Jump to content

User talk:NinjaRobotPirate: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎I would like to know, too: thanks 5 albert square, that sounds reasonable to me too
Line 260: Line 260:
::: Seems fair to me. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate#top|talk]]) 01:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
::: Seems fair to me. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate#top|talk]]) 01:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
::: It also seems reasonable to me, {{u|5 albert square}}. I agree he would probably benefit from a period away from the project, to gain perspective if nothing else, and it seems appropriate to reinforce that the recent behaviour was not appropriate and fell well below his usual standard. As I mentioned on his talk page, I make it a practice of separating the "block review" admin practice from the "checkuser" practice wherever possible, and I appreciate that both you and NinjaRobotPirate have stepped up to review this situation. <p>It's unfortunate that one of the more unpleasant ways we have of losing normally productive editors is through what appears to be classic burnout syndrome; it's far more harmful to both the project and the editor, and we've seen some pretty awful flame-outs over the years. Let's hope that in this case things can be turned around. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 01:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
::: It also seems reasonable to me, {{u|5 albert square}}. I agree he would probably benefit from a period away from the project, to gain perspective if nothing else, and it seems appropriate to reinforce that the recent behaviour was not appropriate and fell well below his usual standard. As I mentioned on his talk page, I make it a practice of separating the "block review" admin practice from the "checkuser" practice wherever possible, and I appreciate that both you and NinjaRobotPirate have stepped up to review this situation. <p>It's unfortunate that one of the more unpleasant ways we have of losing normally productive editors is through what appears to be classic burnout syndrome; it's far more harmful to both the project and the editor, and we've seen some pretty awful flame-outs over the years. Let's hope that in this case things can be turned around. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 01:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
::::Thanks, I've reset the block to two weeks from today. I've also explained that I think he has burnt out so to take time to gain a little perspective and said that the edits fell way short of Wikipedia's standards. I've also said that if the behaviour is repeated then he may find that the next block is indefinite. I'll add his talk page to my watchlist so I'll be able to see if he gets any warnings etc once he's unblocked.-- [[User:5 albert square|5 albert square]] ([[User talk:5 albert square|talk]]) 20:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:04, 26 January 2019

Help Please...

Hello NRP, Normally I wouldn't be doing this, but a user has been trying to SLANDER my name by claiming that I'm doing meat puppetry. This user has been making some very rude and UNDUE accusations about me in the past and I've been able to explain myself. However this time they've gotten other people involved with this sort of thing. I would NEVER do any pf the things that the user is accusing me of, and if I did do it I didn't know that I did. Again I'm soo sorry to try to put you in this sort of situation since the last time I pointed out something like this to another user they haven't spoken to me since. I just don't know what else to do about this...--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Paleface Jack: I'm sorry you're having trouble; where is the conflict taking place? Can you link a diff? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Talk Page WatcherThe problem is that this is pretty blatant meatpuppetry. Paleface Jack went to an off-wiki site and explicitly solicited cryptozoology interested people to come to Wikipedia, even going so far as to warn them to Beware of that one user I mentioned, he has a habit of reverting a lot of edits and the like. I sill need to find a way to deal with him. - I would suspect talking about either myself or Bloodofox. Asking people at another site to come and help you with an extant conflict, even providing directions about specific editors to respond antagonistically toward, is the dictionary definition of meat puppetry. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Off-wiki posts like that can be tricky. One has to phrase them carefully to avoid accusations of canvassing and meat puppetry. It seems OK to recruit people who are interested in the topic to help improve articles. But, yeah, it's a bad idea to bring up content disputes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was not soliciting off site. That was NEVER my intention. My intentions were merely to try and get more help expanding those articles in a legitimate way. The way I wrote it might have sounded bad but that was merely by accident. I'm not that kind of guy to cause problems. BloodofFox has been trying to slander my name for a while. Everytime I voice in my thoughts on things when it comes to cryptozoology, he ALWAYS brings this up as a way of degrading the validity of my thought on the issue, claiming that I'm just another "Cryptozoologist fanatic". He has been trying multiple times to degrade the Cryptozoologist WikiProjects, namely getting them merged with Mythology/Folklore for several years now. All attempts had failed and he was secretly mass removing crypto categories from articles without any consensus/discussion whatsoever. I had previously had enlisted the help of Darkknight since I've never dealt with this situation before and I didn't know if it was bad or not. It lead to the unfortunate feud that has been happening ever since. I have really been trying to have patience with this user for a while now but when he goes about slandering my name, bringing up stuff like what has been shown as being proof that I'm some sort of canvasser/meat puppeteer than that's taking it way too far. I never ever intended for that off site post to be a point of influence merely a recruiting post to help get people involved with legitimately expanding those articles in accordance to Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards. and that was only because there were no users that were active or interested in working on those articles. Again I'm SOOOO sorry for bringing you into this mess.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, going off-wiki and then making statements that, at the very least, are visibly identical to soliciting people to help you in the content dispute with Bloodofox is enough like canvassing to warrant the warnings you received from me and others. I would suggest you'd be best advised to avoid asking people off-wiki to help you deal with Bloodofox. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man. I don't plan on doing that again. As for the other issues, what do you think the best recourse would be for a situation like this?--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if everyone tried to assume more good faith of each other, that would probably help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tis true. Thanks for the help/advice.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, NinjaRobotPirate!

Happy New Year!

NinjaRobotPirate,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Vanessa Kirby

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3948952/ There you go. Now you make the change if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.75.199 (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the IMDb is not a reliable source. It's user-generated, much like Wikipedia, which means that we can't accept it for citations on Wikipedia. Thank you for taking the time to discuss the matter, though. I'll give it a look myself to see if I can find a better source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The CheckUser's Barnstar, A barnstar for you! :))

The Checkuser's Barnstar
I, the IP, hereby give and notify you of your immense Contributions to clear Wikipedia from disruptive/lusty/single-motive socks. Your data for socks' record and status of each one is just ultra-mind-blowing. Pure facts no bullshit. To summarise you're plain awesome!!! 182.58.178.40 (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for saying so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Username block

Hi NinjaRobotPirate. In case you missed it, this was a soft block, so they were basically asked by the blocking admin to create a new account. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, actually, I did misread that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2A01:119F:21D:7900:2157:F0A1:824F:A1A3

In November you blocked:

for block evasion.

You also did a range block on

I am seeing what appears to be further block evasion by:

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked. Wow, I remember PETSCII. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually coming back.[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I'll have to check that out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This again

DarkKnight2149 01:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, looks like they're already blocked. DarkKnight2149 01:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had the time to edit much lately, but I just checked on Leatherface (2017 film), and it does look like the vandal is spamming that article again. Yesterday, I noticed the account listed above in my notifications when it started going on a frivolous "Thank" spree like some of the previous socks. DarkKnight2149 04:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can semi-protect the article if more show up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

172.58.40.0/21

I have modified your block on 172.58.40.0/21 to allow account creation. Parts of this range have been blocked over the past year and it's caused quite a backlog from the range at WP:ACC. Could I suggest maybe looking at a smaller range like 172.58.40.0/23? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't hurt to try a narrower one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

99.67.52.39

You blocked this IP a little over a month ago for block evasion. Today, the user is changing birthdates from sourced versions and adding unsourced exact dates where only the year has previously been provided. Dunno if this is consistent with prior misbehavior; I'm about to have to get on a phone call and haven't been able to get all the damage reverted yet but thought I'd bring to your attention that if this is a static IP, the user's back up to shenanigans. Happy 2019! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, same person – disruption is the same. Re-blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda Arendt. I'm sorry that I was so irritable the last time we interacted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, my memory is bad ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 14:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP sock returns

NinjaRobertPirate, on 7 January you blocked 182.69.149.103 as a sock after they nominated University of London to be a GA. They returned this morning and repeated the attempted GAN. Perhaps a significantly longer block is in order? BlueMoonset (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks. Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kiera Chaplin

Hi there, I've been trying to update Kiera Chaplin's page by adding a few things since the page is out of date. I wanted to put her current bio as well fix one or two other things that are not totally correct. I'm new to this so how can I get it to stay on? Many thanks, Walter Smith Jackson (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Smith Jackson: the text that you added to Kiera Chaplin was not only promotional ("This young lady is genuine 'Hollywood Royalty,' with a grade 'A' artistic DNA heritage") but also copy-pasted from other websites. You can't just copy-paste what other people have written and use it here – there are international laws against that. Text that you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. It further must be neutrally written. I don't know why anyone would describe some random actor as "Hollywood royalty" unless they were paid to do so, so you should also read WP:PAID. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock

Hi NinjaRobotPirate. It seems like you are reviewing unblock requests so I am asking if you can check my unblock request at here. Thank you. 103.255.4.3 (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you absolve me from this allegation of "block evasion"? I think as a checkuser, you can check if I ever edited under any other account. I am not sure how Ivanvector[2] came to this conclusion when I have never used any account on Wikipedia ever. 103.255.5.113 (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't prove that you never edited as a registered editor; that's beyond the ability of the checkuser tool. Have you tried to email the checkusers in question? I think that would be the best first step. If you can't, you could try emailing the functionary mailing list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Do you think you could help?

I want to put an infobox on my user page, but it's quite difficult. I've been looking at infoboxes of articles in edit mode, and I do believe I 'might be able to work it out', but some assistance would be nice for me. If you are unable to help, then that's fine with me. As I said, I believe I would be able to work it out, but... Damn I'm gonna repeat myself here, aren't I? But yea. I'll continue working on it until you reply. Thanks🙌 GOLDIEM J (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I actually forgot to sign it but it did it automatically) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GOLDIEM J (talk • contribs) 10:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GOLDIEM J: what infobox are you trying to use? Some of them can be tricky if you're unfamiliar with them, but you can usually just copy-paste them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. Thank you. I'll continue on it😀 GOLDIEM J (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back again

The Malaysian vandal/stalker just surfaced at ANI. DarkKnight2149 15:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stuck

Remember I talked about infoboxes? I don't know what's going on here. I'm trying to add a residence section, but it won't show up. Would you happen to know why? Did I do something wrong, or is it some kind of bug? https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipOqoNrsAo7sMAMvTkQ0yGLG1HJQNlfK-qtptKK_ https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipOJIVCrv-COZTmRo9WpOT2BtkN_MjQV01D_Z2dO GOLDIEM J (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might try asking at the help desk. There are some people there who are very skilled at templates and infoboxes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled message from ReverendBhindu

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, thank you for your message. I read Mr. Rourke's book and I am researching his career as an admirer of his work. This is a fun project for me. I am not being paid. I am compiling data which I am documenting carefully. Based on the guidelines you shared I do not believe I have a conflict. I welcome feedback to ensure compliance. Thank you again. --ReverendBhindu (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReverendBhindu (talk • contribs)

Second adminly opinion

Hey NRP, happy new year. I need a second adminly opinion on something.

This guy, Juanfranciscoposse, shows up to drop a lot of demands on talk pages. "Fix this, this, this, make this a featured article!" "I'm not asking politely to do this. This HAS TO BE DONE." OK, assuming the best of faith, maybe there is some value to someone pointing out what needs to be fixed at One Piece? He also claims to have a previous account that doesn't seem to exist.

A few hours later, he creates a second account to do the same thing. "The article has to be considered a featured article. I'm not asking politely to do this, this HAS TO BE DONE."

And, he refuses to sign any of his posts. I have big questions about their competency, and I kind of feel this might be trolling. What do you think? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is Samsungx635 (talk · contribs). Compare: Samsungx635 vs Juanfranciscoposse, Samsungx635 vs Juanfranciscoposse. Also, both go to Talk:Main Page to make edit requests. I blocked both accounts mentioned above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, amigo. This is the problem with always assuming good faith. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

(Personal attack removed)

You're going to have to help me remember who you are and why you're mad at me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry 182.0.213.246 (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on administrative reverts of good edits (based on behavior)

You may be interested in this RfC. Or you may be not. 149.254.248.29 (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Planethunter91

I'm not sure whether to add this to the sockpuppet report, but I just spotted Contributor91 making an edit of the same type as the Planethunter91 socks had made. The coincidence in name and type of edit makes me suspect another sock. And he's requesting a change of the name of his account as his first edits. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarl N.: yeah, that looks suspicious, but it probably can't hurt to let it go a couple days to see what happens. The rename seems to have gone through, and the user is now Dickens75. Let me know if you see this editor engage in edit warring or any other Planethunter91-related edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle song pages

I just wanted to thank you for the PP of these pages. I just wish it could be longer. Thank you for what you do :) - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 19:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm getting tired of this genre warring sock puppeteer. He's turning these articles into a huge time sink. The way policy is written makes dealing with this difficult, but we've reached the point where I think limited use of ECP is warranted. I can always reduce the protection level or time once things cool down. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know, too

What is it about ImmortalWizard that makes you distrust him? Could you please help me to understand what I am missing? Risker (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: I discussed it a bit in this edit. Basically, I think this is a pattern of behavior, not a one-off thing. For example, I agree with Cullen328 that ImmortalWizard twice added "negative innuendo" to User:Jimbo Wales. When Cullen328 told him to "go do something useful", ImmortalWizard's response was "LOL". And yet, ImmortalWizard just complained at WP:ANI that admins let disruptive editors laugh at them while continuing their disruptive behavior unabated. Ugh. And, apparently, ImmortalWizard's idea of doing something useful is to stir up drama at WT:CRIC and then go on a vandalism spree. OK, well, if you think this is just a one-off thing that won't be repeated, I personally don't have any problem with you unblocking. I'll just try to ignore whatever else this editor gets up to. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's lodged an appeal on UTRS regarding this. I must admit, I have concerns regarding this editor, the edits to Jimbo's user page do come across as trolling almost with the edit summaries. I'm also concerned that he appears to have taken his temper out on Wikipedia. That said, he has made some useful contributions to the encyclopedia so the account is not a vandalism-only account etc, however I do think he could do with some time out because his edits were disruptive at the end. NinjaRobotPirate, would you and Risker be OK if I lessen the block to say two weeks and make it absolutely clear that if he repeats this type of behaviour again then there will be no further chances? WP:ROPE springs to mind with this user.-- 5 albert square (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It also seems reasonable to me, 5 albert square. I agree he would probably benefit from a period away from the project, to gain perspective if nothing else, and it seems appropriate to reinforce that the recent behaviour was not appropriate and fell well below his usual standard. As I mentioned on his talk page, I make it a practice of separating the "block review" admin practice from the "checkuser" practice wherever possible, and I appreciate that both you and NinjaRobotPirate have stepped up to review this situation.

It's unfortunate that one of the more unpleasant ways we have of losing normally productive editors is through what appears to be classic burnout syndrome; it's far more harmful to both the project and the editor, and we've seen some pretty awful flame-outs over the years. Let's hope that in this case things can be turned around. Risker (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've reset the block to two weeks from today. I've also explained that I think he has burnt out so to take time to gain a little perspective and said that the edits fell way short of Wikipedia's standards. I've also said that if the behaviour is repeated then he may find that the next block is indefinite. I'll add his talk page to my watchlist so I'll be able to see if he gets any warnings etc once he's unblocked.-- 5 albert square (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NinjaRobotPirate&oldid=880322186"