Jump to content

User talk:NinjaRobotPirate: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 124: Line 124:
: I don't understand why you keep referring to people as "this user", "the user", and "a user". I gave up trying to figure out who you're talking about. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate#top|talk]]) 17:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
: I don't understand why you keep referring to people as "this user", "the user", and "a user". I gave up trying to figure out who you're talking about. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate#top|talk]]) 17:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
::I apologize for the confusing prose. I have corrected the references to people to use their usernames. Please help to take a look again. Thank you. [[User:Carter00000|Carter00000]] ([[User talk:Carter00000|talk]]) 17:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
::I apologize for the confusing prose. I have corrected the references to people to use their usernames. Please help to take a look again. Thank you. [[User:Carter00000|Carter00000]] ([[User talk:Carter00000|talk]]) 17:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
::: OK, well, Amaury seems to be putting a whole lot of weight on some random essay. I edited the essay to explicitly state that nobody is bound by it. If people want to wield it like a weapon, they can get consensus to promote it to a guideline. I get that this is probably a lot less than you were hoping for, but maybe it will resolve the issue in the short term. If it devolves into [[WP:wikihounding|wikihounding]], like constantly showing up to berate you in various forums, an admin could take further steps. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate#top|talk]]) 18:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:40, 9 July 2023

I hope you find my addition to your talk page aggravating and stressful, just the way you like it! :) Natureium (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I rarely check my email, so if you send me something important, you should probably let me know.

Bored? Check out User:NinjaRobotPirate/Games for a list of video games that are probably notable. I listed most of the sources, so you don't even have to find them.

Please move the article from LLC to entertainment company

For this clear reason here, I reported through Wikipedia:Requested moves the technical request to see if you could move the article from LLC to entertainment company in Crunchyroll LLC for example, and the truth is that it is uncomfortable for me to see how Google compares Crunchyroll with that of the parent company of the same name and Funimation for its part with Crunchyroll the corporation, but days after this the request was rejected telling me that there were several Crunchyroll companies here. Natural disambiguation would work better than parenthetical disambiguation. And as if the entire disambiguations did not exist after all and there is a possibility to see if there is a consensus on whether or not to move the article from the aforementioned parent company. 190.167.118.147 (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to understand exactly what you want, but try Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want the article to be fixed by moving the topic from LLC to an entertainment company so that I can first correct the comma in the initial part, and even though, having requested the move, there has been a confusion in the Google search between Crunchyroll and Funimation, I would like you to The situation between the corporation (Funimation) and an entertainment company (Crunchyroll) should be resolved and so many unnecessary disambiguations or redirects created by various users should be deleted.

Something for example my review here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&diff=prev&oldid=1162912520 190.167.121.71 (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, just follow the instructions in the page I linked above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False disrupting accusations.

I should mention that my partial block wasn’t fair. If you think requesting a move on Talk:War in Donbas (2014-2022) as a non-ECU is disrupting, you’re wrong! Plus, this rule is nonsense as talk pages are not affected by vandalism and many other non-ECU users who have requested a move on that type of page weren’t partially blocked. So I suggest you remove my block, as you are currently targeting new users. I advise you read Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. If you feel offended by this, I can guarantee I also feel offended by your actions. BestWikiDog (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sock puppetry. But to make things clear, I have the best wiki dog. She's pretty big, so arguing with her about this probably isn't wise. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs and possible sockpuppets

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate,

I saw your recent block of Meegvun and their sockpuppet Gerblinpete. Almost daily, I review all of the week's AFD discussions and on occasion notice editors who create an account and then head right over to AFD land to share their opinions on whether articles should be deleted or kept. I often go to their talk page to discourage them from participating in AFDs until they have more editing experience...sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The other day, I came upon Whinyharedy and thought I'd alert you in case they looked familiar to previously blocked editors who were active in AFDs. So far, they've only participated in one AFD so they are unlike other editors whom I've given warnings to but after seeing your block of Gerblinpete, I thought I ask you what you thought.

If it would be okay, maybe I could share these observations when I see newly created accounts dive straight into discussing policies and notability in deletion discussions after having an account less than a day. I run into a couple of these precocious editors every week. Thanks and I hope you had a great weekend. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, it's hard to say. If you look at Special:Diff/1162913732, the edit is dated incorrectly, as if Whinyharedy is manually typing out the timestamp. I've seen people do that sometimes because they don't realize that a signature adds it automatically. The edit also copies the previous vote, which sometimes indicates a newer user who's unsure of protocol (or a very lazy sock). The "enwikilink" edit summary sounds like someone who has cross-wiki experience. This is a bit odd for someone with no linked global accounts, but it could be an IP editor who created an account. I think there's probably enough justification to take a peek at the CU data, but, then again, it can all be explained away, too. So, I guess on this editor, I'd probably learn toward keeping an eye out for further suspicious edits instead of doing anything right away. It's odd how so many new editors go directly to AfD. I tried to collect some of my thoughts at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Identifying sock puppets, though it's not really deep.

I don't mind looking at suspicious editors if you happen find them. I think you're somewhere around my age, so you probably remember a time when you could just turn off your computer, and the internet went away. It's so hard to get away from the internet now. When you turn off your computer now, the internet is still there, beeping at you and sending you texts on your smartphone, tablets, and everything else you own. But I'm only a CU for as long as I'm logged into Wikipedia. I can at least get a rest from that if I go outside. So, I generally don't feel overworked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's another new editor who raised my suspicions just now, Gus1001. They have only been an editor for two days and their first edits were to a DId you know template! I don't even know how DYK works, how would a new editor know about this obscure, backstage part of Wikipedia, much less decide to edit there after creating an account. I almost wish there was an encyclopedia of sockpuppets and trolls so we could leaf through it and say, "Oh, that X again, editing DYK (or ITN or creating categories or football templates, etc.) ! They are back as account Y!" Since there isn't an open directory to send us to the correct SPI case, we editors just hope that CUers and SPI clerks have an encyclopedic recall of socks they've encountered in the past. But I'll take a look at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Identifying sock puppets, thanks for letting me know.
Oh, and Gus1001 stopped their DYK activity to post a "Happy July 4th" message on Deepfriedokra's talk page so they might have either helped them in the past or blocked their previous accounts. Again, strange that a 2 day old account would know where to find a holiday template. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a private wiki accessible to checkusers and stewards, but that doesn't really help anyone else. It turns out this is Eltomas2003 (talk · contribs). I cheated and found a tagged sock on the same IP address, so I can't really claim to have an encyclopedic knowledge. But it turns out the previous sock was pestering ProtoDrake about DYK, so that makes it pretty obvious in retrospect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, Eltomas2003 shadows video game related media with a focus on pushing to GA/DYK, usually harassing/stalking Protodrake's efforts in the same area. @NinjaRobotPirate, I got glock handled. -- ferret (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty ducky but

Would you be willing to check these two? -- ferret (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed to User:AardWKIA9A. I want to poke around a bit more, though, because it looks like there's more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All confirmed to Rickwas99:
Several of these accounts are blocked on ar.wiki for socking, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot I duck blocked one before. Didn't quite expect the nest though. Thanks -- ferret (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

off-wiki discussion?

I unsure about the propriety of notifying other (any?) editors about this, but I thought I'd run it past you, first. If I shouldn't've, and shouldn't notify further, please let me know; I just thought off-wiki mischaracterization of editors' discussion might warrant a heads-up:

As a participant in the AFD of William David Volk, I wanted you to be aware of this essay mischaracterizing your collective conclusion, which was further posted here. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's too late to canvass people to the deletion discussion, so I doubt it's an issue for Wikipedia. Honestly, I didn't click the link. If it were The New York Times, I'd probably click it, but Medium is a glorified blogging website. Does it really matter what some blogger says? Because I've never really thought so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing about User:Rickwas99

He's also made User:LancedSoul. So can you blocked User:LancedSoul cause User:LancedSoul is a sockpuppet made by User:Rickwas99 too, can you do that?--~~ MLJ 657 (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather strong accusation. I just checked for socks of Rickwas99 and didn't see anyone like that. What evidence do you have? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion by User:DiscoSlasher

Has been inserting incorrect information to articles where sources do say that. YourBidz (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, Dudenik69 is definitely not Emiliogogo. It's User:JShanley98 if it's anyone. But you're pretty obviously Sinlu22. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on User Block

Hi NinjaRobotPirate,

I wanted to seek your assistance on User:Amaury's actions, noting that you have previously blocked Amaury. I initially contacted Administrator Beeblebrox who referred me to you, and expressed some agreement with the issues presented. A brief review for the reasons for your block shows some similarities with this case, in that Amaury refused to constructively engage in warnings made as part of the dispute resolution process. Further, Amaury questioned the actions of an admin is this case, similar to the case you previously handled.

I recently posted a warning on a third users (User:IJBall) talk page requesting IJBall to stop making personal attacks on various other editors. Amaury reverted the message twice [31], [32], falsely claiming the message was illegitimate, and minimizing the IJball's actions, while quoting WP:DTTR, when I didn't actually use a template. Given that I'd had to revert Amaury twice [1], [2] and warned Amaury against disruptions of WP:DR attempts in the edit summaries, I posted a warning to Amaury's user page. Only then did Amaury stop reverting my warning. IJball was later blocked after ignoring the warning, in part due to the personal attacks which I warned for.

More recently, Amaury showed up at a WP:AN3 discussion relating to me. Amaury doubled-down on the previous accusations made relating to WP:DTTR [3][4]. Amaury further casted aspersions [5], accusing me of having "a history of edit warring" and "dragging another user to ANEW over some supposed technical violation seems to me like it was just done out of spite, despite not having any interaction me beyond the above-mentioned incident. Additionally, Amaury criticized User:Daniel Case, the admin who blocked IJball, saying "I personally don't think the block was warranted to begin with, nor do I agree with the rationale given for the block, especially considering he wasn't given the chance to respond to the ANEW report", which seems to be WP:IDHT, when the user has been blocked for the violation.

As I pointed out at WP:AN3, WP:DTTR is a essay, not WP:PAG. A user's right to contact or warn another user is not diminished simply because the user has been on WP longer then the other. I find Amaury's actions to be a clear disruption of WP:DR process. I believe that this attitude of simply reverting/blocking a less senior user's attempts at conflict resolution to be extremely disruptive. I further note that this both times I have interacted with Amaury, Amaury has inserted himself into good-faith attempts at WP:DR, and disrupted the attempts, without being initially involved.

Please let me know what you think and if further action is warranted. Thank you for your assistance. Carter00000 (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you keep referring to people as "this user", "the user", and "a user". I gave up trying to figure out who you're talking about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the confusing prose. I have corrected the references to people to use their usernames. Please help to take a look again. Thank you. Carter00000 (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well, Amaury seems to be putting a whole lot of weight on some random essay. I edited the essay to explicitly state that nobody is bound by it. If people want to wield it like a weapon, they can get consensus to promote it to a guideline. I get that this is probably a lot less than you were hoping for, but maybe it will resolve the issue in the short term. If it devolves into wikihounding, like constantly showing up to berate you in various forums, an admin could take further steps. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]