available to us, but is this length of escalating block commonplace or even appropriate for IPs? Or am I being too pedantic or fussy over both these matters, do you think? Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TPW here... I generally start with level 1 for little things (kids adding themselves to lists of famous people with their own name) but if vandalism is unabashedly racist or homophobic, or appears to constitute bullying of a schoolmate or a BLP violation against a teacher or other school staff, I'll start higher than that, sometimes even with a level 4 if particular ethnic slur words get used. Nothing good is going to come out of that user that day, and the fewer second chances that user has to create something that is going to lurk around unseen on the site for any amount of time and then require revdel/oversight, the better for everyone. Ditto unabashed spamlinks (like the ubiquitous toll-free numbers for overseas university-entrance-exam prep sites; washing-machine repair services who spam their contact information into every section of Washing machine; etc.). - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Yes, I agree with you, Julietdeltalima. and I have always tended to vary the level at which I start leaving warning templates myself, depending upon the egregiousness of the editors' actions. But being an admin now, I feel I have an extra responsibility to try to act fairly and reasonably to everyone, and according to guidance - so I'm just trying to get a sense of the best ways I should respond in that capacity at AIV from a more experienced admin/CU. My gut reaction is that bad IP users deserve almost equivalent responses as bad registered users, but that doesn't accord with the guidance I'm trying to ensure I follow. Thanks for taking the trouble to leave me your thoughts on this - it's appreciated. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) What you'll find is that with some LTAs and socks is that the reporter will know that it's the LTA, most admins won't know anything about it, then someone who is experienced with them (and/or a checkuser) will turn up out of nowhere to block them. It's often just a matter of time, so it can be useful to be in not too much of a rush to decline or refer these elsewhere. Don't worry if you don't feel justified in blocking, just wait for someone else. The other issues you mention, always do what you think is right, is my advice, and recognise that some people do things differently (and also that AIV gets a lot of really dodgy reports). Watch who does what at AIV for a while, and you might see some patterns. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's good advice, and I'm finding it interesting being on the other side of AIV now, when previously I'd not bothered to look at other respected editors' reports. I'm certainly seeing a few more dodgy ones than I had expected, and currently seem to be declining as many reports as I'm needing to block. Just want to make sure I do things right as best as I can. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, like zzuuzz said, I think it's sometimes easier to let LTA/sock reports sit for a little while if you're not sure. But I think declining that Toyonda AIV report would have been a legit reaction. CUs do tend to swoop in kind of randomly. It's awkward for us to explain why we do what we do because there are so many privacy considerations.

For obvious vandalism that isn't block-on-sight nastiness, I try to encourage people to at least give a level 2 warning, followed by a level 3 warning. That abbreviates the process to just two warnings, and it gives people a heads-up that they'll be blocked if they continue to vandalize. The big problem, I think, are the anti-vandals who think "haha amanda rulez!!!!" is worth a level 4im warning. I try to be gentle with them because they're obviously trying to help, but sometimes they just have no sense of when to use what warning.

And, yeah, there are some hanging judges at AIV. Frequently, the years-long blocks are for school IPs. I usually let that go. School are a fairly consistent source of vandalism, so it's at least possible to justify those blocks. But for residential cable connections, I try to discourage admins from doing absurdly long block lengths. Schools are often identifiable by having business-class connections, like Comcast Business, rather than Comcast's residential Xfinity brand. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thank you for that feedback. Glad I wasn't too wide of the mark, then. I notice when I decline a report and also ping the reporting editor with a bit of polite feedback that HelperBot (or whatever it's called) waits a reasonable time before archiving the report. That makes sense, but any idea what the time period is? At first I thought I'd fouled things up by doing that. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'm not really sure. Noticeboards tend to be ephemeral at best, though, and you never really know when someone will helpfully clear all the reports (including the message you carefully wrote). If I really want someone to see something I wrote, I typically post it on their talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had thought of doing that, but felt it might come across as overcritical and maybe a bit like 'templating the regulars'. I've now asked the question at JamesR's talk page, who runs HBC AIV helperbot5. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose it could be taken that way. At the same time, posting to a highly visible noticeboard could be construed as public chastisement, especially in a drama-prone noticeboard, like ANI. When I see something at ANI, I'm probably more likely to post privately to someone's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - I'd not looked at it that way - good point - although AIV isn't monitored anything like the way that ANI is, surely. And posts at AIV do get deleted after, well, (INSERT FIGURE HERE) hours. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a remnant of etiquette from the pre-web days of the internet. People were generally encouraged to resolve issues privately and without drama. If that didn't work, vigilantes would put your server on a blacklist, and you'd lose access to major parts of the internet. Ah, the Bad Old Days. I have rather mixed feelings about that era. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a message on my talk page

Why did you leave a message on my talk unsourcing the War on Everyone? The information was correct. I added the country (United States) due to its filming in Albuquerque, New Mexico. DribbleDub (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DribbleDub: as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is written according to what reliable sources say, not what we personally believe to be true. So, it doesn't matter where it was filmed. What matters is what the sources say. In this case, the source cited in the article says it's solely a British film, not a British-American coproduction. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel needed

If you have a moment could you revdel this . It is a child publishing personal information about himself under the guise of a user page. Many thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   10:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Solusod article

Saw you there in the edit history. Got an IP edit warring with me over an unsourced middle name. Should the article get temporary semi-protection? No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a block-evading IP vandal on a spree. I blocked a few of the latest IPs and semi-protected the article briefly. Should help, but it probably won't stop the disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Longer semi-protection can always be put in place if needed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A sock you blocked has resurfaced on Frida Kahlo

Over the issue of bisexual categories. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's Orchomen. He likes to edit war over pointless things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!!! Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of Jshpinar sock edits

Would you care to chime in with your opinion here? I'm not expecting you to side with me necessarily, just wanted some additional input. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another KC3 sock

See similarities between this IP's edits and KC3's most recently identified sock. I think I might be a little too involved to block; also you seem to be the expert on this guy. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't really comment on who it may or may not be – but the IP is blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know you can't comment ... but you took action. Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP:EVADE

I just thought you might want to know that 211.227.14.68 and 49.169.27.177 are reintroducing the same content that was previously added by 175.209.244.217 (the IP that you blocked). M.Bitton (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What a pain to clean up. Yeah, blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slagjan again

Pretty sure this new editor is another sock. Exact same modus operandi, same marking of 'minor', four of the five films are ones that Slagjan socks have edited before, making the same edits as this new editor. Grandpallama (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's him.  Confirmed to Biskovski2000. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP quacking

Same obsession with "fiend": [12] Crossroads -talk- 18:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. What a pain. Let me know if it keeps up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This IP just showed up to remove something from the user's talk page and geolocates to their country (Saudi Arabia): [13] Maybe block before more disruption? Crossroads -talk- 16:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaaand he's back. [14] Crossroads -talk- 18:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did a couple range blocks, which might turn out helpful. If not, there's always lengthy page protection. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. He can't seem to stop himself from editing Succubus, so at least it does help reveal it's him. Crossroads -talk- 06:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment

Maybe a global lock might be in order, IDK just wanted to vent :P - FlightTime (open channel) 18:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not at the level of a global lock yet. It seems likely he'll get himself indeffed on multiple projects, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Familiar style

I don't know the name of the species, but this signature tells me it's a duck. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's Jaredgk2008. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They're persistent. Thanks. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quack: Another of the same flock. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the filters might need to be tweaked. But blocked that one, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello NRP. I saw your rvt of Maya82ster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit on the actor article. I wanted to let you know they posted the same thing on a talk page that they created User talk:Leyla Qarabaglı. I've blanked it there since I'm not sure if it qualifies for any kind of speedy. If they aren't here promoting her career they certainly are a fan. I'm not sure that there is anything else that needs doing - I just wanted to let you know what I found. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 08:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edits don't look very constructive so far, but I guess it can't hurt to give the editor a chance now that I've linked the right way to go about creating an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look and for the post on their talk page. MarnetteD|Talk 08:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME . MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS (Redacted) . IM CRAZY FAN OF THIS HEROINE . I WANT SOMEONE TO WRITE HER WIKIPEDIA . SHE HAS SO MANY NEWSPAPER INTERVIEW . ANYONE READS THIS PLEASE EMAIL ME — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maya82ster (talk • contribs) 11:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maya82ster: I've removed your email address – it's probably best not to publicize that here. The good news is that you can create the page yourself! Just start a draft at articles for creation. You should read this guide first, though. It will help you avoid common problems. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP address?

Hello Ninja Robot Pirate.

I have just reverted a dubious edit on List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films and thought I would check the editors contributions for any other suspect changes. When I did so there is a template that says they are already blocked -- and will be until December. How can they have made an edit in the meantime? Special:Contributions/2409:4070:2597:40E6:4572:441D:DCBE:87DD. Curved Space (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a partial block – it only stops them from editing Wikipedia: namespace. They can still edit articless, talk pages, etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users refusing to use reliable sources/adding original research

Hi @NinjaRobotPirate: I'm having some trouble with two users repeatedly making edits to Sidemen and related articles, who seem to continuously neglect (and refuse to acknowledge) Wikipedia policy on original research/reliable sources etc. It is a developing pattern if you look at their contributions (many of which read as fancruft), and has caused several editors to clean up their edits and leave messages on talk pages attempting to explain Wikipedia policy and how they are in violation of it. I too have attempted to explain here, here and here, sadly to no avail. I wondered if, as an administrator, you'd be able to better explain the importance of sourcing content and/or suggesting how to proceed with preventing this sort of behaviour. Thanks —Formulaonewiki 11:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Formulaonewiki: well, I can tell you that ArbaazAli15 is Zaydx, so I've blocked the sock puppet. Does that solve the problem? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: it certainly helps! Thank you. Though Timwikisidemen still gives me cause for concern, and I'm not the only one – a discussion here noted the similarity in the types of edits to the blocked user, though it was concluded they were not a sock puppet. While I'm all for do not bite the newcomers, just a glance at User talk:Timwikisidemen shows that they have been granted plenty of patience yet their editing behaviour remains the same. —Formulaonewiki 11:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Formulaonewiki: it's difficult for me to follow what all the arguments are about, but it looks mostly like it's content disputes. Dispute resolution can sometimes help resolve those, especially when it's something like "The Sidemen are" vs "Sidemen is". As far as sock puppetry goes, two CheckUsers already looked at Timwikisdemen's account, so I doubt it's a sock puppet. I didn't look at it personally, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: In truth there's a lot to look at, I haven't been able to follow half of it myself. Thanks for taking the time to give some advice. You may have already seen, but there's been another appeal against the ban you issued with a rather rambling defence making reference to me. I'm not getting involved any further, I trust whoever looks at the appeal will come to the same decision as you. —Formulaonewiki 12:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sweep?

Would you sweep around concerning Redrose99, Redrose99BOT and Redrose99's backup account? There is also a Redrose9981 but as it registered in 2007 I assume unrelated. I'm not sure if this is some sort of LTA case, or what, as the "master" was username blocked with email disabled. -- ferret (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Be advised possible cross-wiki abuse. The main account is also blocked on Meta-Wiki. Bobherry Talk Edits 16:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was already taken care of.... Berean Hunter did a check here, and all the accounts are globally locked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another one

Not long ago you blocked 1.129.107.182. Now someone from a very similar address is doing the same sort of damage - 1.129.104.247. Can you take appropriate action please? HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Ian.thomson got it. I can widen the range block if that isn't enough, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Something might be needed, but I'm not sure what. A similar incident occurred back on 5 March from a range of IPv6 address including 2001:8004:14a0:159c:98f3:436a:87a6:f3dd - Almost certainly the same person. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hate the persistent ones. Yeah, I agree, looks like the same person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And another

Hi, the persistent person at 2601:183:C600:20A::/64 is back at it after your one-month block expired (see User talk:2601:183:C600:20A:250B:E91F:9B73:377E). Behavior includes unsourced contributions and personal commentary, long-term edit-warring such as adding Judaism and Islam to Greek Australians, and making crazy-long lists of country names and immigrant groups in various articles including History of Lowell, Massachusetts and Holocaust victims. You may remember them from such articles as Costa (surname), Big Fat Liar, The Adventures of Pluto Nash, and Powerpuff Girls / The Powerpuff Girls Movie - flop or not?

This has been going on for many years, with many warnings, but no blocks until just recently. See previous ranges: 2601:183:C602:4020::/64, 2601:183:C600:B855::/64, and 2601:183:C100:54::/64.

It's also obviously the same person lately on 207.206.228.0/24, and sometimes 207.206.237.0/24 and 207.206.238.0/24 (recently blocked). Actually those look like maybe just /26s, on the other hand it may be all of 207.206.224.0/20 since September. There have been a small number of sporadic edits from a few in 2600:387::/32, but not lately. --IamNotU (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked a few of the ranges for 3 months. I doubt I plugged all the holes, but it should slow down the disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP edits too old

Hi, can I ask your opinion about something? I put a whole lot of time into this SPI report, to make an airtight case. The person has obviously been editing from the same /42 range for the past few years. Since January they're evading a topic ban from June as far as I can tell, and continuing the same edits. It's an IPV6 wireless range, and the numbers change every few hours. I gave a few examples, and the range. Nobody responded for a couple of days, then it was just closed with "IP edits too old", even though they were still making the exact same kind of edits just a few hours earlier: [15], [16]. What's that about? Do I have to keep adding the new IPs to the report? It doesn't make sense. Or is it not possible to block them for some reason, and they're free to just continue? I seriously don't get it this time. --IamNotU (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't put the range into the list of suspected puppets. Instead you put 3 separate IPs, none of which has edited since March 7. You noted the range in the body of the report, but given how long your report was, it could be easily - and was - missed. Nonetheless, I'll fix the report and reopen it for you. I don't guarantee anyone will look at it, though. As you should know by now, IP socking is often ignored at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it helps to be concise. It's awkward for CheckUsers to comment on IP addresses, so they tend to leave cases like that for the clerks and patrolling admins. The clerks are sometimes overwhelmed by the large amount of cases, each with a large amount of evidence to review. Also, some of the clerks don't feel comfortable making range blocks. Unfortunately, the only truly reliable method of getting sock puppets blocked is to become an admin yourself. Or you could consider applying to become a non-admin SPI clerk yourself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both for the explanations. My mistake then, I didn't think I could put a range in the list like that. Not sure why I thought that. Thanks for reopening it. It had already been reported by another user, but a clerk and a checkuser both didn't want to do anything, so I thought I'd better be thorough. Maybe I went a little overboard. I was discouraged when I thought it was dismissed again.
I do know that IP socking is often ignored, but it can seem mysterious as to whether it's on purpose, due to not enough resources, or to flaws in the system. Maybe some of each. It's happened to me where I get the feeling that reports are deliberately ignored for a long time while socking continues, then as soon as they stop editing for a few days, are closed. That can be frustrating. It may well be that it's not deliberate though, and just an artifact of the process. I have some ideas about how it could be improved, if anyone is interested in talking about it.
A couple of times I went to apply as a clerk, but it looked like there was a long waiting list already. I'll think about it again, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:SPI is just one of the most backlogged and least worked-upon areas. It can be pretty tedious work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Unsourced additions with "Wow" edit summary

Hi, NinjaRobotPirate. IP editor 45.230.164.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been adding unsourced additions to TV articles mainly around production, always leaving the edit summary "Wow". I have seen this individual around before, and I thought I had seen you interact with them before, too. I don't have time to provide some more details right now, but I wanted to let you know about it at least. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I remember seeing this person before, but I can't remember if I blocked them. Well, I did this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As always, I appreciate your help. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to myself: this is block evasion by Special:Contributions/2804:d41:2100::/40. Mystery solved! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock

Hi NinjaRobotPirate,

Could you please take a look at editor going by the name "Super stuff, Wikiots"? I think they might be a sock. Their name appears to be an insult (I'm assuming "Wikiots" means "Wiki idiots"), and some of their edit summaries (such as this one and this one) are quite condescending, and for an editor who has been a member for less than an hour and with only half a dozen edits to their name, they show a pretty sound knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seems fairly suspicious, but I don't recognize who it might be. I blocked for the username, though. It's clearly intended to be trollish. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A little unanswered question

In your close you failed to specify, should I revert the my previous closes, have someone else cosign, do nothing? thank you for answering. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to favor "do nothing" whenever potential drama is involved. The last thing we need is more drama at ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I will do nothing. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Block of 2401:4900:0:0:0:0:0:0/32

Why is my IP blocked? Please unblock my IP. MRRaja001 (talk) 7:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

That block was done by Materialscientist. I just changed the block to have a better description. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, he unblocked me yesterday. Again it's showing blocked now. You can check my Contributions page. I don't know why my IP is getting blocked like this. May i know the reason why my IP is blocked, Thanks MRRaja001 (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not block you. I did not block that IP range. You need to talk to Materialscientist if you want to know why that IP range was blocked. I don't know why it was blocked. All I did was to adjust the block reason to tell people how to appeal it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MemeLordMatt2019

FYI, I just caught MemeLordMatt using a deceptive edit summary again, after you unblocked him for the second time. I'd recommend an indefinite block at this point, because he clearly just doesn't get it. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 16:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 331dot took care of it. I don't understand what's going on with that editor. I guess he's too young. It's probably a good thing that Wikipedia wasn't around when I was a teenager. I'd have gotten into all kinds of trouble. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point Break 1991

Look at how long this film is actually on for. The running time is the same as hours and minutes. Karl Aspill (2) (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The runtime in that article is cited to a reliable source. If you check {{infobox film}}, it has some guidance on how to source the runtime. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Search up Point Break 1991 duration here on Google. You’ll see 2hrs 3mins, which equals to 123 minutes. You have the running time as 122 minutes. So, what happened to that 1 minute then?! Karl Aspill (2) (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Random information you find from a Google search result is not usable on Wikipedia. We only go by what reliable sources say. If they say it's 122 minutes, that's what we say. Please read these instructions from the template and this essay. They will answer most of your questions. I don't understand why you're even arguing over film runtimes. If it's sourced, just leave it alone. If it's unsourced, add a citation to the BBFC, American Film Institute, or Variety. Or cite a film festival website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Just had an edit conflict with you. You might want to see my comments about IVFC. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Requests" sock

Samsungx635 has returned under Usercontributor4559438. Please block, thx. 1989 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finally – something easy that I can do in my sleep. Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They’ve returned under this IP address. 1989 (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP range Block 46.99.0.0/18

Hey mate, given dynamic IP's and a general lack of editors and a lack of activity in Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo, do you think continuing the ban but allowing account creation for the 46.99.0.0/18 range would be possible ? We need everyone we can get. Cheers BananaWaffle talk 21:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea of it, but I can give it a try. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't work out and people spam accounts, then just revert it to what it was. I know it may be a controversial idea, but unfortunately, the majority of the country falls under the 46.99 range. BananaWaffle talk 20:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Kargbo vandal

Hey NRP! Those pages you protected are a great help but the tosser has moved on to List of current Interscope Records artists & Warner Music Group. Is protection an option there? Robvanvee 11:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's a real pain. I semi-protected the Warner page. Let me know if he comes back to the Interscope page, and I'll protect that one, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Robvanvee 12:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just arrived! Robvanvee 20:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Let me know if he starts hitting other articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thanks as always! Robvanvee 20:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Top of the morning (it is here). They've chosen to soil the following 2 articles today: Leon Thomas III & List of Sony Music labels with another of their made-up labels (they have added this fake label to articles in the past). Any chance of some protection? Thanks NRP. Robvanvee 06:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated! Robvanvee 07:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems as you protect them, so they find another label to desecrate . This time Def Jam Recordings. Robvanvee 08:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably going to be like this for a while, unfortunately. He's probably bored and at home. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. I will be too so will be keeping an eye. Hope you don't mind me bugging you with this petty issue? Robvanvee 08:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's fine. This stuff is pretty quick and easy to resolve. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, can you block IP: 72.140.43.116 (BLP vandalism). Thanks. -KH-1 (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Message from User:Wasaydominickcobb

HELLO. I HAVENT UNDERSTAND THAT WHY U HAVE BLOCKED ME. REALLY I M A NEW ONE HERE. ALL MY EDITS R WITH GOOD FAITH. U CAN CHECK MY EDIT HISTORY. GIVE ME A REASON. GIVE ME A TRY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasaydominickcobb (talk • contribs)

Wasaydominickcobb I have moved your message here, to NRP's talkpage, from the userpage. The fact that you were able to leave that message is evidence that you are not blocked. What is the message that you get when you try to edit? SQLQuery me! 18:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that this is related to Materialscientist's block of Special:Contributions/2401:4900::/32. I modified Materialscientist's block to include a standardized template so people would be better able to understand the block, and random people are showing up to complain that I blocked them. It's possible that it's some other block, but that's the big one that has people upset right now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But really believe me sometimes when I try to edit , I recieved message that I m blocked to edit by NinjaRobotPirate (talk).really Wasaydominickcobb (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for the details Wasaydominickcobb (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible issues with User:Luigi1090

Hi NinjaRobotPirate. For Magic Jewelry I haven't done any edit warring but only removed a false thing from the article: Dr. Mario doesn't reassemble its gameplay in that game but only the original Columns. Then I created the paragraph with its explanations in the talk page of that article. And finally, for Magic Jewelry's mechanical resembles that of Columns, that citation had been featured on the article for a long time, before I started working on it for the first time. Luigi1090 (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to both games to unsourced. It's easy enough to find citations on Google Books that mention Magic Jewelry as a clone of Columns, so maybe you should focus on that instead of restoring the word "mechanical", which doesn't make sense in that sentence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Suspensions

Hello There,

As a recent changes patroller, I would like to know if we include "Suspended" after an airline's destination on an airport's WP article. A series of constant edits done by 188.174.167.5 (talk), appeared to be removing the "SUSPENDED" keyword after an airline's destination. (See Glasgow Airport)

A confrontation about this edit which could be found on my talk page, had 188.174.167.5 (talk) telling me that there is a particular 'consensus' on this issue.

I would like to know where exactly has this consensus been agreed upon, probably a link to a WP discussion could help.

Best Regards, Denver Correia | Thank you ~:~:~:~ (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Denver20: someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation would probably know. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Vote Sockpuppetry/Canvassing

Hi, NinjaRobotPirate! See: 173.79.47.227 Looks like that brand-new account/user only appeared on Wikipedia to influence a vote. What do you think? I'd open a sockpuppetry investigation, but I cannot tell for sure who's the sockmaster. That said, the canvassing in their vote was made obvious.

The AfD page: [17] You may use CTRL+F to find 173.79.47.227's posts. Israell (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a bit suspicious, but I think it'll be OK if we just keep an eye out for drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a sockpuppetry/vote-canvassing investigation.[18] I think their vote should be void. Israell (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the discussion is getting more and more heated. User Fancypants786 did discuss the article, clearly explained that the article is "well sourced with credible sources that meets expectation for Wikipedia:Verifiability", that "there have been obvious attempts to improve the article, which is absolutely fine as is", their other comments were pertinent to the matter at hand, but the editor (Excelse) who initiated the vote is dismissing what they they wrote as impertinent.[19]

That user is accusing many of being SPAs, sockpuppets and sockmasters while giving 173.79.47.227 a total pass when they only have four edits so far, three of which pertain to that vote (their first edit appears to be an attempt to avoid accusations of WP:NOTHERE), and that brand-new user curiously knew the usernames of like-minded editors... Israell (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:NileCrocodile1

Yes, he has been indef blocked. But he needs to have his TP privileges revoked and the visibility on his grossly defamatory comments there and elsewhere changed. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Viraltux

Somewhat predictably, our friend has returned to Spanish flu now that the block has expired.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely and left a message trying to explain how Wikipedia works. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban at Cultural Impact of Michael Jackson page

If you're tired of the drama, then just leave the issue? Why hand out one ban on one side and not the other? That would increase the drama, not lower it. Owynhart 21:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other side has been warned, too. They'll get topic banned when they step out of line. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that from your talk page, and that's good on neutrality. I'll stop referring to opposing users as "trolls." But as you may know, there's little Good Faith on either sides at this point. Sadly, I've found this squabble heavily one-sided on the admins' part, in that the editors supporting additions to Jackson-related articles are receiving more bans/warnings than the other, as I could tell from my experience and looking at the discussion pages.
Please look at some of the comments made by Excelse. They're accusing others of sockpuppeting. TheLongTone has also deleted material from the article with racially motivated reasons. I'm sure a lot of editors would find this unwelcoming, especially in an article that discusses the impact of a black artist. Racial bias on Wikipedia is noted and has its own article. This in combination would raise suspicions that others would complain of "Bad Faith."
We are all on the lookout for disruptive editors due to sanctions. I genuinely do not believe Popcornfud has intentions to improve the article, since he stated multiple times that he would rather see it deleted. I removed the Puffery tag after seeing complaints from other editors. Aoi has not commented on the talk page despite reinstating the tag. Shouldn't he at least communicate on the talk page, too? My most recent edits on Michael Jackson topics include bringing an article to GA status by working with other editors. I don't believe I am not disruptive all the time. Again, if you're tired of the drama, maybe step away from it rather than influence it. Consider an unban? Owynhart 22:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NinjaRobotPirate&oldid=947373106"