User talk:NinjaRobotPirate/Archive2020-1

• 2013 archive
• 2014 archive
• 2015 archive
• 2016 archive
• 2017 archive (January to June)
• 2017 archive (July to December)
• 2018 archive (January to June)
• 2018 archive (July to December)
• 2019 archive (January to June)
• 2019 archive (July to December)
• 2020 archive (January to June)
• 2020 archive (July to December)
• 2021 archive (January to June)
• 2021 archive (July to December)
• 2022 archive (January to June)
• 2022 archive (July to December)
• 2023 archive (January to June)
• 2023 archive (July to December)
• current

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)

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

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

Administrator changes

Dreamy Jazz • Newslinger • Rosguill

Deor • Spartaz • Xeno

Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

CheckUser changes

Bradv • Casliber • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Oversight changes

Bradv • Casliber • DGG • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Someguy1221

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
• A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
• Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

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

• This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

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)

I semiprotected the articles. That should help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

That would do. Regards. Kthxbay (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I semi-protected the articles for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Kthxbay (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

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

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)

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)

It's a lonely, chimeric life, I suppose.-- Deepfriedokra 14:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Ferret: Plotagontheanimator2918 and Xavior 3.10 are  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)

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)

Yeah, MRY is usually a bit more overt, but I've seen him do this before. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

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)

NOTHERE includes many different behaviors, including this kind of harassment. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

{{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)

@Izno: Thanks, I'll ping Ferret to see what they think. ミラP 23:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@Ferret: Thanks, that's all for now. I'll take this somewhere else. ミラP 23:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I hope not AN or ANI. You'll be eaten alive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

"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)

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)

Ah, I thought it had something to do with the those media links themselves. Thanks. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the original reason was spam-related. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

Yeah, this kind of disruption flares up occasionally whenever you block vandals or sock puppets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

I found a couple more and blocked them. It looks like a bored LTA vandal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Cheers! Appreciate the check. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

1. 28596: Tseung kang 99. Has revised the appeal. I won't e around till Tuesday.-- Deepfriedokra 16:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

93.119.219.154 looks like him. Thanks Benyamin (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like him behaviorally. Blocked for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Please see the Special:Diff/959389815 and this log. Special:Contributions/86.55.121.108 is GTVM92. Benyamin (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. He doesn't seem to be socking on Commons, which is probably what's saving him from a global lock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• The user finally blocked indefinite in fawiki because of socking. Benyamin (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

Well, I did sign up for the mop. -qedk (t 桜 c) 17:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Paid sock?

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)

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)

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)

Madhaberisl = irony.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

Ponyo's smarter than all of us. She's often not around.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

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

Administrator changes

Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes

Dennis Brown

Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes

Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

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

• Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

And now this. [11] Grandpallama (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate you checking in on it. Grandpallama (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you. Receieved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, I don't know if you still remember the username of that editor. This IP 121.135.163.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also seems to be the same editor.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The username was UniSail2.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather not comment on who blocked IP editors may or may not be. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh I am sorry. I wish I didn't make that comment about the username.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

In this case, it probably doesn't matter so much because the IPs are proxies or VPNs. It's the principle of the thing, really. I try to avoid talking about IP addresses as much as I can so that I don't accidentally say something that I regret. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

Blocked. Let me know if there are any obvious copyright violations to clean up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Blocked that one, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi, hope you're doing ok these days... I've been a little distracted, looks like I've got some reverting to do on 2001:8003:7D4D:3900::/64, maybe others. Could you re-block it? Thanks. PS this one too: 2001:44B8:2187:5000::/64. --IamNotU (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Done – 6 months on both, this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

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

RevDel?

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

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

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)

@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)

Not me (at least not in obvious cases). Thank you for your help checking this. GermanJoe (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

haha - yes, just seen the big red explanation at WP:3RR. Thanks again 31.52.163.160 (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

(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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Thanks. Longer semi-protection can always be put in place if needed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

A sock you blocked has resurfaced on Frida Kahlo

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

Yeah, it's Orchomen. He likes to edit war over pointless things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• and now user:Tubedsods. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment: I've also reverted the edit to your talk page by Vialstalc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I know you can't comment ... but you took action. Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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

It looks like our friend is back. M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

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

Another IP quacking

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

Ugh. What a pain. Let me know if it keeps up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

Yeah, done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Aaaaand he's back. [14] Crossroads ^-talk- 18:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

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

Administrator changes

Money emoji

Athaenara • DeltaQuad

Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

DeltaQuad

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

• Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
• The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

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)

Yeah, that's Jaredgk2008. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

They're persistent. Thanks. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Quack: Another of the same flock. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

One of the filters might need to be tweaked. But blocked that one, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thanks for taking a look and for the post on their talk page. MarnetteD|Talk 08:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I hate the persistent ones. Yeah, I agree, looks like the same person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hi, fyi I saw that you just unblocked this range yesterday after an unblock request that said "Edits i did not make", and you commented "allocated to someone else now". But I think it's still the same person, in Brockton, Mass. Their IPs have in the past stayed allocated for more than a year. Apart from some film-related topics, one of their main fixations has been with immigration, and especially adding to long lists of places of origin/destination of immigrants without a source, e.g.: [15]. Compare today's edits for example: [16]. Also these edits: [17] and [18]. The first of those is also typical of that, and they've edited that Alfred Molina article before, about his immigration status, from their previous 2601:183:C602:4020::/64 range: [19] and [20]. The second edit is an old habit of this user that I've seen many times: following their edits by an edit adding a single space, for example: [21], [22]; [23], [24], etc. --IamNotU (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting. The reason I unblocked the IP range after such a weak unblock request was because they seemed to be editing from a different computer now. I have to admit that your evidence is compelling, and re-checking the IP range makes me unsure that I made the right call to unblock. I'll reblock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

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: [25], [26]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As always, I appreciate your help. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Note to myself: this is block evasion by Special:Contributions/2804:d41:2100::/40. Mystery solved! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

They are back with a similar IP: 45.230.166.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Also under this IP: 201.19.176.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I blocked both for 3 days. If those IPs come back, I can do it for longer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Understood, I will do nothing. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Requests" sock

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

Finally – something easy that I can do in my sleep. Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

They’ve returned under this IP address. 1989 (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. I'm guessing a bunch of these half-forgotten cases are going to be reopened now that everyone's bored at home. The only thing that surprises me, really, is that I haven't seen Nate Speed on a binge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

I don't like the idea of it, but I can give it a try. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks! Robvanvee 12:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Just arrived! Robvanvee 20:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if he starts hitting other articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Will do, thanks as always! Robvanvee 20:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

Yeah, done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Robvanvee 07:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems as you protect them, so they find another label to desecrate . This time Def Jam Recordings. Robvanvee 08:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Block

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

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

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? SQL^{Query me!} 18:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

I've opened a sockpuppetry/vote-canvassing investigation.[28] I think their vote should be void. Israell (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

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.[29]

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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 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)

Yeah, Excelse is on my radar. Please be careful, though, because you're banned from this topic now. You should let other people worry about who's being disruptive. The reason why this topic is under general sanctions is because the entire community wants the disruption to end. It's not just me, and we're not going to let this fester. Wanting to delete a page is perfectly normal on Wikipedia. This is why we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You'll have to accept that if you want to edit in this topic area again. Some people are going to disagree with you, and you'll still have to collaborate with them, even if they have diametrically opposed views. I promise that admins will look into the other side, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure. But I do believe you as admin should prevent racially motivated edits, or at least watch for editors that make those edits. I don't believe it's in line of policy. Owynhart 02:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, sorry for hijacking this thread, but since I've been called out here: Owynhart, I was preparing a comment on the talk page (in response to your comment that "BRD only applies to editors who want to improve the article") when I received an email from you asking me why I was reinstating the edits of "trolls," which, for the record, I did not appreciate. At that point, I decided to just step away from the whole issue. Please do not email me again in the future. If you have an issue with any of my edits, post it publicly on my user talk page.

NinjaRobotPirate, given the numerous instances of this editor calling other established editors "trolls", as documented at ANI, I think the administrative action you took here was more than warranted. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

It's interesting that you say that. I do believe they are disruptive given their edits I've looked over, some of which are racially biased. Also, I don't believe you've ever commented on the talk page, despite asking everyone else to do so. That's unfair isn't it? I'm unsure what you mean by "stepping away from the whole issue," since you've found your way here. Owynhart 04:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I wonder why you topic banned Owynhart while Excelse, Popcornduff and TheLongTone made more disruptive edits. And you shouldn't have done it as you are one of the involved admins. You participated in an AfD even if you didn't voted there. You didn't give time to other users to express their opinion. As an admin you may know what you should have done instead of topic ban is to stop disruptive edits related General Sanctioned articles. Your actions are one sided and can't be justified and hope you will revoke it. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Participating in an AfD does not make an administrator necessarily WP:INVOLVED. --qedk (t 心 c) 05:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• My "participation" in the AfD was to tell people to stop bickering. So, no, I'm not "involved". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I would like to know what exactly have I done to warranted a topic ban and not, say, a 24-hour block? Calling Popcurnfud a "troll" is an interaction dispute. WP:TBAN: The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. I don't believe I have made disruptive edits on the Jackson articles. In fact, I brought one to GA status. So it's just between me and Popcornfud. No other Jackson-article editor has complained about me being disruptive. Also, here's an essay on No Nazis mentioning trolls and their existence, and that Wikipedia should not welcome them, to say the least.

Further on the racism issue, Popcornfud encouraged TheLongTone to "kill" sections of the article even after multiple racially motivated edits, including a comment about monkeys. Note that TheLongTone dislikes the mention of racism in Jackson's career, despite that the statement was cited to a noted scholar who has a Wikipedia page. Vogel's book is thoroughly cited in the article. Most of TheLongTone's removals involve mentions of racism.

On certain voters in favor of Delete: I see that two new voters joined in to vote Delete on reasons of WP:POVFORK, poor citations, synthesis, etc. JG66, who is an editor of the Beatles articles and has access to valuable sources regarding musicians, has since the start of Deletion Nomination added plenty of material, and the article is still considered WP:POVFORK, poor citations, synthesis, etc. by some obstinate users. How will they be pleased? JG66 has made an argument on why his sources are reputable and recognized across Wikipedia, and any veteran editor would recognize that they are. I don't believe these Delete-voting users have a good understanding of what qualifies for WP:Notability.

I believe there is a level of cynicism among a group of users -- namely Popcornfud, TheLongTone, and Excelse -- who do not have good intentions in editing this article, some even racist, and there's enough evidence to prove that. I take racism and trolling on Wikipedia seriously, and as a pending changes reviewer who sees plenty of vandalism and POV edits. And I think a lot of editors and leaders throughout Wikimedia think the same. I hope the admins here will take a closer look at what's going on, and consider which users they're allowing to thrive among these articles and which users they're punishing. Owynhart 19:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Everything past the first few sentences here is a topic ban violation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello NRP, you forgot to log this at WP:GS/MJ I believe. --qedk (t 心 c) 05:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not a discretionary sanction – it's a standard block. If I still have to log those, the system is even more bureaucratic than I thought. Maybe I should, just in case. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe a block under a GS falls under the GS ambit (and handled with what a community-sanctioned block, {{uw-csblock}}), similar to how blocks under AC/DS falls under the AE ambit (and handled with arbitration enforcement block, {{uw-aeblock}}). I'm pretty new to this but I think since the sanction was placed under a GS/DS regime, the block due to that sanction would also fall under the GS ambit. --qedk (t 心 c) 20:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC) Quite honestly, anything with the word "discretionary sanction" and I know it's more work that it's worth. Try coming by AE (California 3rd District Court of Appeals) sometime. --qedk (t 心 c) 20:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably pointless to try to avoid bureaucracy; it's omnipresent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Ugh that paperwork is irritating. I'm still assuming it fulfills a function, somewhere down the line. Anyway, I ended here because I was following the trail from that "troll" comment at the AfD from a few days ago; thank you for placing that ban. The editor needs to watch their step, because any admin a week or more from now will see in their comments on this page the best possible evidence of a battleground mentality, with a NOTHERE block waiting to happen. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Not even arbitrators know why we have this bureaucracy? I'm living in a dystopian absurdist novel. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblock

Hi Ninja, please check why I was blocked by you due to "rangeblock" thanks Prangello (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

That was to stop a banned editor from continuing to make disruptive edits. It only disallows anonymous editing, so you can edit from that IP address with your account. Let me know if you have further trouble. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

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

Administrator changes

Cabayi • Lee Vilenski

Boing! said Zebedee

Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT

Money emoji → Moneytrees

Bureaucrat changes

SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

CheckUser changes

NativeForeigner

Oversight changes

Someguy1221

Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news

• There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke conflict

There is a conflict going on in the series Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke article of adding Ritvik Arora and Kaveri Priyam as main leads along with Shaheer Sheikh and Rhea Sharma. Originally, Arora and Priyam play supporting roles and thus as per MOS:TVCAST supporting cast should come under recurring or alternatively titled supporting cast section despite being a pivotial character. User:Krish990 was partially blocked by you in that article, while discussion in ANI. Now two new users, User:Siddiq X and User:Saridhvij23 are doing the same. Would being pivotial supporting characters make them the main lead of the series? Kindly consider increasing the protection level of the article or any other steps so that this problem ends. Noobie anonymous (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes as per guidelines in MOS:TVCAST which you are mentioning Noobie anonymous,the cast listing should be as per opening broadcast credits and from the time this article has been open from the date of inception,the actors you particularly edit war as part of supporting cast were always present in the main cast section as per serial policy.You Noobie anonymous have created constant recurring edits and creating conflict wars on different users talk pages.I have been observing from a long time inspite of so many wiki users being ok with the original storyline and cast description ,but you are as determined as ever to make sure you create an edit war with just 1-2 users ..strange.I would also request NinjaRobotPirate to investigate the broadcast credits in this series to avoid further conflicts:

https://www.pinkvilla.com/tv/photos/shaheer-sheikh-shares-picture-perfect-photo-yeh-rishtey-hain-pyaar-kes-fantastic-four-447501 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/actors-shaheer-sheikh-and-ritvik-arora-offer-prayers-prior-to-yeh-rishte-hain-pyar-kes-launch/photostory/68099087.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saridhvij23 (talk • contribs) 13:51, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

So odd that a brand new user finds their way here and makes the same points. If this isn't sockpuppetry, it's definitely meat-puppetry happening. Ravensfire (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

And thanks for jumping into this utter mess. It's borderline a candidate for WP:LAME. Ravensfire (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm gonna call this a WP:DUCK situation and block everyone indefinitely. I can upgrade the protection to ECP if more show up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, thanks for the help. Ravensfire (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For your relentless vandal and sockpuppet fighting. Enjoy! --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 23:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully, that AW336 guy just gives up, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey !!! Thanks for making me understand about Wikipedia. So I will take care of this ahead. I'm going to work on that. Thank you very much for alerting me .😊👍 Tanisha priyadarshini (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Let me know if you need any help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hey NRP, I could use a second opinion, because I'm not sure if I was too rash in this scenario.

• Fanoflionking was reported to me on my talk page by KatnissEverdeen.
• I gave him a general admonishment about problematic behaviour.
• I later noticed List of highest grossing actors and was contemplating if it wasn't just one whole copyright violation, since at the time there was only one reference, a similar list at the-numbers.com.
• However, while spot-checking about 20 of the values claimed, none of them matched what the-numbers.com said. That tends to look like the figures are BS.
• I asked the user where he was getting the figures. He deleted my query with the edit summary i go to actors tak page. I had no idea what that meant.
• I asked again, noting that the figures look bogus to me. He replied here, but the explanation was...not sufficient imo, and so I indeffed them until I could get a better sense of what their deal was.
• It appears that in response to my first "where are you getting the figures" query, they did attempt to respond at the article's talk page, but I did not know that at the time.

So now I'm concerned that I may have jumped the gun. Based on the user's responses, I thought it was possible they didn't have full mobility, which could have been affecting their communication. But then they're able to properly format tables and long strings of data like $30,648,396,569? Anyway, is this too rash? Should I unblock them and undelete their list article? They've created a number of pages here--I suppose they mean well. It's the communication aspect (and some of the data) that puzzles me. Feel free to give me both barrels. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. My understanding is that raw data can't be copyrighted, but presentation of it can be. But citing The Numbers, copy-pasting their data, and then tweaking their numbers based on your own original research? That does seem disruptive. How disruptive it is depends on how much of a grumpy admin you are, I think. I've gotten really exhausted with dealing with people who go around tweaking numbers without proper sources. They make it impossible for me to tell who's vandalizing the article, who's incompetently tweaking the numbers (in good faith but to wrong values), and who's correctly updating content per the source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion - Subject Of A Page Being Harassed In Real Life

Hi NijaRobotPirat

the subject of Portia_Antonia_Alexis being harassed in real life due to talk page, please delete immediately if the article is up for deletion as the subject is being harassed in real life. Speedy Deletion required — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandacar2020 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Amandacar2020: We have a speedy deletion criteria for attack pages, but this isn't an attack page. However, we do sometimes delete pages when the article subjects asks us. Please ask her to contact us so we know the request is genuine. There are instructions at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects; use the listed email address. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent IP vandal

I noticed that you just blocked 102.176.94.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for block evasion; you may be interested to know that 41.242.136.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just made a very similar edit. Not sure if sock/meat. Cryptic Canadian 04:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It's the same editor, Nate Speed. He's using a VPN. He'll probably continue this for a while. You can report him to me or, if you prefer, to WP:AIV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make a note of it. Cryptic Canadian 04:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

67.1.162.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Cryptic Canadian 04:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I semi-protected most of the pages. It should help somewhat, but he'll just move on to other disrupting other articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Another possible sock

Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Editor940. Not sure where this fits into your deal with him, but I've just found that - before the nomination that convinced me to make an SPI - he had done a first nomination that was reverted as a drive-by, which had been briefly worked on by "Patriots247" (another new account). Do with this information as you wish. Cryptic Canadian 05:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cryptic Canadian: I've blocked the Patriots247 account based on clear evidence and filed a new SPI report requesting CU for additional sleeper accounts. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Continuous Incorrect Edits From IP User

Hi, hope you’re doing well. I saw that you put in the talk page of IP User 190.73.11.127 regarding disruptive editing. I also started a discussion with the user on the talk page regarding disruptive and continuous incorrect editing on the article James Wan. The user has not responded. Whilst editing on the article, the user does not give any edit descriptions, gives no sources, gives information on their knowledge instead of sources (as stated in a reply to his talk page which is in Spanish (I translated this)) and continues to manipulate information even if I have undone their edits. I do not want to start an argument about this with this user. I was wondering if you could take a look at the editing history and help me out as it is really starting to bother editors on the article. Thanks and many regards. Kaito Nakamura (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I'm pretty sure that's block evasion. I recognize those edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Old LTA issue

Hey NRP. I don't want to be hit with 3RR. Could you look here please. Robvanvee 14:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Not to worry. Cheers! Robvanvee 16:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

{{You've got mail}}

Never mind, see [30]. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Need a third opinion to check the edits I have made multiple times in Afghan Sikh page

Hello Ninja Robot Pirate, I hope you are well and safe. I was wondering if you could assists me on checking the edits I have made to the Afghan Sikh page. My edits have verified sources and have followed the policy of Wikipedia but they have been edited multiple times by a user who keeps reverting the edits and has threatened to block me from editing. I was wondering if you could possibly check on the edits I have made and provide feedback if possible. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfghanHistorian510 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell what the issues are because you guys aren't using the talk page. I fully protected the page for a few days, which hopefully leads to a some discussion there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Kkm010

Given the ongoing disruption by this sockmaster, I filed a report on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kkm010 and saw that you had made a range block with relation to a 223.223. range back in the day, per here as it is abused by this sockmaster. A similar IP (starting with 223.223.) was also blocked in 2018.[31] Since you have more tools, you might be able to check if a range block is possible. Thanks. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

That was a long time ago. I'm sorry, but I don't remember that case. If you find more convincing evidence, I'm sure someone will look again, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Categories

Can an admin delete 100+ categories in just seconds? SpinnerLaserz (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserz: that might be possible, but I think it'd take longer than mere seconds. Twinkle has a batch delete mode, for example. I've had mixed success using Special:Nuke, which can delete all the pages created by a vandal. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. It seems a bit unreliable in my experience. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I need you help

Introduction i'm Angel Fanatee is my Idol Angel Tee i'm lived in Indonesia i'm support her to be famous carrer in the World mainly United States

As your administrator, can you help me revised my articles of Angel Tee from hacker ? because the articles was hijacking by hacker as administrator & always redirected to 7 Icons she has former girlgroup 7 Icons Thank You AngelFanatee11 (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You seem pretty obviously to be Dimas gilang (talk · contribs). Please stop making new accounts and request that you original account be unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible Krish990 sock

You blocked Nandita raizada and shortly after, Potter anonymous was created and is hitting similar articles[32]. Feel like it's worth the time for me to put an SPI together for this? Ravensfire (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. I blocked the sock and put the primary article under ECP. That will hopefully stop the shenanigans for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate it! Ravensfire (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

And the dispute begins again with the main leads of the show after the protection of the article by you ended recently. This is the fourth time the article undergoes edit war for the same after a temporary protection thrice. Can you do something so that this dispute can be permanently ended. With regards Noobie anonymous (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I put Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke under ECP again, this time for two months. I blocked two editors, though I'm not sure about Msr2001. I think that might be a meat puppet. It's not very easy to justify permanent ECP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

hah!

I had thought about this earlier but forgot to file an SPI. Good find! Praxidicae (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

There are several more accounts scattered across a few proxies. It's getting increasingly harder to do this sort of thing now, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft Articles

Hi, hope you're doing well. I was wondering if you could take a look at some of my draft articles and see if they need any improvement. I've created four new draft articles over the last week, and I'd seriously appreciate it if someone more experienced than I am could take a look at it. Thanks! Kaito Nakamura (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kaito Nakamura: I don't see any major problems. One thing you should be aware of is that it's difficult to prove notability for unreleased films. Until a film is released, its article will likely sit in draft space for a while. As far as sources go, some people don't like Exclaim!. I think it's fine, but the magazine has a bad reputation on English Wikipedia because it was once spammed here. It's just something to keep in mind because some editors might still be biased against it. As a purely stylistic point, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Production was written to discourage editors from summarizing press releases into phrasal templates like, "On [date], [source] announced that [production company] would produce an adaptation of [book], with [writer] writing and [producer] producing." Consider, for example, what I wrote in Leprechaun (film)#Production and Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth#Production. Both articles avoid this style of writing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sweep check

Would you be willing to sweep check on Rico20052010? I think it's his 5th widely obvious sock. I know many of his IP ranges but it's whack a mole. Canada Ontario on Rogers. -- ferret (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ferret: are you worried about sleepers? If it's really a Whac-A-Mole situation, it's unlikely I'll be able to do anything to plug the holes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Half about sleepers, half just concern that I might have simply missed some. I'm good if you feel it's unlikely to aid since he just falls back to IPs after account blocks. -- ferret (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

From poking around some of the articles without having run a check, I'd say you probably already got everything. If more show up, I could look into trying to do a hard block or a range block, but, honestly, it looks pretty wrapped up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Ricardo6900 and Joseph3908 are obvious, but could you sweep please? I've not found him using two socks at the same time before. -- ferret (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ferret: Rico20052010, Ricardo6900, and Joseph3908 are all  Confirmed to each other, but I don't see anything else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

BLP discretionary sanctions alert

I'm confused. Could you explain specifically why this alert was placed on my page?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You have edited a topic under discretionary sanctions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I gathered that. Could you specify which one(s)?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Please read the template. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I've read the template. A general description is provided but there's no specification of which editing I've done is covered by the template. If I don't know precisely which edits or articles are problematic how can I improve my editing?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As the template says, the topic is "living or recently deceased people". If you make an edit about "living or recently deceased people", that qualifies as a topic under discretionary sanctions. This includes the biographies of living people and recently deceased people. Any edits to those articles (or under the wider topic) are subject to increased scrutiny from administrators. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

So. There is no specific edit that you found, which was problematic?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

"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." I am not going to answer any more of your questions that are answered explicitly by the template itself. Please go bother someone else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

"If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor." I was asked by you to raise doubts about what edits are appropriate. I don't see why I'm getting a negative attitude from you for trying to find out. Perhaps you should use a different template if you don't wish to discuss such edits. I'm just trying to be a better editor and sorry to have bothered you.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: Suspected sockpuppet Shoonami -

Good day NinjaRobotPirate!

I dropped by your talk page to report a user which I suspect to be a sockpuppet of Albe23413 (talk · contribs). I've got reason to believe that the user Shoonami - is a sockpuppet of Albe23413 as the editing patterns are the same. The user Albe23413 has been well-documented to evade the indefinite block placed on him for sockpuppetry, as can be seen in the page Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Albe23413. Not only does the suspected sockpuppet edit the same pages as the sockpuppets of Albe23413 and not only are the editing patterns the same, but the user even has the same talkpage as Abdul Salavati. As proof, please refer to the following diffs:

• Abdul Salavati: [33]
• Shoonami -: [34]

On top of that, the way they converse is also pretty similar:

• Abdul Salavati: [35]
• Shoonami -: [36]

Likewise, the date of the creation of Shoonami - account is eerily close to the blocking of the Abdul Salavati account for sockpuppetry. Hence, it can be gleaned that the Shoonami - account was created to evade the block placed on the Abdul Salavati account.

All these considered, I would like to request a checkuser on the account of Shoonami - so that it can be ascertained whether or nor the account is being used as a subterfuge to evade the block placed on Abdul Salavati and other accounts connected to the sockmaster Albe23413. Hoping for a speedy resolution of this request. Warmest regards.

Gardo Versace (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: a few developments arose since I reported the suspected sockpuppet. He is trying to hide evidence of his being a sockpuppet by blanking his user page some 15 mins ago as can be seen here: [37]. In light of that I will again post the undeniable evidence that the said users are one and the same as can be seen here Shoonami - and here Abdul Salavati. Please respond, I am being harassed by the user on my talkpage. Gardo Versace (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked, but he'll probably just come back with a new account. Let me know if (or when) that happens. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you so much! I'm glad I've got an ally in you in fighting his sockpuppet activities, he's racked up about 10 accounts now. Hopefully he won't be back, but if he does, it's good to know that I can turn to you for help. Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblock for cellular network?

Hello, I recently tried to edit a page but found I was blocked by ninja pirate robot for a rangeblock which apparently applies to an entire IP range? This IP (107.72.178.0/24) is a cellular network, so I wonder if it would be better to target a particular user, since literally anybody could be working from this IP? Or is there some other way for me to have access? Jjacallen (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jjacallen: Since you are a registered user, and the block only affects users who are not logged in, you should have full access to Wikipedia when logged in. (talk page stalker) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you should be able to edit while logged in. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Please for help

I'm from Poland. My real name is Tomasz Stogniew. My account AlexTrevex is currently block. Could I please unlock my AlexTrevex account? My account has long been blocked by the moderator NinjaRobotPirate for vandalism in the form of editing a reincarnation page and writing my own opinions instead of verified sources. It was a mistake. Apologize. I had anxiety and depression about life and an obsessive fear of death at the time, that's why I did it. It will never happen again. Regards. Please for help. I won't do that anymore AlexTenex (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I see you just filed an unblock request on the Unblock Ticket Request System. They told you to make an unblock request on your talk page. That's what you should have done – but this is close enough for me. I'll unblock your old account, but please just use this account or the other one. Don't use both, which will probably cause you to be blocked for sock puppetry. The rules around that are complex and bureaucratic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible vandalism and sock puppetry

Hi, I think you should be aware of an issue regarding the article To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar. Someone is using multiple accounts with similar names, making edits that state Sony/Columbia Pictures produced, when in fact Universal Pictures did (I have tried to correct this). Please look at the page and editing history for more details. Hopefully this will be resolved. Thanks. TPalkovitz (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)TPalkovitzTPalkovitz (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It looks like disruption from someone on a dynamic IP address. I semi-protect the article to stop the unsourced changes, and I can block the IP editors if they keep it up. For a while, there was a vandal who went around changing every distributor to Columbia Pictures. For whatever reason, bored kids sometimes do this sort of thing. It often helps if you cite the AFI Catalog of Feature Films for the production company and distributor, so that other people know which distributor is the correct one. Then they'll help you fix it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The same vandal looks to have returned, once again changing the distributor to Sony. Once again look at editing history. I could use the AFI Catalog of Feature Films to fix this. TPalkovitz (talk)

The persistent ones are pretty annoying. I blocked the latest IPs and semi-protected the page again. That should help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I used the AFI source you talked about. Hopefully that helps too. TPalkovitz (talk) TPalkovitz (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately this has happened again. Same IP address. Even changed sourced content. Apologies for making you do this again but action needs to be taken. Look at history, and also Kickin' It Old Skool (I've fixed that). TPalkovitz (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)TPalkovitz

I assume you mean Special:Contributions/2605:a000:1004:e3c8::/64. I range blocked the IP for a month this time. Hopefully, that discourages further vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Correct. TPalkovitz (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)TPalkovitz

Re: Sockpuppetry by AljohnH

Good day NinjaRobotPirate!

I dropped by your talkpage to again report another case of possible sockpuppetry. The suspected sockmaster is AljohnH and the suspected sockpuppet is AlfJohn. I've got reason to believe that these accounts are engaged in sockpuppetry because both accounts frequently edits the same pages. Other than that, I found this correspondence on his talkpage pointing to AljohnH being engaged in sockpuppet activities using the account AlfJohn. In the said correspondence, the user Muhandes asked AljohnH to explain the presence of both accounts, the said request remained unanswered. The same message was also left by Muhandes on the talkpage of AlfJohn which also went unanswered.

To bolster the claim that AlfjohnH and AlfJohn are one and the same person, please refer to the following diffs:

AljohnH - [38] and [39]

AlfJohn - [40] and [41]

Thus, I would like to request that a Checkuser be conducted on both accounts. Hoping for a speedy disposition of this request. Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

That's pretty suspicious. However, It doesn't look the two accounts were active at the same time. One account was used, then it was seemingly abandoned. The accounts should have been connected to each other, but it doesn't look to me like this is blockable sock puppetry – not yet, at least. Right now, I think it's probably best for us to just keep an eye out for disruption. Also, for what it's worth, Wikipedia only keeps CheckUser data for 90 days, which goes back to approximately late January. So, that means I can't compare these accounts to each other even if policy let me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I understand. Thank you anyway Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Good day! I had to revive this thread because of a development that popped up almost an hour ago. When I reported the sockmaster, AljohnH, what we found out was that it was seemingly abandoned in favor of the newer account. However, the AljohnH was actually active again just an hour ago as shown by these diffs: Special:Diff/954405150, Special:Diff/954405047, and Special:Diff/954404957. With these developments can we now run a Checkuser on both accounts? Recall that the sockpuppet AlfJohn was recently active just a few days ago and now the sockmaster AljohnH is active as well. As to how close the date of their recent activities were, their activities were separated by a mere two days as can be seen in the contributions of AljohnH and the contributions of AlfJohn. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's odd – the account just randomly started editing again? Technically, I could run a check, but I don't think it's necessary. I'll just block the sock puppet and warn the older account. It seems unlikely that he's got more accounts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Once again, thank you for taking a swift action against an act of sockpuppetry I reported. My guess is that he is using the other account whenever the heat becomes unbearable in the other account. I surmised that because the user's edits have been reverted time and again for being unconstructive and he's been flagged for it one too many times, although he has not been yet been blocked for repeated unconstructive edits. Once again, thank you my friend. . Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Appreciation

Hey dude. Appreciate your edits. You're making Wikipedia better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exaisle (talk • contribs) 05:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure that Wikipedia truly needs the kinds of articles that I create, though. A lot of them are pretty bad zombie films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

About the Costello edit.

Correcting a major mistake in the introduction of an article isn't disruptive editing. Having a random book/magazine source from the 80s to regard a new wave artist as post-punk is huge misinformation, especially when the rest of the article consistently mentions him as being new wave.

But, hey, no worries. I'm done with your site. Ronbb345 (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Genre warring is not really a very good way to fix "huge misinformation". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Genre warring? He's literally labelled as "new wave" in the genre box without a single mention of post-punk! Including the rest of the article. And, yet, I'm gerne warring? Lol! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbb345 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of Albe23413

Good day NinjaRobotPirate!

I dropped by to report another case of Albe23413's sockpuppets. This time around he goes by the handle Dracarys930. The reason why I believe this user is a sockpuppet of Albe23413 is because the user's editing pattern is similar to that of Shoonami -, which is the last known sockpuppet of Albe23413 that had been blocked. It is also worth noting that Shoonami - was blocked 9 days ago and the Dracarys930 account was created 7 days ago, which appears to have been set off by the blocked placed on the former. Having laid that, I'd like to again request for a checkuser on both accounts. Below are some diffs that shows the similarity in their editing patterns.

Shoonami -: [42] [43] [44]

Dracarys930: [45] [46] [47]

Warmest regards.

Gardo Versace (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks pretty obvious.  Blocked and tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you so much for fhe swift action on this request my friend. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gardo Versace: one way to make it even faster would be to use "Special:Diff/953970319" instead of "[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/953970319]". It makes it easier for me to follow the links. It's not a big deal, though. I just don't like the mobile interface. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Duly noted my friend. Thanks for taking the time to teach me that, three years in and I'm honestly still learning the ropea here at Wikipedia. Glad there's admins like you that have the patience to each us users. Once again, thank you my friend. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for saying so. I wish I were as patient as I was several years ago, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Gabrielkat apparent block evasion

Hi, last October you indefinitely blocked Gabrielkat (for Disruptive editing: years-long ownership issues and refusal to communicate). They appear to be editing their talk page the past few weeks as an IP editor to create an extensive "to do" list (diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5). The same IP editor is editing articles as well. I wasn't sure where to bring this up so I came here; if I should have reported it elsewhere, please let me know and I'll remember for the future. Schazjmd (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It's fine to post here if I'm already familiar with the case. I blocked the IP for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

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

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding vandalism

Good day NinjaRobotPirate!

My friend I dropped by to ask a question regarding vandalism. Here's the situation. The user apparently just wants to update the list of current programming on the page List of programs broadcast by Jeepney TV. However, instead of simply adding content and moving the removed entries to the list of former programs section, the user is removing the entries entirely. The user also appears to have an issue with references as his edits were targetted at whittling the references from 21 down to just 11. The user likewise does not provide an edit summary for his edits, that's why my revert message always called it unconstructive. I am of the opinion though that even if he did provide an edit summary there is no reason for him to remove the attached references because it helps with the verifiability of the content there and I myself have checked the references and have found them to be independent and reliable. I've tried reaching out to him thrice: first, when I reverted his edits about 4 days ago to let him know why his edits were deemed unconstructive; second, when he did it again just an hour ago and I had to revert him again; and third, I opened the discussion on the page's talk page. I'd also like to point out that the page is under semi-protected status but it has not saved the page from being vandalised by extended confirmed users such as Jon2guevarra, the user being complained of.

Having laid the situation, do I need to wait for him to revert the edits so that I can report him for edit warring or can I now report him for vandalism?

Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, the problem with calling something "vandalism" is that it has to follow the strict definition at Wikipedia:Vandalism. If someone honestly thinks they're improving Wikipedia, it can't be treated as vandalism – even if their edits are very disruptive. I agree that it's disruptive to remove citations, but it doesn't look like vandalism. I'd give the editor some time to respond. Maybe there's some kind of explanation for this. I think it's disruptive to remove citations simply because one thinks something is "obvious", but it does happen occasionally among editors who I think should know better. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: My apologies for calling to vandalism, I guess my frustration is getting the better of me. It's getting frustrating because I didn't get am answer the first time around. Then, after ignoring the message I left him he did it again. Three messages and I got no answer. Alright I'll wait for him to answer, but what should we do if he does it again without any answer to the talkpage message or without leaving an edit summary? I also forgot to attach the diffs from those to edits, so here they are: Special:Diff/954569061, Special:Diff/954568188, Special:Diff/954567549, Special:Diff/954567377, Special:Diff/952201003 and Special:Diff/952200908. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I asked the editor to communicate, which will hopefully resolve the issue. If not, I guess I can do a block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you my friend Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: This case is getting stranger and stranger and we're not exactly getting straight answers from this guy. He only answered the obvious that he was updating the programming line up but did not address why he used the pronoun "we" or why he was removing the attached references. Gardo Versace (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello

I hope you are safe and healthy. I wanted to know if you could help me in getting a clients page approved? Do you have any tips or pointers. He’s an Actor and has press, credits, Getty images etc. your he’ll would be greatly appreciated

Thank you! Chrissy Will (talk) 06:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Client is Lawrence H. Robinson Chrissy Will (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lawrence_H._Robinson#Filmography Chrissy Will (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It might be a little too early for an article. Wikipedia's inclusion criteria require coverage in mainstream sources. I suppose one thing you could try is to set up some interviews for your client. The more prominent the source, the better. One thing to keep in mind is that print media is OK as a source, and it doesn't necessarily have to be available online. If there's a glossy magazine that did an interview, you could cite that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Another Albe23413 sockpuppet

Good day NinjaRobotPirate!

I'm back with another sockpuppet of Albe23413 to report. The user goes by the name Princesseditz. So far, there's only been one edit indicative of his similarity to Albe23413, that being this one: Special:Diff/955194594. However, that can be chalked up to the fact that the account was created merely two days ago. It can be recalled that the last sockpuppet of Albe23413 was blocked on April 30. Albe23413 has a pattern of creating accounts a few days after the last one was blocked probably thinking that the suspicion will be thrown off if he lays low for a couple of days. Another reason why I suspect that it is a sockpuppet of Albe23413 is the fact that the pages edited were pages devoted to members of the cast of the show Ang Probinsyano which Albe23413 has been watching. It appears to me that the edits did not merely consist of placing FPJ before Ang Probinsyano because those pages he had just edited already contained that and the previous edits he made were not reverted even though it should have been per the rules on sockpuppetry. That being said, I'd like to request a Checkuser on his account to determine if he is indeed a sockpuppet. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate I've done reviewed some of the edits made by the sockmaster Albe23413 and noticed another pattern prevalent in his and his sockpuppets edits - the addition of wikilinks that actually lead to disambiguation pages as can be seen in Albe23413's edit here Special:Diff/939261212 and Princesseditz edit here Special:Diff/955342492. In the latter diff, there's a glaring fact that must be pointed out - the last editor to edit the page was Dracarys930 which was the last sockpuppet of Albe23413 that you blocked. Gardo Versace (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. There aren't many edits to look at, but they seem to hit the common behavioral quirks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you for acting swiftly on this my friend, once again you've proven to be a reliable ally in stopping Albe23413's sockpuppetry. I took a gamble with my last edit at Jhong Hilario by deliberately rendering Ang Probinsyano as is without putting FPJ in front of it because I was getting tired of his sockpuppets popping up and I wanted to cut it at the root before he can damage more pages by putting broken links or links to disambiguation pages as Albe23413 is known to do. Luckily, the gamble paid off and he gave off a lot of hints as to his identity. Am really getting real tired of him popping back up with another sockpuppet after being blocked. Is there a way for us to finally put an end to his account creation spree permanently? Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Many sock puppeteers were blocked because they refused to stop doing something disruptive. Thus, their sock puppets are easily recognized by an obsessive need or desire to continue doing that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Another possible sockpuppet of Albe23413

Good day NinjaRobotPirate!

Dropped by again to report about a possible sockpuppet of Albe23413. Well there aren't any diffs I can offer as of this writing because the account of the suspected sockpuppet, Mr.shanixx, hasn't rack up edits yet, having only done 4 edits over the past 2 days since it was created. That actually gives me cause for concern, because the last sockpuppet of Albe23413, Princesseditz, was blocked on May 7 and now another one has sprung up very close to the date of the account's suspension. I found out about the account because I've been snooping around the last pages that Princesseditz and the other blocked sockpuppets edited. Now the only indications I have that the user is a sockpuppet are:

1. The fact that the user keeps coming back to the same pages that he had already edited before, in this case Ivana Alawi;

2. That the user has a working knowledge of how the sandbox works despite being a newbie as can be seen here. It should be noted that before Albe23413 was blocked, one of his last edits was to experiment with the sandbox as can be seen here, so a correlation maybe made;

3. Not that I'm disparaging the user since we're both Filipino anyway, but the fact that he has a bad command of the English language despite growing up in Los Angeles, California is highly suspicious. In fact, the user speaks like Abstract Audition, a confirmed sockpuppet who admitted that he was indeed a sockpuppet as can be seen here; and

4. In the sandbox for the user's bipgraphy, he claims to be a gamer. The sockpuppets of Albe23413 also has a knack for editing pages relating to video games, chief among which is the Grand Theft Auto series of games.

I'll be keeping an eye out for his edits since we only have those points to work with. But if it's feasible, can you run a Checkuser on him just to see if he at least share the same IP address as Albe23413 and his sockpuppets? Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr.shanixx uploaded Commons:File:Ivana-Money-MAIN-IMAGE22.jpg, which you could potentially use to track who this account is, if you think it's a sock puppet of someone. That image is probably a copyright violation, so you could look through OgreBot's list of uploads to see if anyone else has recently uploaded copyright violations of Filipino Instagram models. It's boring and tedious work, but it's one of the ways I sometimes catch sock puppets. You can also use Special:LinkSearch and Special:Search on those external links in the sandbox. As it stands, there isn't enough evidence to block this editor or use the CU tool. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I understand my friend, that's why I'm going to keep a close eye on his activities for the time being while also employing these new tricks you taught me. I actually want to report that photo he uploaded because he claims he owns the copyright to it when the photo is actually from the actress' Instagram account. Thank you again, will update you once some developments occur. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: Disruptive and unconstructive editing by Jon2guevarra

Good day NinjaRobotPirate!

Dropped by to ask for your help in dealing with the editing behavior of Jon2guevarra. As you can recall, I've reported him to you before but it seems he has not learned from that experience. He's at it again with his disruptive and unconstructive editing, removing attached references as can be seen through these diffs: Special:Diff/956156420, Special:Diff/956156172, Special:Diff/956246760, Special:Diff/956247253 and Special:Diff/956247759.

Similar as when I reported him to you the first time around, I tried reaching him through the page's talkpage as can be seen here and through his own talkpage as can be seen here. I've done all that I can to reason with him, but just like the first time around, he ignores my attempt at trying to reach out. Worse, even with a warning he wouldn't stop doing said unconstructive and disruptive editing behavior. I think it is high time that Jon2guevarra be sanctioned for his editing. Hoping for an immediate action on thid request. Thank you my friend, warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I did a 31 hour block for disruptive editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you my friend! Gardo Versace (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Incivility and WP:OWN issue by 119.93.40.241

Good day NinjaRobotPirate!

Dropped by your talkpage to report the anonymous user 119.93.40.241. Well, as it stands right now, the user is about 1 revert away from violating the WP:3RR. It's bad enough that the user is engaging in an edit war over content, the user seems to also exhibit a WP:OWN issue as well. The fact that user uses fallacious logic such as "putting networks on the table is promoting network war" and labelling as trivial a content which has an attached reference to it points to that. Also, the user is uncivil in his edit summaries, using such colorful language as "go fuck yourself" and "dumb cunt". Before reporting the user to you I tried reaching out to him on his talkpage but it went unanswered. I've done some research on the user's activity and interactions and it seems the user really is uncivil when speaking with other editors as well.

Below are the relevant diffs showing the user's editing behavior: Special:Diff/956256346, Special:Diff/955106390, Special:Diff/955700132, Special:Diff/956303944.

Also, this might be a longshot, but I've encountered an editor like this one before by the name You've gone incognito. He was blocked for similar uncivilized behavior before and you also blocked a sockpuppet of his ISpitonYourGravy, who has a knack for engaging in edit wars. I'm going to look into their possible connection, but I have a hunch this anonymous user might be another sockpuppet of Youvegoneincognito.

Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: A new development just arose. After this edit Special:Diff/956306690 began removing his edit summaries. That last one also had him calling a "dumb cunt" before he removed the edit summary he placed in there. Probably already having a clue that I have reported him to you. Also, as I was about to flag him for 3RR as can be seen here, the user was similarly flagged for edit warring over another page as can be seen here. Gardo Versace (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: The guy actually had the gall to report me for edit warring as can be seen here. Terrific.

@NinjaRobotPirate: Am actually concerned about this, he took the diffs of my activity with Jon2guevarra and made it appear that I am engaged in edit warring. The anonymous user is doing a hackjob on me and I'm concerned that the administrators will buy into his story and actually block me for edit warring. Gardo Versace (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The user has also been reported for violations of NPA. DarkKnight2149 18:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess it could be You've gone incognito, but that editor mostly edits film articles. The IP is already blocked, anyway. If the IP becomes active again, I can look closer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I saw this discussion about You've gone incognito requesting to be unblocked. I feel like the timing is highly suspect considering it comes less than a day after the IP user got blocked and I pointed out my suspicion that the IP could be a sock of You've gone incognito. I guess I'd need to request for Check User once the block on the IP is up. Dealing with You've gone incognito is a tiring experience to be honest, as he doesn't compromise and as much as I'd like to fire back against his uncivil comments, I couldn't because I respect the rules of Wikipedia. Just hoping he won't be back to make Wikipedia a toxic environment. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I saw this discussion at EvergreenFir's talkpage. I've done some investigating on the IP being complained of and found out that you've already blocked it. I've also checked the user 112.201.139.16's activity and I was shocked to see how similar his activity is to the IP user 119.93.40.241 and You've gone incognito. One of the pages 112.201.139.16 edited before he got blocked was On the Job (2013 film) of which You've gone incognito was a major contributor. Then, as you pointed out, You've gone incognito edits film pages while 119.93.40.241 edits actors and TV show pages. However, the connection I saw was their use of uncivil language; I'd also like to point out that ISpitonYourGravy, the sock you blocked also edited TV show pages, one of which, Ang Probinsyano became a subject of an edit war he waged against me. Lastly, it has to be pointed out that ISpitonYourGravy, 119.93.40.241, 112.201.139.16 all seem to know the rules of Wikipedia too well despite being newbies. That makes three attempts at evading his indefinite block, and after two IPs of his had already been blocked coinciding with his request for restoration of talkpage access, it really seems suspicious.

My friend I'm very sorry if it seems I keep pressing the issue. I'm just genuinely concerned should You've gone incognito be back on Wikipedia. I'm sorry if my opinion on him appears too strong but the guy is iredeemable, considering that in all three attempts to subvert his block, he kept putting on that attitude that got him blocked in the first place. There's also the fact that he twice tried reporting me on ANI by making it appear that I was the one in bad faith despite him being the one to instigate the conflict in both cases. Very sorry if I'm ranting off about him, I just don't want to deal with him anymore because he plays by his own rules and his deep issue with WP:OWN means that once he starts editing a page, he'd shut everybody out of the page, reverting everyone's edits just so he gets the credit and his version becomes the definitive version of the page. Am really sorry for ranting my friend. Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Suspicious editing question

Hi, thanks for your block of Liamdaniel981 (a sock). I'm not very experienced in this area but I was very surprised to find Geographyinitiative making what I believe is their only ever edit to ANI within 10 minutes of Liamdaniel981's being blocked, defending Liamdaniel981's outburst. I couldn't see any obvious sock signs but I couldn't with Liamdaniel981 either, and it's such a suspicious edit. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind looking into it. — Bilorv (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The Liam-named accounts all tend to edit aircraft disasters, change dates, and be uncivil to people. I don't really see that with Geographyinitiative. The unsolicited advocacy is a bit weird, but I guess it could be from checking recent changes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. My other thought was some sort of off-wiki solicitation or meatpuppetry but absent any further information, I understand if AGF is the best move here. — Bilorv (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Something like that is always possible, but it's difficult to prove. Sometimes I just let things go until I have enough evidence to actually do something. It usually becomes obvious after a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You've gone incognito

Has requested TPA restoration at UTRS Isee the SOCK notice. Can you provide more info? Is this a check user block? Thanks, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 20:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Geez second time I look a couple of threads higher, and there it is. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 20:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: You've gone incognito was indefinitely blocked for an antisemitic flounce. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive405#User:Debresser reported by User:You've gone incognito (Result: You've gone incognito blocked). He's got a suspected sock puppet account in ISpitonYourGravy (talk · contribs). The sock puppetry tags don't work with his username, probably because of the apostrophe. It's not a CU block, though. I think his talk page access was revoked because of the antisemitism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup Finally getting caught up on all that happened. I don't think he can ever be unblocked with that flounce. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 22:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. That's him Even I can see it. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 22:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The standard offer is always there, I guess. I've seen people get unblocked after stuff like that, but it usually takes a good unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible sock on film articles

Hi, NinjaRobotPirate. I hope you are doing well. I recently came across Gabriel Loveland, whose edits include examples like this: [48]). They have received several warnings over the past year about their edits, and I thought I remembered seeing similar edits by a LTA sockpuppet you had identified previously who edits film articles, uses the article title as the edit summary, and always marks their edits as minor. You have such a good memory that I thought I would bring it to you before I did the research into what the previous accounts were. If you would like me to do some digging, or you think it wouldn't be worth the effort, please let me know. Take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I probably have blocked other editors who copy-paste the article title into their edit summary, but this editor doesn't look especially familiar to me. The behavior is so ritualistic that it shouldn't be too hard for you to figure out if there are other, similar accounts. I would imagine that any sock puppets would show up in Numberblocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). What I usually do is skim through the history and look for blocked editors who use the same edit summaries. I think if more people knew this, they'd be a lot less impressed with my sock hunting ability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. The fact that so many socks are fixated on particular edits or pages is definitely helpful for spotting them, but I think you probably do not give yourself enough credit for your abilities. Thanks for the advice, and I will let you know if I find anything more concrete. Always appreciate your time. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I've got good pattern-matching skills and a technical background, which definitely helps. But I've learned a few tricks to allow me to be a bit lazy. One thing I sometimes do is to watchlist one article in a sequence instead of the whole franchise. You don't have to have to keep the entire film series on your watchlist; a fan of the series will eventually end up on that page anyway. So, you can watchlist Friday the 13th Part III, Halloween II (1981 film), and A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child, and that'll probably catch a bunch of socks who edit horror films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: Unconstructive Edits

Good day NinjaRobotPirate!

Would like to ask your opinion on something. Remember that page that became a the battleground for the IP 119.93.40.241 user to edit war with me? Another swooped in to restore the edits of said anonymous user, but fairplay to him, he didn't remove everything I put in there and tried to harmonize our edits. However, my problem is that he flagged me for unconstructive editing in my talk page. So what I did was to show him the diffs of my edits, which I'll be reproducing below. I'd have to ask your opinion on them, are they unconstructive even though I clearly left edit summaries and was cleaning up after the user?

These are the diffs of the edits I made right after his last edit. Special:MobileDiff/956455401, Special:MobileDiff/956455736, Special:MobileDiff/956455890, Special:MobileDiff/956455968, Special:MobileDiff/956456075, Special:MobileDiff/956456155, Special:MobileDiff/956456193.

Thank you my friend, warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not really interested in trying to figure out the mobile interface. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Oh, sorry about that one here's the diffs not in the mobile form Special:Diff/956455401, Special:Diff/956455736, Special:Diff/956455890, Special:Diff/956455968, Special:Diff/956456075, Special:Diff/956456155, Special:Diff/956456193. I actually waited for the user's reply but he didn't. Continued editing and ignored my message. The warning he left was actually more perplexing than the edits I did make for which he flagged me. Gardo Versace (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't put too much weight on what random editors say on your talk page. Anyone can leave a templated warning for anyone else, so some of them are bound to be groundless. Sometimes bad editors make good (or, at least, acceptable) edits. I sometimes end up having an edit reverted when I clean up after a vandal or sock puppet. As long as the person who reverted me isn't restoring vandalism, I try not to care too much. If they restore something that's unambiguously bad, such as random profanity added in the middle of a sentence, I'd probably consider blocking them, either as a vandal or a sock puppet of the original vandal. But someone who has a history of good edits might disagree with me that an edit is bad enough to be reverted. Sometimes edits essentially a toss-up; I think it should be reverted, but other people want to keep them in the article. They're allowed to do that as long as they follow WP:PROXYING, which restricts them from specifically making edits at the request of a banned editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you my friend, I can now breathe a sigh of relief. I didn't really understand why the user tagged me even though the edit summaries I placed in my edits speak for itself. I'm guessing it was because there wasn't any consensus in the page and he wants the page to remain as it is, the reason I guess is because the user that flagged me is the creator of the page. After he flagged me, I responded and asked him to explain his tag but he never did and continued editing. I guess that answers that. Thank you for the wise counsel my friend. Gardo Versace (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Mr._Samerkov

Hi, NinjaRobotPirate. I need your help regarding this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mr._Samerkov ChioBu (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet User:Cardomahalay

Good day NinjaRobotPirate!

Dropped by to ask for your help regarding Cardomahalay. It seems too shady that he was created less than an hour ago and the first thing he does is to slander me in Anarchyte's user talkpage. Now I immediately went to check on his recent edits, which stands at 5 as of this writing and have come to the conclusion that the user might be a sockpuppet of Albe23413 considering that he went after me right off the bat. The behavioral quirks are likewise there, such as frequently editing actors' and actresses' pages and shows broadcasted by ABS-CBN. Below are the relevant diffs:

Cardomahalay: Special:Diff/956887199, Special:Diff/956887252

Albe23413: Special:Diff/937475579, Special:Diff/939497661

As can be seen in the said diffs, the behavioral quirks are there: the penchant for adding wikilinks, the pages being edited and the habit of editing without leaving an adequate edit summary. As always my friend, hoping for a speedy resolution of this request. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Ikome33 is Albe23413. I blocked that account. I'm honestly not sure who Cardomahalay is, but it doesn't seem to be Albe23413. Maybe keep an eye on this editor? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: thanks for blocking Ikome33, failed to detect him. That aside, Darkknight2149 and I are looking into it and we're guessing it's connected to You've gone incognito and his suspected sockpuppet 119.93.40.241. The timing is pretty suspicious to say the least, because after Black Kite blocked the IP user, You've gone incognito started apologizing for his first block, the harasssment of Debresser. But since that harassment contained an anti-semitic element to it and you've likewise blocked him for using the sockpuppet ISpitonYourGravy, it appears to me that he is taking out his frustrations on me through the Cardomahalay account. I guess I should have looked into the fact that the user appears TOO knowledgeable about the rules of Wikipedia and of my history. I wouldn't put it past him to do that considering his history with sockpuppetry which includes ISpitonYourGravy and 112.201.139.16 whom you blocked for conduct similar to 119.93.40.241 and which was connected by another user to You've gone incognito. Thank you for looking into this my friend, can't thank you enough. Gardo Versace (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't notice Ikome33, either – and he edited an article on my watchlist. It turns out that his accounts are pretty easy to spot in the CheckUser tool. Policy restricts when I can use it, though. I might have to get more involved in WP:ACC one of these days. It looks like some of the accounts are being created through that process. I can spot Incognito/Gravy accounts if they edit films, but I don't know that I'd be able to spot them otherwise. After a few years, most editors become easily recognizable to those who have contributed to the same articles as them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: What Cardomahalay did still unsettles me. After editing three articles it just stopped editing altogether and the first contibution it did is to oppose my application for rollbacker rights, as if the user had been an editor before and has a longstanding beef with me. Now that Albe23413 is out of the picture as it is highly unlikely to be him, it's becoming clear that this might be Incognito. The timing is pretty suspect too as his unblock request has just been turned down by Deepfriedokra. I'm one of the last editors that accounts related to Incognito has had an argument with, and right now I feel like I need to constantly look over my shoulder to see if he's lurking somewhere and make things uncomfortable for me. I feel like after the two instances that accounts related to him got the WP:Boomerang, he's looking to strike at me in more creative ways. Thank you again for looking into this my friend. Gardo Versace (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

can you please shutdown a vandalism only ip that's been reported

This ip 2604:6000:1205:10E:71B3:236A:6ED2:E277 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) started with bad editing and went over level 4 and has now gone to two other pages and i'd guess will continue until blocked. They have been reported to AIV. thx and sorry to bother.ToeFungii (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

THANK U.ToeFungii (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like there was some remaining date vandalism. I think I got it all, but you might want to double-check. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

YGM

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 01:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

My edits

Hello, it’s me again. Since you’ve unblocked me, I have made productive edits. You can see for yourself. Just wanted to show you why I was so eager to get back on. Also wanted to show that I am a serious editor. Cheers! Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Krish990

Hey - I noticed that you blocked and then unblocked Msr2001. For what it's worth, I was looking at that yesterday and kinda came to the same conclusion you did. It didn't make much sense, with the language being pretty similar but the edits being the opposite of what Krish preferred. The Anonymous speaks account was so clearly trying to parody Noobie anonymous I almost reported them as an imposter / harrassment account. Glad to see they were a sock of who I was expecting. Thanks for putting ECP on the article - I cannot believe that an article on a show can cause so much drama. It just about boggles my mind. Ravensfire (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't really know what to think about Msr2001. It's quite confusing. I think part of the problem may be that there's a language barrier. For what it's worth, I did easily confirm several Krish990 socks using the CU tool, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi

I just recently got to know that its called "Sock puppetry". I did not mean to break any rules, I just made an extra account for minor edits. I would gladly stop using them from now on or as you said, have them blocked. Thanks for warning me about it. Ranadhira (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• NinjaRobotPirate, I guess user Gutriel is one of their socks. Am I right? If so, I have just looked at their some past edits, and they are clearly not minor edits, as claimed by user Ranadira. Here are a few examples:

• With this edit, Gutriel removed a citation and provided a misleading edit summary. The next edit was done by the Ranadira in which they removed the content which was supported by the citation removed by Gutriel. BTW, the source in question is available online – see here – and its link was provided in the citation.
• With this edit Gutriel added claims regarding casualties, but the page cited by them doesn't support those claims at all.
• It seems Ranadhira has been adding promotional and/or poorly sourced content at Rathore for years, but others have opposed them in the past. And now both of these accounts are editing that page in tandem.
• Raj-era sources are considered unreliable on this project. To know more about that, you can see User:Sitush/CasteSources. And looking at edits like this one, it seems Gutriel is familiar regarding that consensus. Still, they, along with Ranadhira, have been adding unreliable Raj-era sources like the Imperial Gazetteer of India to many pages.
• They seem to be editing while logged out as well.

Finally, both of them are solely focussing on the caste-related articles, which are highly contentious in nature, and are covered under the discretionary sanctions. And it seems they are using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny. So it would be helpful if you can tell the names of their other accounts, as there has been a lot of disruptive editing going on, esp. at the Rajput-related articles.

PS: My above observation is based on a hasty look at some disruptive accounts, and it might be incorrect. So I apologise in advance to Gutriel if they are unrelated to Ranadira. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Gutriel is one of Ranadhira's sock puppets. Tanpah is another one. @Ranadhira: you need to label any accounts that you've created as owned by you. You can use {{User alternative account banner}} for that if you want. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspected Tanpah as well, as they were also doing similar disruption, e.g. they blanked reliably-sourced content twice with this and this edit using misleading edit summaries. They have misused multiple accounts for disruptive purposes and should consider them lucky that you didn't block them. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:, I understand and I am grateful that you warned me about this instead of getting me banned, thanks. Ranadhira (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• NinjaRobotPirate, it's been nearly one week since you posted this comment about blocking their socks. But they still haven't disclosed them on their user page. So I guess Gutriel and Tanpah should be blocked to avoid their future misuse. That will also remove the confusion created by Ranadhira editing in tandem with Gutriel at multiple articles. - NitinMlk (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ranadhira: why have you not labeled these accounts? Are you refusing to follow WP:SOCK#NOTIFY? All you've done so far is request that their user pages be deleted. That does nothing to notify other people that these accounts are owned by you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I sent you an email

Hi, I sent you an email.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

How can I delete a Wikipedia account

Please, how can I delete my account from this encyclopedia since I lost faith in it. Thanks 154.155.123.134 (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

For legal reasons, accounts can not be deleted. The edits need to be attributed to someone. You can request that an account be renamed to a random string of letters. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: 119.93.40.241

Good day NinjaRobotPirate!

It's been a while my friend. Dropped by to ask if you can check on 119.93.40.241 to see if he is a sockpuppet of You've gone incognito/ISpitonYourGravy. If you recall, that IP user was blocked over a week ago, but before it was blocked, we had already suspected it to be an IP sock of Incognito/Gravy. It's worth noting that those accounts mainly edit films, which said IP user has recently done here [[49]]. Gravy has also edited Ang Probinsyano which became the subject of an edit war he waged with me, now the IP user has also started editing the same page as can be seen here [[50]].

Hoping for a speedy resolution on this request my friend. Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I think it's someone else, who's logging out to make disruptive edits. I blocked the IP, which should stop this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you my friend. It's surprising that that IP came back after the block placed on it. Gardo Versace (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Lutz nonsense

• Lutz Fehling 89.15.236.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Would you add (the page) User talk:89.15.237.48 to the partial block? They continue to post drivel there. Or consider blocking the range completely? Going back through March, I see only the slightest potential collateral damage – a couple of minor useful edits (that we'd be OK without) among all the Holocaust-related and other nonsense. What are the criteria for a global ban? I can't imagine this guy being a benefit to any WMF project. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he hasn't edited in a few days. The only edit since 20 May was some unrelated vandalism. The range blocks seems to be working. If he pings you or does something else to draw attention to his forum posts, I can change the block so that he can't edit anything, even his own talk page. I see German Wikipedia also blocked this IP range; see m:Global blocks for the global policy. You'd have to ask a steward to do that, though. You could do that at m:SRG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. He's back: Special:Diff/961551396. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I did a month-long partial block on the article and talk page, which should help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The stuff at Talk:Uwe Barschel sure sounds a lot like him, too. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Global block requested at meta:Steward requests/Global#Requests for global (un)block. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, it's not easy to convince stewards to work that backlog. The tools for dealing with cross-wiki disruption are not very good. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Great job on literally every duty that is assigned to admins. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for saying so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Allmovie

Are you sure the site is reliable? I've noticed on the production company page that you can easily request edits, and there's a bit of false information on the pages... Luigitehplumber (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a link to send corrections if they make an error. That's not the same thing as being user-generated. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources describes Allmusic as reliable but suggests not using the genre sidebar. That probably holds true for Allmovie. These sites aren't just some random user-generated database like the IMDb; they're staffed. Allmovie is not my first choice to source stuff, but the pickings become increasingly slim once you start getting away from mainstream releases. I'd rather go to industry magazines like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Screen International, and databases like the AFI Catalog of Feature Films, the British Film Institute, and Lumiere – but these sites don't catalog a lot of the films that Wikipedia does. Of the sites that I would consider reliable enough to cite on Wikipedia, that mostly just leaves film festivals, Allmovie, and some random European websites/libraries/databases. Europe is full of NGOs and government databases that catalog everything that comes through their country. That doesn't really seem to exist in the United States, though there are a few subscription-only services, such as Variety Insight and Baseline StudioSystems. I might be able to talk someone into giving me free access to their database some day, but it seems unlikely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I expect you already know this: You can suggest Studio Systems and Variety Insight as potential partners for the Wikipedia Library. It's possible they'd offer access. (Unfortunately they're not on the list of databases at my own local library.) BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, already tried that. One of the selling points of these commercial databases is that they're full of information that you can't easily find elsewhere. They tend not to be too enthused about letting people import all that proprietary data into Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As for the Disney DTV movies, want me to add in Walt Disney Television Animation considering they made the pre-2003 Disney Sequels, or would you say that they would work better if they were sourced? Luigitehplumber (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing. As an encyclopedia, |Wikipedia is based on what the sources say, not what we believe to be true (see WP:TRUTH for an essay on that). If you want to add stuff that isn't sourced, you could add it to the IMDb or Wikia. Those sites don't require sources. Wikipedia does. If Allmovie says that "Walt Disney Pictures" produced something instead of "Walt Disney Television Animation", that's what Wikipedia says. It doesn't matter if you believe in your heart that it's wrong. That's what the source says. I don't know why the source says that, and I don't care. You can click the link at Allmovie to send a correction if you think it's wrong, but they'll probably ignore you unless you're a Disney employee. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

IP Block

Hello, thank you for lifting my ban, I'd just like to clarify that's a school IP, as such I cannot prevent the actions of other users on the site, especially if said users vandalize or wreak havoc. If a block is further leveraged on my account I can understand, just wanted to let you know. Obama gaming (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Another weird one

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, I've got one of those weirdly persistent unhelpful helpers for you. It's a long-term static IP user in Boise, Idaho (who may or may not be named Randy): 174.126.233.219. DoRD, who blocked them for a year after this SPI report, isn't around much. I thought you could take a look maybe?

I guess it's not block evasion anymore, and it's not exactly vandalism. They make prolific gnome-like edits that are sometimes good, but mostly disruptive/incompetent/pointless, and consistently going against the Manual of Style, with many complaints and blocks, and zero communication. As far as I can tell, they patiently waited out the year from 19 April 2019, and on 20 April 2020 started up again, with almost 3000 of the same type of edits since then. I gave them a "final warning" but they're oblivous as usual and just keep plowing on. I thought about inviting them to ANI, but it seems kind of futile. Which reminds me, I was somewhat annoyed by your comment: [51] My god. Reading ANI is like having "Fodderstompf" on repeat for 24 hours straight. We only wanted to be loooooooooooved! because I thought, "oh, I haven't heard that record for a long time", so I put it on, and then it got stuck in my head - so I literally had to listen to it on repeat for 24 hours. Torture! --IamNotU (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Haha. "We only wanted to finish the album with the minimum amount of effort, which we are now doing very successfully." Quite a funny song, actually. Not exactly "the only band that matters", but the art world needs a few trollish iconoclasts to shake things up every now and then. Anyway, I suppose I could block the IP again and ask them to make some kind of effort to communicate. I think that would be enough for an unblock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking me

Hi NinjaRobotPirate I am not sure what the protocol or etiquette is about this, but I just wanted to say thank you for unblocking me, here in warm/hot Ghana. Kind regards, AbrewaAccraLady 09:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)AbrewaAccraLady (talk)

Let me know if you continue to have problems editing, and I can probably help resolve them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies

I have made more edits recently and they’re really good. When you try to block me again, you’ll have a hard time justifying it. Have fun with that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjrz nj forecast (talk • contribs) 02:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't really understand what would make someone say something like this. But, OK. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, I got a bit riled up yesterday. Please ignore that comment, I realize that it is not in good faith. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Potential socks?

Hello. I have some concerns that Davide palladini (talk · contribs) might have used some sockpuppets.

Today, on A Bug's Life, they added in the same unnecessary detail to the plot summary, which violates WP:FILMPLOT; the user's actions on this page led me to file an report and a discussion on Talk:A Bug's Life#Plot summary issue, in an effort to avoid an edit war. I also tried to trim down the List of years in animation and List of years in film articles, but 87.11.133.242 reverted them. Their actions also led me to open up a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Regarding what should go on the List of years in animation‎ and List of years in film articles, also in an effort to avoid an edit war. I did warn the IP and Davide about edit warring here and here as well.

Based on this edit, I suspected that 87.11.133.242 was used by Davide palladini. After further investigation, I discovered that there are some potential sockpuppets involved. For example, they have expressed interest in List of years in animation and List of years in film articles ([52], [53]) as well as The Lego Movie ([54]). The IPs also geolocate to Italy. Should we file an SPI on it, check for potential sleepers or is it unnecessary at this point? Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me like you've got enough evidence here to a file a case at SPI, but CheckUsers can't connect IP addresses to accounts because of the privacy policy. A clerk would probably look at the case instead of a CheckUser. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is the SPI if you're interested. By the way, the user has been proposing a "List of years in Disney" article here and here, and it might be a bit WP:DISRUPTIVE (I could be wrong). Also, can you please look into Talk:A Bug's Life#Plot summary issues and see if we can resolve the situation? I've already asked around at WT:FILM as well. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

SPI

Hello NinjaRobotPirate I have opened a new SPI investigation for a possible sockpuppeteer. Can you check it out? Regards, KMagz04 (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I blocked Aminulhoque2580 per WP:NOTHERE. It looks like Materialscientist blocked the some of the latest IPs already. That ISP is a pain to deal with, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on that frequently targeted page and check for more IPs related to this vandal. KMagz04 (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Wjrz nj forecast. AldezD (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

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

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I need assistance Here

Hello, I am concerned with some edit war occurring at this article [[55]]. There are issues ongoing in the party but they haven’t been made official. I was asking how I could make a request for only auto confirmed users to edit it. I will appreciate. Have a nice Evening Got a Smart Idea^{tell me about it} 18:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I semi-protected it for three days. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is the official place to make requests. If that noticeboard gets backlogged worse than 12 hours, you might have to alert an admin. Sometimes nobody checks it for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks for that, hope by that time it would have ended. Have a good night Got a Smart Idea^{tell me about it} 19:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I have also made the request to the page you have advised or should I remove the request? Got a Smart Idea^{tell me about it} 19:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Block evader

73.75.41.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked for a month, for being the same person as 98.226.59.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) according to Doug Weller. The block expired, and they've returned to a variety of disruptive edits. It looks like Doug may have logged off for the evening, and the IP's still active. Would you please take a look? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The persistent ones can be a pain. Blocked three months this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

My fan-club

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of DMackx is actually just the latest of an older and much larger set. Talk to User:Zzuuzz about GlobalFellow63 as a key to the main sock-pile, who also blocked Materialsciantist and Meterialscientist in the same vein as my fan-club's set. DMacks (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll see what I can do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@DMacks: FYI, I keep arriving here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Hi there. I notice you declined to unblock this editor for sock puppetry. I used the Editor Interaction Analyser and noticed this editor editing many of the same articles, and particularly those created by the blocked editor. The new editor opened their account around the same time the other editor was blocked. Some of the edits are suspiciously similar, such as this and this. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The two accounts are  Unrelated. However, RodeoWrld seems to be evading a different block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

MTV Hits

Hey NRP, just an FYI I saw you closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MTV Hits earlier, I just blocked User:Mrlintrap as an obvious sock (blatant trolling). I suspect they'll be some more out there. Factoring he's blocked wasn't sure if I needed to take to SPI but can do so if it keeps it tidy. Cheers. Glen 10:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, probably him. You can just block them as they show up without having to go through the bureaucracy of SPI. This one is on a different IP address than the others, so it could turn into Whac-A-Mole. If so, maybe I could do a range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi, NinjaRobotPirate. Per this block, I noted you also blocked related IPs that were reinstating the same changes. Another IP address seems to have entered the fray solely to edit war this user's unsupported claims back in. Thanks! Grandpallama (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

And now violating 3RR, to boot. Grandpallama (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Materialscientist handled it. I can extend the block if the IP starts being disruptive again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Block expired, and they have immediately resumed their problematic editing. Grandpallama (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Mz7 already took care of it. Grandpallama (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

"Problematic" is kind of an understatement. I'm tempted to semi-protect the entire Friday the 13th series. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep. I don't see the dicking around with the plot summaries to pipe in links to the sequels as a big deal, but the rest is persistently disruptive. Grandpallama (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Block has expired, and they have immediately resumed the problematic edits. Grandpallama (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You've got 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 08:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Question

Do you have an edit filter for "Whiteheadsches Syndrom"? You blocked that IP on Talk:Responsibility for the Holocaust very quickly. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The Robot part of NinjaRobotPirate is because he is actually part admin robot. Natureium (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

That would be an advantage, I imagine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Ninja could have psychic powers, I suppose. But, in this case, it was reported on my talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, but I prefer to think you're psychic. I'm bringing all my ESP business to you from now on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Ufufcguc again

Hi, it looks to me like 2A01:111F:B48:D000::/64 is Ufufcguc, a.k.a. 2A01:111F:E1A:A400:0:0:0:0/64 that you blocked for a year. It's in the same /32 on Orange network, in the same province of Poland, making the same types of edits to Euro. Compare these: [56], [57]. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for three months. If it sticks as long as the last one, I guess we'll be back here in a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe they're just on summer vacation somewhere nearby. I wish I was on summer vacation somewhere nearby. Btw, you said that you unblocked 2601:183:C600:20A::/64 because "they seemed to be editing from a different computer now", and I thought, well, probably they just got a new computer. And then I thought, I wish I had a new computer. --IamNotU (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Back ten years ago, when dual core 2 GHz systems were all the rage, one of my friends was complaining about an ancient 1 GHz Windows XP system that she briefly had to work on. I told her that my first computer was an 8 bit PC that ran at 1 MHz. I'm not sure if she believed me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm still using my dual core 1.7 GHz from back then. I got Dark Reader for my browser, which I really like, but now it's like 2005 again - takes 20 seconds to load a 500-edit history page. I have a small collection of old computers, my 8 MHz Mac still boots and I play games on it once in a while. I also have a 1 MHz 8-bit, but it's really really small and I have a whole lot of them... --IamNotU (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Are they still around? I thought we'd managed to get rid of them. Sheesh, persistent despite the fact that their edits are always reverted. Canterbury Tail talk 19:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Few people ever really truly leave. That's one thing I've learned as a CheckUser. IamNotU, I've got all sorts of weird stuff, but my favorite is a DEC Multia. It's a DEC Alpha that runs Windows. You should check out The Freecycle Network. People like me often have useful things lying around, like spare laptops. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of people who never really leave, I just saw the date vandal from Campinas, Brazil, that I reported last year, today in a different range on 187.74.72.181. Looks like pretty much everything in 187.74.64.0/20 back to 21:22, 22 March 2019 except some football stuff in March-October. Also on the original range, there were some since then, but not since February, mostly everything in 189.47.88.0/21, back to 19:43, 5 December 2018, except for a couple of edits in May & August 2019. I'm sure they must be in some other ranges too, but I don't know how to find them. They rarely hit the same articles twice, though they did come back to one today: [58] that they'd done in 2018: [59]. Is there a way to batch-revert a bunch of edits from one IP? I use Twinkle and it's kind of slow to do them one at a time. I looked at Huggle but the documentation is pretty awful and I couldn't see whether it did that or not.

PS, I took a look at the Freecycle Network, thanks. Unfortunately there's not much on it where I am. But there are a couple of DIY repair/recycle places around that I've been meaning to visit, good to get a reminder. A couple of days ago I found a 40" HDTV on the street with a sign saying "minor problems" - the picture cut out after two minutes. I reseated the connectors on the main board and it's all good. No idea what to do with it now. I used to collect all kinds of old electronics but had to give it up because of moving. My favorite was a 5-foot-tall computer panel from the 70s with physical toggle switches to program each bit in the registers. Can't remember what it was but I still have it in storage along with the Mac Plus and a few others. A Sinclair, I think, that I inherited from my father. I just can't get excited about anything new these days - I'd love a new 13" MacBook with discrete graphics for CAD, but they won't do it. I haven't replaced my computer or phone since Steve Jobs left the building. --IamNotU (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Rollback itself isn't all that useful, but to do anything more complicated than Twinkle, you need that user right. I've given it to you. You can use User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js to revert every edit made by an editor. Be careful, though; it really does use rollback on every edit. So, you should only use it to revert vandals. Some trolls are sneaky and revert a few vandal edits themselves so that if you use rollback indiscriminately on them, you'll restore some nasty vandalism. I blocked the range. I'll poke around that ISP to see if I can find any more date vandals later when I'm more bored. I have to admit that I don't really the patience any more to with unruly hardware. I used to make fun of my father because he started buying off-the-shelf PCs instead of putting them together himself. It's funny; now I'm sitting in front of an off-the-shelf system, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Benahol

Hi - I noticed you blocked a Benahol sock yesterday as a checkuser block; you may want to have a look at User:Segann, which is quacking rather loudly (not only [60] and [61] but also linking to the ANI started by the sock [62]. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's him. It's tough to range block him without collateral damage, but I could if I had to. I've already locked down a few of his favorite targets, though, so he's basically limited to ranting on talk pages and canvassing editors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. I've got most of the pages watchlisted now. Black Kite (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The Cat 2020

Well, well. I am not surprised by the final result. Neither, probably, are User:Canterbury Tail, User:El C, User:Hasteur, User:Yamla, or User:Beyond My Ken. As to freedom of the press, A.J. Liebling said that it applies to those who own one, and the WMF owns the servers. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

No, not surprised in the least. I wrote that he would be blocked before the year was out, and probably sooner. His behavior here and his history on other projects pretty much pointed the way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Not in the least surprised. Thought I'd have an attempt at reasoning or being neutral to them to see if they'd be more responsive, but no they were very much I'm right and every single other person on Wikipedia is wrong and acting illegally. Honestly I was a little frustrated they weren't blocked days earlier based off the ANI thread alone, it was a monumental waste of a lot of people's time. Did something new happen to spark this thread? Canterbury Tail talk 11:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I suspect people are eager to point out that they've won the Wikipedia version of buzzword bingo. The unblock request hits all the common targets for a soapbox ranter: accusations of bias, claiming to be the sole guardian of truth and fact, references to the U.S. Constitution and free speech, censorship, blocking people violates U.S. law, etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Restore a rangeblock

You and Widr have both blocked the vandal at Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1100:87F4:0:0:0:0/64 but the most recent block expired and he's back to his old habit of date vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked three months this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: Cocisj455

Good day NinjaRobotPirate!

It's been a while my friend! Dropped by to ask if you can check on Cocisj455. I have a feeling this user is a sockpuppet of User:Albe23413. I can't provide a diff this time around because this user doesn't have an editing quirk that would give it away as with the other socks of Albe23413. Rather, the similarity is on the pages that the user edits - both the suspected sockpuppet and Albe23413 frequent pages devoted to ABS-CBN shows or pages devoted to the show's list of episodes. I know I can always count on you, thank you my friend. Best regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You might look through this comparison from the Editor Interaction Analyser and see if there's something that strikes you as suspicious. That's how I find many sock puppets. It's kind of like Concentration, in that you read through various diffs until you find two that match. Most people have a style that they unconsciously use on all accounts. For example, I learned to type back when putting two spaces after a period was common. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I've just checked the comparison made by Editor Interaction Analyser and I have to say that, as I've mentioned, these two editors frequent the same pages. What strikes me as odd is that Cocisj455, as of this writing, has 41 total edits 31 of which is on pages that Albe23413 used to edit. As for the lapse of time between theie edits on the pages in question, we can chalk it up to the fact that the quarantine put in place by the COVID-19 pandemic halted production on the shows over which the pages are devoted to, with little activity in the shows, there was no incentive for the user to edit the pages since the user's edits focus on updating episode counts or episode titles on a daily basis. It's also worth noting that Bbb23 blocked Albe23413 back in February and thereafter he started using sockpuppets and for which you've done a really good job catching and blocking. After seeing the comparisons and considering Albe23413's history with sockpuppetry, I'm convinced Cocisj455 is a sockpuppet of Albe23413 Gardo Versace (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson

Hi, I see you have dealt with this user Factlibrary1 before. I'm writing to you because recently I made changes on the Michael Jackson page, List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson and Factlibrary1 and another user, TruthGuardians, have been in conflict with me over the edits. Recently Factlibrary1 accused me of vandalism and reverted my edits this morning. I just reverted it back but I don't see what I did was vandalism. Some of the awards Michael received have no source and some awards he actually didn't win so it would be nice if you give Factlibrary1 and TruthGuardians a message to stop undoing my legal edits. Thanks. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This should probably go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. However, you should be aware that your own behavior will come under review if you file a complaint there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

If I violated any rules, yeah I would expect it. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

you’ve been asked to take your edits to Talk page. You can’t monopolize pages edits or make edits for no good reasons. Edits like “this isn’t a real award” is also POV pushing. You don’t get to determine that and then make an edit. That’s something decided on a talk page.TruthGuardians (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

UTRS Access

You are being messaged because there was a bug in UTRS that made it look like you had access to no appeals in the system. This has now since been patched and will be tested more before fully implemented again. You can track the progress if you wish here. I appreciate your patience and wanted to stop by to say try again, and let me know if anything else is wrong. Please also ping me if you reply here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Lookie

Hey NRP, any way you can check if Gilbertfox75 is evading a previous block of Alexmorrison38? I blocked Alexmorrison38 last month and they both created what I am sure is a hoax article at Arthur (season 24). My suspicion is that they might be one of our usual long-term vandals, but I'm not exactly sure who it might be. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You found a decent-sized sockfarm.  Confirmed:

• Huntercousins98 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Blackjohnson76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gilbertfox75 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Neseejones333 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Erinejones1111 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Heatheryoung11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Andrewtreadway43 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Athenamoore442 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cooperhall8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Garrsonjones43 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Alexmorrison38 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jamieyoung71 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

It looks like someone along the line thought this was Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Caidin-Johnson. I'll block them all in a minute. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice name :)

Sorry for the random message but I just wanted to tell you that I really like your name. A ninja pirate sounds really cool. NoSeeYouPlease (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I guggest that instead of creating mildly trollish accounts, you talk to a steward and find out what it takes to get your original account restored. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Peterjack1 aka Smith0124 is back at it as 108.14.43.250

You indeffed the prior sock, Smith0124 on 6/12. Thx for that. Now, a new sock of Peterjack1, 108.14.43.250, started 6/17. Since returning, they have edited (inc. edit warring) ~60 presidential and gubernatorial election pages.

Under the Smith0124 guise, they edited > 250 election/political pages that I listed pageshere (seeking help in reviewing).

That it's the same editor is evidenced, e.g., here: this edit by Smith0124 == this edit by 108.14.43.250.

I reported the 108.14.43.250 sock here, but am posting here in hopes you could help. It looks like this will be a recurring problem. Thx Humanengr (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thx … curious though as to why not block permanently as has been done twice prior? Or is that the norm for IP users? Humanengr (talk) 05:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we generally don't indefinitely block IP addresses. IP addresses can change rapidly and be allocated to someone new. It depends on a lot of factors. This IP address is allocated to Verizon Fios, which tends to be very sticky. I usually block "sticky" IP addresses for a month, then 3 months if they start up again. By that time, many of them are allocated to someone new. It can take a long time for some cable internet companies to reallocate an IP address, but it generally will happen. Business customers usually don't change their IP address, so it's much safer to them for years at a time. They can still cancel their service, though, and that IP address can be allocated to a new business customer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thx for the explain; I should've worked my memory re IP better before asking. :) Humanengr (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

He's back again as 173.129.251.145. Q: As I review his edits, if I'm uncertain on whether a given edit would otherwise be considered proper, I revert w edit summary "edit of blocked sockpuppet reverted; others may want to review". Is there some other way I should handle this or is that good enough? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. I often revert edits made by sock puppets per WP:BANREVERT, especially if I know the editor was blocked for a reason that would call into question their competence or neutrality. If more socks return to restore the edits, I can semi-protect the pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

help?

Hi, you recently blocked a page indefinitely, and it was flagged to be a sock puppetry thing.. but it wasn’t. It was done by a volunteer ( a real person that’s new to wiki ) . How do you appeal this decision? Thank you. Rleighty855 (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, the first step would probably be to explain what you're talking about. I have no idea what you're referring to. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Quick check request

Jackson Stewartz9 is almost certainly Nathan Mohammed who is almost certainly Michael Tdd. Same article focus and pattern of "real" names. There is possibly a tenuous relationship to Thomas Ziomek as well, who is also ZiomekTZ, but that is much weaker. -- ferret (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

This looks like two different groups:

• ZiomekTZ, Thomas Ziomek, and FerretDontBlockMe are  Confirmed to each other
• TRL Studios, AWEGamesStudios, Michael Tdd, Nathan Mohammed, and Jackson Stewartz9 are  Confirmed to each other

They're on different continents, so I think it's pretty safe to say they're  Unrelated to each other. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I had forgotten about FerretDontBlockMe, which was pretty clearly Thomas Ziomek. I did not spot the two promo-usernames, but that matches the claims by Michael Tdd and Nathan Mohammed that they "work" there. I can't find any evidence that either company actually exists (AWE used to, but closed), possibly the entire thing is just a hoax effort by kid(s). Thanks again. -- ferret (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I've tagged the TRL Studios farm as they're creating new accounts after each block. I think Ziomek is probably gone for right now so did not tag. I marked Proven, didn't want to inappropriately mark checkuser as non-CU. -- ferret (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

You know, I'm not really sure if there's an obscure, bureaucratic rule about tagging CU-confirmed socks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

If you are willing, Jason Carroll 25n looks like the latest. I'm happy to simply duckblock if you don't feel there's need to check though. -- ferret (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting – it turns out that the TRL sock farm are socks of Rd64e. RedHoodRayGamerx is also an unblocked sock of Rd64e. It'll take a while, but I can run a few more checks to see if there more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I checked one of those and the behavior pattern definitely matches too. Would you like me to handle re-tagging TRL? Glad to assist. -- ferret (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I got everything. Also, I checked a couple IP ranges, but I didn't see any other accounts. If they're on different networks, I wouldn't see them, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

UTRS request

Hi, could you possibly swing by and leave a comment on this UTRS unblock request. I think you'll know before hand which case it applies to. Cheers, Nick (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

You can probably ignore that now. Sorry. Nick (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edit summaries by IP vandal

Hey there NinjaRobotPirate! Can you please delete these edit summaries I recently came across on the True and the Rainbow Kingdom article? An IP vandal left that mess behind and I don't get why they weren't deleted by another admin. Thanks! Oh and btw, I decided to post this on your talk page instead of going to WP:ANB since you helped me last time with another similar issue I had, hope you don't mind! :) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It's fine to post here. But those edit summaries don't really qualify for revision deletion. If you're thinking that's Nate Speed, it's probably not. Nate Speed tends to use whiny, angry edit summaries that make violent threats (or homophobic insults). That's why his edit summaries so often get revision deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

mail

Hi. I sent you an email. If you prefer, we can continue the discussion on my talkpage after you read the email. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 06:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

there is a discussion going on, I think we should wait for a while. Sorry for the haste. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That's alright. I suppose it never hurts to be careful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Spammer check

Hey NRP. I watch for and revert spammers who post Android APK download scam sites and the like. Normally they are scattered all over with no clear relation other than the type of link, but I've got two that can be definitively tied together as they made the same edit to the same article. Anything useful that might lead to a wider block between Trungro12 and Gop87194? -- ferret (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, they're  Confirmed. Spammers on this ISP seem to be hitting us harder than usual lately. Sometimes hard blocks slow them down. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Please take a second look at User:Cocisj455

Good day NinjaRobotPirate!

My friend I dropped by your talk page to ask that you take a second look into Cocisj455 as a one of the many sockpuppets of Albe23413. When we last talked about said user, you presented me this comparison. The comparison undeniably showed the similarity between Albe23413 and Cocisj455 but he was not blocked for sockpuppetry. I dropped by to appeal the same and to show further proof that he is a sockpuppet of Albe23413.

First, not only did the comparison show that they frequent the same pages, but they also has the same editing pattern. Both are not fond of leaving edit summaries, but when they do, they usually leave "clean-up", "added content" or a combination of the two as can be seen here:

Cocisj455 - Special:Diff/964383182 Shoonami- - Special:Diff/952254318

Notice how the pages that were edited were related to Ang Probinsyano.

There's also their distinctive way of speaking as can be seen here:

Cocisj455 - Special:Diff/964857963 AbstractAudition - Special:Diff/940076514

I can go on with many more pieces of evidence that show that Cocisj455 is without a doubt a sockpuppet of Albe23413, but that would be moot because it's pretty obvious that he is. This has gone on for far too long my friend. What's worse is that to hide his being a sockpuppet he has resorted to plagiarizing my edit summary as can be seen here:

My edit summary - Special:Diff/964894616 Cocisj455 - Special:Diff/964902857

This is getting out of hand my friend, Cocisj455 being a sockpuppet of Albe23413 has to be addressed, and the user has to be sanctioned for it. I would also like to look into a more permanent solution to the problem. A month ago I came across a page protection request against sockpuppets that would require autoconfirmed status before a user can edit the page, I guess that can help put a stop to Albe23413's sockpuppets.

I'm hoping for an immediate action on this matter my friend. After he blatantly plagiarized my edit summary, I can say that situation has gone far enough and has gotten out of hand. Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's him. Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you so much my friend, as always you acted swiftly on this. I always know I can count on you Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)