Open main menu

Hosting space IP addresses are not public proxiesEdit

When browsing the internet, I like to use a constant IP address because it also allows me to open ports on my computer and start ad-hoc servers. My computer is a laptop so naturally the IP address will change if I use different wifi networks. To mitigate this, I rent a Hetzner vps that has an ipv4 and ipv6 address, I browse the internet from this server using a private VPN.

Now whenever I want to edit something on Wikipedia I will receive a message stating that this ipv6 address has been blocked from editing. This happens even though I am logged in to my user account. Now I have placed two requests to unblock my ipv6 address, but both were answered pretty curtly in my opinion, not trying to understand my use case.

So I will explain more carefully: this is not a public proxy (the reason stated for the ipv6 range ban), this is my private IP address that I use for private browsing. This is not an anonymising VPN, I do not use it to hide my real IP because this is effectively my real IP. I don't use this VPN for avoiding country bans. While hearing the word VPN many people think about anonymising VPNs but it actually has a broader definition which includes the tunnelling I'm using VPN software for.

Even if Wikipedia would like to ban my use case, which would be weird, the block is not effective because the associated ipv4 range Hetzner uses is not blocked on Wikipedia. I can simply disable my ipv6 config to "get around the block". Furthermore, not even the whole ipv6 range that Hetzner uses is blocked, only a small part (a /32 range while Hetzner has access to a /29 range). I would like to see this range ban lifted, and I hope that in the future more specific ip addresses may be targeted instead of whole ranges. Pingiun (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

We generally do not allow editing through hosting services on Wikipedia. If some IP ranges are not currently blocked, they'll probably be blocked eventually. The reason why we block them is because people get banned from Wikipedia, then use a VPN/open proxy/hosting service to evade their ban. Users who have a need can request IP block exemption, but this is generally not given out to new users. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Help with War Editing ReportEdit

Yes, I'm aware of the actions of user:KyleJoan repeatedly changing and undoing my edits. I've discussed this matter with her, replying to all of her messages on my talk page, including lengthy explanation and citing references, but she refuses to listen to reason and just keeps changing my edits. I was going to report her, but thought I'd give her the benefit of the doubt first, but I see she reported me for doing exactly what she is doing. If I'm blocked for sharing correct information then there's not much I can do about it. I stand by my edit as it was grammatically correct. Dispute: The French "de" used in the context of a proper name is "of" and is NOT considered a part of the proper surname "Lesseps" therefore F comes before L in the alphabet and Bethenny Frankel should be listed before Luann de Lesseps. The page may be written in English, but the fact will always remain that Lesseps is the proper surname, French or English being irrelevant, and should be alphabetized as such instead of by the PREPOSITION "de" meaning "of". AnAudLife (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, one thing to consider is whether it really matters all that much. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019Edit

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

  Administrator changes

  28bytesAd OrientemAnsh666BeeblebroxBoing! said ZebedeeBU Rob13Dennis BrownDeorDoRDFloquenbeam1Flyguy649Fram2GadfiumGB fanJonathunderKusmaLectonarMoinkMSGJNickOd MishehuRamaSpartazSyrthissTheDJWJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

  Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

  Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppet of GTVM92Edit

Hi. As of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GTVM92, I think User:Mdaneshmandi is a Possible Sockpuppet of GTVM92. Benyamin-ln (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It's probably best to file a report at WP:SPI. I could probably recognize an obvious sock puppet, but this isn't obvious enough for me. GTVM92 is still active on a few projects, so you could try asking a local CheckUser from one of those projects to look into it. Unfortunately, all the CheckUser data English Wikipedia had on GTVM92 is now gone. For what it's worth, I ran a check on GTVM92 back a few months ago, and I only saw one sock puppet: Cyrus9595. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
That's right. Thanks. Benyamin-ln (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. Please see the Special:Contributions/178.131.173.35. Benyamin-ln (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like him from a behavioral standpoint. Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you help me in fighting against Vandalism by user?Edit

Hello,

I had made the page 2019 Delhi Temple attack by adding relevant details, accusations and allegations. But one user is constantly removing the cited references by allowing reason that they are communal terms, propaganda websites, hate websites and what not!

I have tried to sort out dispute here but that person is undoing all of my edits.= without even citing proper wikipedia policies and even logical reasons. Here are some of the vandalism that user Edward Zigma had done on the page:-

1. Reason given is hate website. But there wasn't any hate content on any of the website given in the reference.
2. Here editor has gave reason that reafrain from using the communal words. Just mentioning that mob was Muslim; the person got triggered and he is removing content without even mentioning wikipedia policy.
3. Again this person did the same thing and copy pasted the reason without citation of Wiki policy.
4. Again same thing.
5. Same thing.
6. Same thing.
7. same thing.
8. The person is saying that using word Muslim is like to use racial slur without citing Wikipedia policy.
9. Same thing.
10. DOing personal attacks on other editors by citing that websites are right leaned.
11. Again labeling the genuine sources as propaganda websites.

I request you to visit the history of the page I mentioned and talk page. This person is not giving any proper reason or citation from any wikipedia policy; when I cite policy then also person is removing my content just because he doesn't like it. Person is only giving hyperbolic statements and doxxing me by messaging on my Twitter ID. I have joined Wiki before 4 years and made more than 100 edits but this never happened with me. He doesn't believe in NPOV, No original research and verifiability. Kindly, take proper action on him for vandalising the article.

--Harshil169 (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: unfortunately, there isn't much that Wikipedia administrators can do about stuff that happens off-site. If someone engages in doxing on Wikipedia, please report that at WP:ANI, and we'll block them. This topic would seem to fall under discretionary sanctions, so I've alerted editors who have recently edited the article about this. If the article continues to be problematic, I (or another admin) could take steps to mitigate that, like restricting people to only make one revert per day. Probably the best way to establish whether a source is reliable or not is to ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. I also alerted Edward Zigma to our policy against edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

That annoying FLG vandal troll is now messing with the wikiproject talk pageEdit

How is this project still such a nightmare even when it's dead? Anyway, Autoconfirmed protection to wikiproject talk is probably called for. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the disruption will move somewhere else, but it's semi-protected. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 
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.

Queensland socksEdit

Hi, more empty "History", visa requirements, etc.: Special:Contributions/59.102.67.121. I didn't notice any others in the /16 range going back to last year. --IamNotU (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. Some of these IP addresses seem to get allocated at random but stay assigned for a few months. It's like the most boring game of Whac-A-Mole ever, but he'll run out of useable IP addresses eventually. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't really get the logic of the IP assignment, but the person is nothing if not persistent... Special:Contributions/101.178.108.103 geolocates to Victoria, but is obviously the same person. Hasn't been used since 29 June, but it was also used, and blocked, in Feburary. The weird thing is the timeline between that and Special:Contributions/58.161.97.90, it's like suddenly they switch to another IP halfway across the country, then switch right back again. --IamNotU (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
You can't always trust geolocation data. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

They're back up on Special:Contributions/2001:8003:6056:3600::/64 since Friday, now that last month's block has expired. Also on Special:Contributions/58.161.79.235 earlier in the week. --IamNotU (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked, but they'll probably be back. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Two from today: Special:Contributions/111.220.131.212 and Special:Contributions/124.183.121.56. --IamNotU (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Both blocked. By the way, this reminds me of a trick I learned a while ago. It's possible to restrict Special:RecentChanges to watchlisted pages and the category namespace. That lets you see all the recent additions to a specific category. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

They've been busy again the last couple of days, not sure if any of these are worth blocking, but fyi: Special:Contributions/118.209.24.235, Special:Contributions/118.209.21.187, Special:Contributions/120.22.133.192. They've been popping up regularly in Special:Contributions/1.128.104.0/21 for a long time, lately at: Special:Contributions/1.128.111.160, Special:Contributions/1.128.105.132, Special:Contributions/1.128.106.223, etc., but I guess there are too many other editors in there to block it? --IamNotU (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the most recent one on Special:Contributions/1.128.104.0/21. Maybe that'll be enough for now? If not, I guess I can look again. The collateral damage looks like it might be harsh but potentially tolerable. One weird thing I noticed in the CU tool while looking at the collateral damage is some of the IP editors who are tweaking history headers are using different devices to edit – some are on Android, some are on iOS. This might be more than one person. Or maybe it was just some random person who really likes tweaking subsection headers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Today's contestant: Special:Contributions/202.53.36.85. Active for about a month already, unfortunately, no signs that they're losing interest yet... I think they probably have several devices, having an Android phone and an iPad is not uncommon I guess, or access to those of family members. --IamNotU (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. In my experience, it's pretty rare for someone to use multiple mobile devices, but it certainly could happen. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/120.151.85.96 is active again, after your (fourth) block expired - coming up on three years now... Also, in this edit that IP added some unattributed closely-paraphrased text from here, then shortly afterwards Special:Contributions/110.143.10.5 edited it, using more text from the same source. For comparison, they were also previously active for a few months on Special:Contributions/110.143.216.222. Yesterday editing on the same topic of "Rock Islands" was Special:Contributions/144.139.177.141, which is also active again after an expired block.

An off-topic question: Special:Contributions/2A01:111F:E1A:A400::/64 was blocked for three months at the end of April, and now they're back making the same unsourced edits for the last three weeks, and I can't seem to get anyone's attention about it. There's an SPI report that's been open for a month with no response, and I left messages for Canterbury Tail and ST47 who blocked them before, but neither have answered. In the meantime I've been reverting them because it's very obviously the same person, and only that person, on that range. But that's getting a bit tiresome, and it would be nice to just get it blocked again. What do you think? --IamNotU (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ufufcguc. I don't know what your mainspace contribs are like, but you might consider a run at WP:RFA if you get tired of reporting obvious problems to noticeboards and waiting for admins. That's why I did my RFA. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

sent ya something specialEdit

 
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.

Persistent disruption after multiple blocksEdit

You've blocked Hashirama56 twice already for edit warring/disruptive editing based on their repeated removal of "estimate" from estimated net worth on the Rihanna article. Since they just did it again, something tells me that the message isn't getting through: [1]. Bakazaka (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right. I blocked indefinitely this time. It should be pretty easy to talk one's way out of a block like this, but it will require some kind of communication. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to meEdit

The block and the notice have gone away and I'd neglected to copy it. It had persisted for 12 hours or more. It had said I was blocked until next June. Its instructions said to contact you, so, since I was blocked from editing, I sent you an email from an account which I only use for Wikipedia-related business. I looked up my IP address and used geolocation to find out where I supposedly was, and I am identified as being in the middle of a lake in Kansas or someplace in Dallas. I am neither. I assume it has something to do with my being connected by satellite. I had to look up "VPN" to see what it meant. I'm not a member of any corporation or network. I was concerned about being hacked, and a/some spoofer(s) tried to get me to send some funds pretending to be an associate/friend from a fraternal organization, so I signed up with AVG to get some better protection perhaps a month ago. I'm afraid my computer skills are limited so the mechanics of this is all pretty much Greek to me. If the notice and block doesn't come back, should I just forget about the whole thing? Activist (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Activist: don't worry; if the problem persists, we'll clear it up and make sure you get back to regular editing. AVG may be operating a privacy-oriented service that hides your IP address (and thus acts like a VPN). If I found people abusing this service to vandalize articles, I might have blocked it. If you have any further problems, we can look deeper into the issue, and I can potentially grant you IP block exemption or unblock the problematic IP address. Just let me know. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again for getting back to me. I'm guessing that will work, with the exemption if necessary in the future. Hopefully it won't come to that. Activist (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

SAQEdit

And again [2]. History at User_talk:NinjaRobotPirate/Archive2019-1#SAQ-stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. I can semi-protect the page again if more show up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, please. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
This reminds me of a guy who has spent years genre warring on Eagles songs. I had to long-term protection on some of those articles, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll get back to you in a year, maybe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible problem accountEdit

Hi. I was recently messaged by Cheung2, who has made no edits except to two talk pages to request a copyedit of Akane Yamaguchi. An IP editor, 58.187.77.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), had been sending out the same message last month. The behavior seemed suspicious, and so I wanted to bring it to your attention. If there is no problem, then please ignore this. Take care. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

That's weird. Maybe it's just some random person who doesn't feel comfortable editing articles in English. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok. I'll see if I can maybe help them out. Thanks. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Sock stuffEdit

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate,

I was doing some category cleaning work and came across an IP account who was placing some articles in categories created by a recent Son of Zorn sockpuppet, Crazygames. You had previously blocked the IP several times so I placed an extended block on the account. I've come across a veteran editor who edits in a similar style but I assume their name would have popped up when you did the original checkuser back in 2018.

When I looked at the SPI case, you mentioned them getting around an IP range block and I was wondering if you remembered the block range and could see if this IP account was part of a range whose block might have expired. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, he plagues TV-related articles. Son of Zorn typically uses a throwaway account to create new categories, then uses IP socks to obsessively populate them. It can be a bit of work to locate and block all the socks, but I try to range block them as they pop up. Thanks for taking care of that IP. And, yeah, I've noticed a couple veteran editors whose edits intersected with Son of Zorn socks. I think they're just wikignomes who share a common interest in TV-related categories, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
That's all good information, thanks, NinjaRobotPirate (that is SUCH a great name!). I think sock hunting would drive me nuts, so you have my respect. Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I chose this name partly to prevent taking myself too seriously, which I think has had mixed success. One mitigating factor in sock hunting is that you can choose how much of a workload you want. I wouldn't want to deal with it as a fulltime job. NinjaRobotPirate (talk)

Multiple accountsEdit

You asked me why I was using multiple accounts, but I blanked the question instead of answering it. Well here's my answer to that question: I wasn't able to access Omar Warsame15 for account security reasons. So I made a new one in replacement of it. If you want to, block it now. OmarWarsame31 (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

common wordsEdit

If "exogamy" is a common word from your point of view, I guess some people will have severe problems communicating with you. I'll try it anyway. What exactly made you think that links to scientific terminology in underlinked paragraphs were "distracting"? In general, the article still appears underlinked. Please explain. And how is social order not relevant to a paragraph about society, etc.. Oh, and please don't say "we" when you mean "I" -- Kku (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kku: please read WP:OVERLINK. We do not link words like "beans", "farming", "hunting", and "cattle". The vast majority of your links were incorrect according to the manual of style. Also, your attitude needs some work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I would concede w.r.t. "beans". My attitude is in general not to bluntly revert other people's work with a general notice about general policies, but surgically remove nonsense, leave things that make sense. You did not explain how exogamy fit into your scheme. Thanks in advance. -- Kku (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Koo Bon-mooEdit

I may have done it wrong ~ can you add {pp} again ~ they are back ~ thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article. By the way, only administrators can protect pages. {{pp}} is just an informational icon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

174.102.161.185Edit

We admin conflicted - I got an off-wiki report (probably because it was infobox related and they were afraid of getting a Civility and infoboxes sanction, though I don't see how) so I semi-protected Georg Katzer at the same time as you blocked the IP, for 72 hours as well. Should we leave them both in place or defer to one or the other? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't really see a big problem with having both in place, but you can undo my block if you think it's unnecessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
No, I'd rather leave the block, if the IP is here to edit war over infoboxes, there's more than one article they can do that on. Best be on the safe side. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, seems like the sort of battleground issue that could spread. But feel free to do what you think is best; I'm sure you have more experience in this arena. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Block evasionEdit

I did a AIV post, but it might get ignored since its been a few hours already. User: 2001:8003:594A:6800:808A:2E4A:F0DE:B8DC is avoiding their block by editing at 2001:8003:5999:6D00:61F3:A3F5:6FBA:F1A2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Both IPs edit Australian wrestling articles. Notice their similar posts to Wikipedia talk: Articles for deletion. Nearly word for word posts. StaticVapor message me! 18:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@STATicVapor: that's kind of a weird situation. I did a range block because someone was avoiding scrutiny by disruptively editing while logged out, but I left the account itself unblocked. Is the IP doing something disruptive again? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a weird situation. I don't think it is someone avoiding scrutiny (unless it is a user that was blocked long ago). Either that, or it's a meatpuppet for Addicted4517. I notice a lot of tag teaming on notability/deletion discussions (only on Australian wrestling articles). It seems like whenever an edit by Addicted4517 is challenged the IP editor shows up to defend him. You'll notice that they have both been working towards deletion on the article that the IP requested the AfD for. I haven't taken this to SPI, because that isn't really for IPs that are not 1000% obvious, and even then IP reports usually do not get responded to until the issue is stale.
The IP range was blocked for harassing me over a dispute over a notability tag, range blocked because they have a new IP everytime they edit it seems. Since the month range block isn't up this user should still be blocked right? Even if they are not doing anything disruptive yet. StaticVapor message me! 19:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2001:8003:594A:6800::/64 was not anyone who had previously edited professional wrestling topics, but they were logging out to edit war on professional wrestling articles and make uncivil comments. The range block was mostly to force this person to stop hiding behind an anonymous IP address to make uncivil comments and edit war. If the IP starts this up again, let me know. I guess I could do another range block right now, but I'd prefer to wait until there's a problem. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I just did not think it was right that the same person that was supposed to be blocked for a month, is editing still with no care to the block. The edits to Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation makes it WP:DUCKish that it is the same persom editing Wikipedia. StaticVapor message me! 05:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

GamingEdit

Could you quick check Woolcoo? Obvious sandbox gaming for ECP, but I'm not sure what to do other than the suspicious behavior itself. -- ferret (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Handled by Bbb23 through another report. -- ferret (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually handled by me through this report. I suspected who the master (ConsumersDistributingonline) was and I've found sufficient evidence to block, but I couldn't confirm. NRP, does the sock remind you of anyone else?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Whoops, bad assumption that AIV report triggered it. -- ferret (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
There was one person I half-remember who was focused on malls and department stores. I think that one was located elsewhere, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I suspect you're thinking of EdelweissofNE (talk · contribs · count), but you're right, locations don't match, and this one is more specific in terms of target articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that looks like the one I was thinking of. Beyond that, I can't think of anything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

WayForward - Polygram relationEdit

I can't find any trace of WayForward Technologies having been - or having been a part of - a gaming branch of Polygram. Is there a source for that?2A01:E0A:18F:6570:B0D2:B173:3214:B6C (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Some of the information in that article was added by a known hoaxer. I don't know anything about the topic and might not have done a good job of cleaning it up. You seem to know more about it, so feel free to fix it as you see fit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019Edit

I am not edit warring; I reverted your edit only ONCE, and you did not even address my reasons. Please do not rashly accuse others of "edit warring" when they counter your reversions of constructive edits. Thank you. Songwaters (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Songwaters: maybe you should read WP:BRD and try discussing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Please explainEdit

I do not understand why you have alerted me to community sanctions when I do not believe I have done anything to warrant such a warning. I have been pursuing an RfC for reasonable circumstances to establish a consensus over the specific application of certain policies and guidelines in biographies and sport. This issue is indirectly related to a notability concern that I am pursuing through proper channels. If you are concerned over my conduct towards the user who is trying to bait me in the RfC perhaps you should speak to him. If it is something else please let me know what it is specifically. Thank you. Addicted4517 (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Addicted4517: it's an alert that general sanctions are under effect for this topic. That template uses older wording, which is significantly scarier-looking than {{alert}}. Although you must be alerted before you are sanctioned, it doesn't necessarily mean that you will be sanctioned. That said, the drama level at Adam Brooks (wrestler) is getting to the point where an admin may need to step in eventually. Also, please note that the proper channel to determine notability is articles for deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, MPJ-DK is providing a lot of drama which I have been trying to defuse but he keeps coming back for more. I'm thinking of hiding that part in a box but I can't find another example to copy and use. WP:DRAMA says don't ignore it, which was my original option. Do you have any reference for it? Also, the issue isn't about notability. It's about sourcing, with notability being a symptom. It's been very frustrating that people (yourself now included) think that it's about notability alone. I'm not sending something to AfD when my own vote if it was would be an extremely weak keep. His notability at present is borderline - not definitely not notable. I just want better sources to prove notability beyond doubt. If people are misunderstanding my intent maybe I should start the RfC again. Your thoughts? Addicted4517 (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Addicted4517: you seem a bit confused to me. You've been edit warring to include a cleanup tag that you don't even believe belongs on the article? This is the sort of thing that gets someone topic banned from professional wrestling. If you don't want an article deleted, please don't challenge its notability. If you think an article is notable but needs more sources, you're probably going to have to add them yourself instead of using cleanup templates. Notability is based on the existence of sources, not whether those sources are currently in the article. So, {{notability}} should not be put on articles simply because they lack sources. As the template says: "Do not use this tag merely because the page requires significant work." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not confused. It would seem that I'm not getting my message across. How can I make this clear? Sourcing is the core problem, not notability. Notability is symptom only. The tag is there because of that symptom, and because there isn't a more appropriate tag available that covers the issue. Your call that I find sources assumes that I have the time to do so. I do not. I'm not going to glance at a Google search. That's lazy and inappropriate. The tag is ultimately a call for better sources, and a small warning that anyone else (not me) could send it to AfD. Now if there's a better tag to use, please point it out to me. Meanwhile, you never did answer my query as to how to hide (not remove) the drama section in the RfC. Not to mention the idea of restarting the RfC. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I feel like I'm repeating myself. If you think an article is probably notable but have a problem with the number of sources in the article, you probably need to fix it yourself instead of adding cleanup templates. Our guidelines say that articles do not need to cite a minimum number of sources. The sources just need to exist. Thus, if you think an article would survive a deletion discussion, there is no problem to solve and it does not need a cleanup template. If there is unsourced content in the article, you can remove it or tag it with {{citation needed}}. I would suggest that you avoid causing any more drama at the talk page, such as hiding other people's messages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I see that conversing with you has been a waste of my time. Addicted4517 (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Easy4me?Edit

Any thoughts on Sc2353? Sro23 (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Wrong ISP, wrong geolocation. Easy4me still had the same ISP/geolocation while Sc2353 was active, so I'm pretty sure this isn't him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Easy4you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
You better watch out. If you make too many bad jokes, someone might block your account as compromised by EEng. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetEdit

Hi, it's me again. I'm sorry if you feel like I'm tormenting you, but you're the only admin who knows about this case. Anyway, I stumbled across this user named Tecate Duff and I could be wrong, but his edits are similar to those of the afro mentioned User:Pinky Rhino (User:Atomic Meltdown). It could be just me being paranoid, but I have a strong suspicion. Thank you for reading this, I'm sincerely sorry for disturbing you. Thank you. Penguin7812(Talk Page) 06:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Once again, it looks like I'm too slow. By the way, don't worry about posting here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I thought you were done for the night or I wouldn't have checked. Although, really, it was a bit of a challenge considering you're "the only admin who knows about this case".  Anyway, I shouldn't even be here. I tried to go to sleep over two hours ago but couldn't. I'm gonna try again now. I'm awfully tired. I don't even feel like making a bad joke.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!Edit

 
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.

Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Did you get my message, NinjaRobotPirate? I thought I would have heard back from you by now. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I wasn't as obvious as I thought. I left a message on the editor's talk page with some instructions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Washington Metro rolling stock articleEdit

Hello. I am writing this message to inform you that we need a big help on the WMATA Washington Metro rolling stock articles for many reasons. An anonymous user 72.83.59.193 is vandalizing one too many times on this article, and keeps writing the reason of the edit “make it tell the truth.” It is getting very annoying, and many users are reverting back multiple times. The first vandalized edit that this user made was at 01:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC) here, with no valid reasons. This user is mentioning someone named “Nadim Allen,” and talks about this person on an article. Starting at 21:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC), this user started on this edit here, continuously vandalizing the article, and wrote “Make it tell the truth.” Users Adavidb and Wikipelli reverted the edits back where it was supposed to be, removing the vandalism that the anonymous user wrote. Wikipelli left a message on his talk page that the edit was unconstructive. A further three edits occurred on May 20, the user returns to vandalize the article again, and user Daybeers warned him to stop making these edits. The next one at 19:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC), here, the user continuously adds about “Nadim Allen, “Naheem Allen,” and “Irin Will Allen” on the article. User Turini2 found that the edit is vandalism and reverted back. The user’s recent edit was at 12:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC), here, and kept putting people’s name at the article, and it’s getting very annoying. User El cid, el campeador reverted the edit again and asked 72.83.59.193 to stop making disruptive edits and vandalize the article. I fear that this user won’t stop, and I don’t want the DC wikipedians to get frustrated and repeated warning the user about this unacceptable actions. Is there anything you can do to help us? Analyze all his edits and let me know is the user should be blocked. Thank you for your time. Leobran2018 (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. The IP was recently warned about getting blocked, so let me know if there's any more disruption, and I'll block. Sometimes IP editors stop being disruptive once they're warned about blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. I’ll keep in touch with the other contributors, and if the next report of this act from that user, I’ll immediately notify you. Thank you. Really appreciate it. Leobran2018 (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thx for blocking the anonymous user who vandalized Wikipedia today. Keith chau yet (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

History man busy againEdit

Hi Ninja - one of that group of IP's that you blocked before is busy again - 124.19.16.206. Would please block it again? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I think that this is another sock, redoing what I'd reverted earlier: Special:Contributions/144.130.156.129. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I did a three-month block on that one, too. These IPs seem to stick around for a very long time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, they do. And here's another one: Special:Contributions/1.128.105.47, please. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  Done. That one seems to have been allocated to someone else back in April, so I did a shorter block. I suspect we'll be seeing it again soon nonetheless. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

ProxyEdit

Hey! Someone reported 103.212.20.243 as an open proxy over at the WikiProject. As a user not verified, I decided to check this IP to see if I understand it all properly. So what I did is I found out it is not a web server, so I tried finding out the port numbers via Nmap. I got 2 port numbers: 443 and 8080. I logged out of Wikipedia and tried to connect to both, but I wasn't able to load up Wikipedia when I set the IP and port as my proxy. Therefore, it is not an open proxy, right? (Because I am not verified, I haven't made any comments at the WikiProject.) --MrClog (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Guide to checking open proxies is a useful guide. Honestly, I'm better at setting up proxies than identifying them in the wild, but if you can't get anything useful out of the IP, it's probably not a SOCKS open proxy, at least. People sometimes report various suspicious IP addresses even if they're technically not open proxies. A couple times, I blocked IP ranges allocated to colocation centres, only to find that some kind of infrastructure was hosted there, like wifi access on public transportation. The IPCheck tool helps, but it's difficult to know what you're dealing with sometimes. That's why I generally stick to the easy ones – less risk of accidentally causing several multinational corporations to suddenly lose the ability to edit Wikipedia. Believe me, the email you get is not at all cheerful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Amen to that. Just a small comment, rather than only saying "unlikely" at the project page: When you combine having both those port numbers, and add in the country, along with some other stuff, you're probably looking at a proxy which probably isn't open. This type of result would be common for these types. If you look closely at search results, one might even conclude that it's used by one particular hotel in Madhya Pradesh, so you can factor that in. The edits are also all apparently regionally appropriate, which is a good indication. As is mentioned on the guide page, saying with certainty that something isn't open is incredibly difficult. Also Ninja, lol Taokaka (openvpn). -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Zzuuzz, where did you find that it is used by a hotel in Madhya Pradesh? I only found that it was registered to iEnergizer IT Services Pvt., "a global provider of Business Process Outsourcing", located in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India. --MrClog (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I know Google probably varies their results for different users, but for me, it's right there in the Google search results page, which are not too numerous at this time, and I can't think of any other good reason for that. Well actually there could be other reasons but let's not go into that on someone else's talk page. Sometimes we can never be completely sure about some things, so who knows? -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

QueryEdit

Could I possibly ask you, an admin, to remove my user page? By that I mean obliterate it entirely and then retarget it to my talk. Slightlymad (talkcontribs) 06:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I can do that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Quick questionEdit

Hi. What does "patrolling admin" mean in the context of "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments" on a sockpuppet investigation page? --kingboyk (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kingboyk: any admin is free to block suspected sock puppets at WP:SPI if they find the evidence convincing enough. The instructions are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions. Admins can also leave comments, such as asking for more evidence. Non-admin clerks sometimes ask admins to take an action for them, such as blocking an editor or reporting the contents of a deleted page. So, basically, a "patrolling admin" would be anyone who takes an interest in the case and wants to help out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah I see - and thanks very much for the link. Will you be taking action at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balljgh? --kingboyk (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Everyone I checked was on the same IP address, but sometimes people say that's because they're on a transparent proxy or at a Wikimedia meetup. So, I figured I'd see what other people thought should be done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
OK. I'm off to bed now. I'll read the instructions and check back in on the case later. I'll hold onto my thoughts until then. Thanks again, really appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions. --kingboyk (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Localities.cyEdit

Hi, I just saw that you dealt with this - thank you very much!

I also wanted to ask you about something else that I'm worried about. Over the last few days, this user has added hundreds and hundreds of dubious external links to several dozen articles. While I cannot confirm that all of it is spam, it worries me and I wanted to ask you how that can be dealt with to undo the damage.

Myself and other users left him several messages on his talk page to warn him and other users who may spot the same problems, but he kept blanking the talk page, perhaps to make it harder for other people to see it. You'll find some of the messages if you look at his talk page history.

Thanks very much, Dr. Vogel (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@DrVogel: you could remove the links if you think they fail WP:EL. I usually do this manually by tracking edits via Special:LinkSearch. Twinkle can make it go by a little faster. There's also advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! Is there a venue on Wikipedia where you can report the addition of hundreds and hundreds of external links? Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@DrVogel: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, I suppose. There are a couple other places you could try, but they're more specific. For example, one could request blacklisting of the URL at the spam blacklist. That would prevent anyone from adding the URL anywhere on Wikipedia, even talk pages. WP:ANI or WP:AIV would be the place to report the spammers themselves to be blocked. Wikipedia:Cleanup is useful for highlighting problems, but it's mostly set up to address a single article that needs a lot of work. Each of these pages contains additional help and links to other forums. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Spam botsEdit

Could you review the accounts in this diff of AIV? I'm blocking and cleaning up the spam, but I've blocked like 15 of these today. Any range blocks possible? @Bbb23: as info if you can look. -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Specifically the ones that were about "free email hosting". There were two hard promotional user name blocks mixed in on that diff. The rest were "free email hosting". -- ferret (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
In my experience, range blocks usually aren't possible on spam bots. I'll give it a look, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
No sweat, just curious if anything possible. -- ferret (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Spammers, but likely not botsEdit

Could you check Sumantmeena7, Samriddhi7, SharamJi, MMG7273, Usergod72 and Cheeta101? They are all involved in adding spam links to a new gaming website. They have never edited during the same time frame that I can tell, and the users are in order of usage. -- ferret (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, they're all   Confirmed to Sumantmeena7. It's kind of difficult to speculate on sleepers given how many spammers on this ISP. There must be a half price sale on your fee if you spam Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Untitled comment by Kaleen bhaiyaaEdit

hey! , actually i forgot the password of my previous account and it was not subscribed to my e mail id . That's why i made a new account . Kaleen bhaiyaa (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kaleen bhaiyaa: you can create a new account if you stop using the old one. However, please stop adding unsourced, random trivia to Sambhar Lake Town. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not using that account . You can see the last edit of that account.

I am not adding random trivia in that page , it is authentic , you can check that through web sources

I have also edited the sambhar lake page , I had searched a lot about its environment concern factor , no random trivia . Only real one,

I can assure you regarding this . As I am familiar to this area , so i will never add random shits to page . Kaleen bhaiyaa (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kaleen bhaiyaa: you are still adding unsourced content to this page. Stop it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

2601:586:400:833a::/64Edit

Just giving you a heads-up that your blocking for a week didn't do much to dissuade their behavior. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks this time. Maybe they'll find something better to do than vandalize Wikipedia in that time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible OWSLAjosh666 rangeEdit

Hey, is there a chance you can have a look into Special:Contributions/2600:8801:0:0:0:0:0:0/32? I suspect that OWSLAjosh666 is using this range again. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I did a couple narrower range blocks that should handle it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Brazilian date vandalEdit

Hi, Special:Contributions/189.47.93.213 is back to vandalizing dates again, after your block. I checked the sources, and the dates are incorrect. --IamNotU (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess we can try a week this time, then. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Potential block evasionEdit

I recently reverted some edits made by an IP user that was blocked by you for trying to evade a block. Another IP user undid some of those changes by the blocked IP. Not sure if its just coincidence or more block evading.∻ℳcCunicano 13:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, probably the same person. Blocked for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

HypocorismsEdit

Hi there, I noticed you reverted three of Vaselines unnecessary "known professionally as [obvious hypocorism]s". Just wanted to make sure you were aware they also did the same at [Al Pacino and there is currently a discussion about this misunderstanding of the MOS:HYPOCORISM policy at Talk:Al_Capone#Hypocorism_"Al"_is_unneeded. JesseRafe (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

DuckyEdit

Azra Arda Gusema against SINDOiNews please. Looks very ducky, but I have a suspicion Azra might not be the master. Contribution scans suggest globally locked Televisi di Medan may be related. -- ferret (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

SINDOiNews is confirmed to a bunch of globally locked accounts: MandaNews 95, News 95, and Nick, M95. I think Azra is in a different city but using the same ISP. It's difficult to speculate further. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The trail is difficult for me to follow because the accounts aren't tagged, but I think SINDOiNews is Manda 1993 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
As I looked deeper I saw that the iNews article seems to have a very long history of socking. -- ferret (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like Manda 1993 has been fairly active on the same IP range as SINDOiNews, though many of the locked accounts haven't made edits to English Wikipedia. I requested a global lock for SINDOiNews because I'm pretty sure of that one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019Edit

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

UdaitenmaEdit

Hello! Sorry if there’s a more proper way to do this, but I couldn’t find it. I would like to report the user Udaitenma as a vandalism-only account, as all its edits seem to be vandalism. The user has been warned numerous times; they received a final warning on July 16 and once again committed vandalism on July 23.
Once again, sorry for bothering you. Cheers ~ 177.140.105.64 (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) You're right about it being a VOA, but, as you say, they haven't edited since July 23, almost two weeks ago. If they resume editing in the same style, they should be blocked. (I stupidly blocked them myself before realizing they hadn't edited recently, so I unblocked.).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Before editing those articles, I checked.Edit

I understand what you mean. But even if I didn't mentioned something, that doesn't mean that my edits were incorrect. I checked on IMDb the informations. :) HelenChimonidi (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The IMDb is user-generated, much like Wikipedia, so it can't be used as a source here, and its data should not be imported into Wikipedia. You shouldn't be removing sourced content, anyway. If a reliable source, such as the American Film Institute, says that a film is a British-American co-production, that's what Wikipedia should say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Same disruptive IPEdit

Hi NRP. You said at ANI I could report this directly to you. Same BS. Cheers! Robvanvee 15:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I did a range block. That'll take care of these IPs, but there are always more on other ranges. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll be watching...:) Thanks! Robvanvee 15:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Untitled message Magin-zEdit

I am sorry I forgot my first username that is why I took another username sorry ...Magin-Z... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magin-z (talkcontribs) 18:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

From The ChessahEdit

I’ve no idea what the verbiage in the message means. I’m in my 2nd day with Wiki Editors. Please use non-wiki dialect with me at this time. To date, I’ve never been an editor, just a financial supporter.

My edit was The Democratic Party to The Democrat Party. The latter being grammatically correct. Democratic politicians/voters/supporters would be correct. It’s an action/belief due to being a Democrat. It’s an incorrect trend to rename the party. Usually adopted by people under 35.

I have no interest in the political games both sides play. If all kept their campaign promises, they’d be working towards their own unemployment. A political Möbius Strip that most individuals rarely educated themselves about or care to.

I’m an expat Brit, (living in Houston, TX) the land where the Labour Party is trying to rename itself as Britain’s Democrat Party. As yet, I cannot vote in the USA for another year. But with the electoral college, why bother.

Thanks for the homework. No more editing until I’m fully beyond 101/2.

I wonder what color clothing the emperor is ‘wearing’ today ;)

Best - Chessah — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheChessah (talkcontribs) 17:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The name of the political party is the Democratic Party, not "Democrat Party". Please do not call them the "Democrat Party". This is a disparaging term in the United States; see Democrat Party (epithet). This is also considered grammatically incorrect by American writers; see Democrat Party (epithet)#Grammar. Articles about American politics have recently been a major source of drama and disruption on Wikipedia. These articles have now been put under special rules that allow Wikipedia's administrators to take unilateral action to prevent editors from causing further drama or disruption. This would include using disparaging terms to refer to Republicans or Democrats. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Another Gawli sock...Edit

See Dustin saim (talk · contribs). Also, can you protect Yashu for a while? Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Let me know if any more appear, and I'll take care of them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Yash GawliEdit

See this. May wish to protect Yash as well. Эlcobbola talk 00:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

New York TimesEdit

Hey- I don't mean to bring this up again, but I just saw an instance of the "50's" usage in the New York Times. ([3]) I quoted from that article as part of a new article that I participated in the creation of on the contested 1948 United States Senate election in Texas. I know that there is some kind of rule or consensus against this typography, but I think that this method of writing it is as common as grass in the USA. I think we shouldn't hinder people from using English as it stands. Do YOU think (YOU personally) that there's any merit to this proposal/my claims? Should this usage be researched further? I'm scared to bring it up with you, but I think you will see that my intent is positive. Please note that I haven't talked about this issue for a while. I didn't intentionally go out and find another "50's" example- I was just doing research on a 1948 campaign and saw it. Although I am too scared to go to that MoS page and put forth my position and hence I will never edit that page or talk page again, I think that this new evidence of the usage of this form goes further to showing that "50's" is used in English. That's all I want to say! If I am approaching another block just by bring this up, let me know and I will cease and desist! Thanks for any feedback. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

MOS:DECADE would be the guideline on how Wikipedia styles decades. It says to use "1980s" instead of "1980's". I assume there was some kind of RFC about this on an MOS talk page. Some US media outlets have their own style guide – for example, the AP Stylebook and The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage. There are also many competing style guides in wide use, such as The Chicago Manual of Style. Each of the style guides does things a bit differently, perhaps using an apostrophe here or not using one there. Just because one media outlet does things a certain way does not mean that we should (or that it's the "official" American style). I would really suggest that you try not to worry so much about this stuff. It's trivial, unimportant, and does not impact the quality the our encyclopedia articles. I understand the urge to get things right, but it's unavoidable that some things on Wikipedia will be done in a way that you dislike. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Help with socksEdit

Hello, I see you blocked one IP who’s recently edited Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry. Though I along others have explained to this user that their edits need consensus, they continue to revert us. There are multiple IPs/new users who I’m 99% positive are the same person:

  • User:Ytraps
  • IP 136.181.192.1
  • IP 2600:1007:B111:8327:497E:FBB7:D5EC:10F9
  • IP 174.84.40.115
  • User:Corkythehornetfam (trolling my name per their user page history)
  • IP 2600:1008:B06D:B078:5492:536B:64A7:5D0B

The list goes on, but those are primarily it. I only suspect them to be the same person because they are after the same edit every time. I had the page protected once, and it may need it again. Hope you can help! Thanks, Corky 20:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I blocked Ytraps as a sock of Corkythehornetfam and semi-protected the page for a month. Let me know if more show up or if there are other pages that need to be protected. This sockmaster isn't particularly subtle, but he seems to be a bit persistent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! This is the only page... for now! Corky 21:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

David Permut Bio HelpEdit

Hello NinjaRobotPirate,

I am reaching out to request that you please take a look at the following proposed changes (with annotations) that I have been trying to make on David Permut’s Wikipedia page. Please note that I am new to this process, have no knowledge of the history behind proposed changes for this page, and my intentions in creating this bio are not for promotional purposes, but to correctly display all the facts about David’s career within the entertainment business.

I greatly appreciate your review of the bio provided, and consideration when deciding if this bio is deemed appropriate.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. This has been an extremely difficult situation for me to work through so I cannot thank you enough for the attention and help provided.

(Redacted)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpermut (talkcontribs) 22:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You're putting me in an awkward position here. First, you're violating copyright law by copy-pasting content from the IMDb on to my talk page. Second, your username gives the impression that you're David Permut himself. I'm sorry, but I have to remove the copyright violation. We can not allow copy-pasted content on our website; anything you write here must be in your own words. If you wrote this content originally, you can donate the copyright. Second, if you are not the David Permut, please follow these instructions to change your username – you don't want to give people the false impression that you're a famous person. And, finally, please see our guideline on how to manage a conflict of interest if you are David Permut (or you are writing on his behalf). I can give you some more detailed instructions on your talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - I wrote the bio for the IMDB page, which, by the way is not entirely the same As the bio written above. If you could please make the changes on David’s Wikipedia page I can edit the IMDb page to say that the bio is taken from Wikipedia, thereby not being a copyright infringement. I am not great at all at making these edits and really need help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:11:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Kindly following up here. I appreciate your attention on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D280:99A0:F84C:300F:73A7:72AD (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "NinjaRobotPirate".