User talk:NinjaRobotPirate: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:28, 1 April 2024

Did you know that F5 is the "generate drama" key? Try it! Every time you press it, more drama is auto-generated on Wikipedia.

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.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

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

Administrator changes

Clovermoss

Dennis Brown

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Arbitration

Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.

Miscellaneous

The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing NinjaRobotPirate a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about editor who, IMHO, abuses privileges

Hi NinjaRobotPirate,

I hope this is the correct way to ask, as I’m really not quite sure about the best approach. This is the first time in literally 20 years of actively editing Wikipedia that I have felt the need to reach out to an admin about another user. I selected you specifically because I discovered, while checking the user’s talk page archive, that you had already warned them once before about their dismissive, overbearing behavior, under threat of revoking their advanced permissions. (See below in archive page 11.)

I had a good-faith edit (with edit summary) reverted by a user who patrols a large swath of pages. Many months later, I noticed he’d reverted it with a terse, undetailed edit summary. I took a guess at what he meant and edited again, and as a courtesy, posted a note to that user’s talk page explaining my reasoning in greater detail. He immediately reverted my new edit, and responded to me in a tone that I found entirely inappropriate. I replied again in even more detail, which is pending a response from him. (I have not attempted to edit again, pending his response.)

Looking at the user’s talk page archive, I discovered he has a history of snapping at people with unwarranted aggression and condescension after they ask for clarification (since his edit summaries are often terse and unhelpful), peppering replies with policy links and personal insults, and making a mockery of “assume good faith”. He has been admonished numerous times by other editors about his nasty attitude. This user has numerous elevated privileges, and I believe he uses this position to steamroller over other editors. He shows significant “ownership” of anything to do with South Korean entertainment, demanding prior “consensus” for minor changes he disagrees with, and then refusing to engage in the discussions to achieve said consensus after reverting their edits.

In summary, I do not believe this user has the temperament needed to enjoy any elevated privileges or responsibilities, since he shows a pattern of not respecting even the most basic rules of civility, never mind practicing the collaborative ethos that underpins Wikipedia.

Examples of IMHO totally inappropriate responses: (Sorry, I couldn’t figure how to link directly to individual subheadings on a talk page archive, so the bold titles are the verbatim heading titles.)

User talk:Paper9oll/Archive 14
- Love Twist (TV Show) discussion: “Your reply clearly shows that you didn't bothered reading my reply fully and/or exhibiting I didn't heard that. In addition, don't come bs me that this is a norm thing in Wikipedia, I'm not dumb.”
- South Korean series on OTT: “I tried that before, and I have been reverted before as some editors apparently tied "web series" with YouTube-style videos that are like 10–15 mins long, basically those indie drama-like videos, no point talking to them as you basically talking to a wall, they will tell you that web series stated so.” (Nb: “web series” being the thing I was editing on another page, I guess I’m one of those people there’s “no point talking to” since I disagree with him. IMHO this is a great example of his unwillingness to actually consider others’ concerns.)

User talk:Paper9oll/Archive 13
- Regarding changes made in Lee Junho's page that you reverted: “Nice try btw! I'm not blind and certainly your comments above doesn't tally with your actions. It's your WP:BURDEN to provide reliable sources even if it's WP:TRUE and no they [doesn't] already exists within the page.”
- Reverts without explanation: “your edits is not an improvement and is inconsistent.” (“Inconsistent” is another thing he accused me and others of, but without any explanation as to inconsistency with what.)
- Infobox: “Already stated that clearly above twice in English, whether you understand them or not isn't my problem. And obvious, you have for the second time demonstrated in your reply that you don't know what you are even doing here and only copying others articles despite already explained clearly above, hence this means the end of our discussion as I don't see how further replies would get communicated through when you clearly demonstrated that you don't know what you are even doing and know how to say others articles exists hence you're only wasting my time. To end, you have no consensus to change and goodbye!” (Unwillingness to clarify when misunderstood, extraordinary rudeness. I also don’t think he really understands that consensus is built, not sought in advance of every edit.)
- Nationality of Krystal Jung: “Your changes made zero sense and has incorrect understanding/interpretation.” (He later backed down, but the tone is inappropriate IMHO.)

User talk:Paper9oll/Archive 12
- Re: BlackBerry Creative:
  - “Don't even try to fool me btw, all of your actions are recorded down in the Wikipedia software in case you're unaware of, and easily referred back by any editors.”
  - “OMG ... you have issues understanding English or what ... pretty sure I already answered your queries clearly. To repeat as stated in my initial reply (if you even bothered reading), your edit was reverted because you didn't include any reliable source for Sunye's departure.”
- Draft:Bull Gamma 3: being very rude and condescending to an editor who was clearly making an effort to comply.
- Queendom Puzzle: showing impatience with non-native speaker.

User talk:Paper9oll/Archive 11
- Your edits: You threatened to revoke his advanced user permissions with the warning:
  - “Maybe you're willing to talk to me, then. I'm thinking about taking away your advanced user permissions. Can you reassure me that you actually do read the sources when you revert edits that purport to remove defamatory content? Or are you just blindly reverting IP editors because you don't trust them?”
  - “You need to be less dismissive of people's concerns when they come to your talk page. I sincerely hope that you're reading the sources when you revert an edit and not just reverting because the edit looks suspicious.”

(So by this point, 9 months ago, he’d already been getting a reputation of being dismissive.)

And so on and so forth, on every archive page there are more examples of this behavior. He is clearly angering and scaring off other editors (they’ve said so in the talk pages) with his uncooperative, impatient, condescending attitude, and I think it at least bears investigation by an admin.

Thank you for looking into this. I don’t want or intend to get into an edit war with him, but the fact that this seems to be a pattern of bully-like behavior compelled me to bring this to your attention.

Best regards and happy new year, — tooki (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look at it, but it'll probably have to wait until tomorrow. It's getting pretty late here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, much appreciated! I’d much prefer you take your time to research as thoroughly as you feel is needed, rather than to rush to action.

FYI, he has since replied (without addressing my concerns in any way, stating that his mind will not change and that I should take it to the relevant wiki project talk page), to which I replied here.

Regards,

— tooki (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He and I have since had one more round of replies, and we’ve at least reached a place to move forward on the contentious edit. I did take the liberty of giving some really calmly-worded feedback on his communication style, since I sincerely believe he comes across as harsher than intended. I do, however, stand by my opinion that admin review of his advanced permissions is warranted, just because it’s been such a pattern of inappropriate behavior. (Even if his wording were super-tactful, I still feel that he doesn’t automatically give other editors the patience and chance for actual collaboration that they deserve, e.g. by reverting without providing substantive explanations, and by reverting for “no consensus” before giving any chance for consensus to be formed.) Thanks again, — tooki (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, edit warring due to "no consensus" (in other words, "I just don't like it") is still edit warring. If someone edit wars using rollback, that's grounds for removing it. That's for using that specific user right, though, which leaves the tag "rollback" as in this edit. Notice how it says "tag: rollback". Now, an edit that uses a rollback-like feature, such as Twinkle doesn't count for this. Notice how this edit has a rollback-like edit summary, but it's using Twinkle (and thus, there's no "tag: rollback"). Refusing to communicate or engage in consensus-building is considered disruptive. It looks like you're making some progress, though, even if it's small steps. I can leave a message on User talk:Paper9oll again, and maybe that'll help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am also pleased that some progress was made.

I leave it in your best judgment to review his talk history and edit history and determine what, if any, concrete actions need to be taken. (Please review my discussion with him first.) To be crystal clear, my “dream outcome” would be that he stays engaged and enthusiastic, but just bites his tongue a bit more often, and maybe chooses to hesitate a bit more before smashing the “revert” button, but also engages in productive discussions more readily, treating other editors as peers, not subjects, whose concerns are given earnest consideration, without instantly clobbering them with policy and threats to report them for violating it.

I also realized that my title for this talk thread, written as a draft and then forgot to refine, is not quite accurate: it’s not so much that he abused the permissions per se, but rather that I don’t think someone with his reactive temperament is necessarily the kind of user that should have those privileges. I think having these permissions confers a perceived seniority that can intimidate many users and make them hesitant to respond, and I think users with advanced privileges also have a certain “ambassador” role that begins with exhibiting exemplary behavior. (Years ago I was a moderator, later admin, of a forum with 60K active users, so this may color my expectations of what a user with special permissions should behave like.)

I also welcome any feedback you may have on how I handled the situation. I did my best but am always happy to improve.

Thanks again for your time, and I hope you have a great day. — tooki (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC). 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.

--Minorax^«¦talk¦» 01:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw. This kind of petty harassment comes with the job, I guess. I already requested a global lock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting disruptive editor

Do you remember back in April of last year that I reported this editor for making unexplained changes in articles and you blocked them for a year? It appears that the editor has evaded their block and is still making questionable edits to articles [1] [2] [3]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a 6 month soft block on Special:Contributions/2600:6C56:7600:0:0:0:0:0/40. I guess we'll see what happens after that. I can disable account creation or try longer, targeted range blocks, but it seems like the edits are happening on a wider range than I initially thought. Thank you for including a link to the previous discussion. This stuff is often difficult for me to remember. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral 3rd party needed on Roger Ver Biography article

Hi there NinjaRobotPirate. I have edited Wikipedia before but am not a professional. I don't know if my pinging you in another article would be seen so I decided to make this note in your talk page as well.
First of all, I know that my edits are not perfect and I welcome constructive criticism. I also respect differing viewpoints. However, there is another Wikipedia user, one who you have previously topic banned, who has reverted all of my 11,000 bytes of edits on the page for Roger Ver without, from what I can tell, even reading them. This is similar to why they were banned before. Worst of all, they appear to have a personal bias against Ver. I am not asking you take sides. I would be perfectly comfortable if someone who was neutral went through the page as I had edited it to and took away what they believed was not appropriate. But I am not comfortable with someone who is biased deleting everything whole cloth and refusing to restore anything, even despite considerable conversations about it in the Talk page. In general, they appear to have a lazy, flippant attitude the longer the discussion goes on. I'd appreciate if you had a look, not to take sides, but just to be neutral, please, and hopefully allow some of these edits to go through.

Talk page discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roger_Ver#Restore_possible_COI_issues

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you 58.97.215.166 (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know anything about that. WP:3O, WP:BLPN, or WP:ANI might be a better place to look for assistance. By the way, your IP address seems to be part of a botnet. I assume that since you're editing about cryptocurrency stuff (and speaking fluent English from a Cambodian IP address) that you're using proxies to hide your true IP address. If this isn't the case, you should immediately run anti-malware programs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption was wrong. I've waited a month to respond to you. I am physically present in the country of Cambodia, and I speak fluent English. Here's a picture I personally took less than 24 hours ago in Siem Reap Cambodia. Note the handwritten IP address (mine) on Monday's Times of London printout:

https://web.archive.org/web/20240220032255/https://ibb.co/Rg0QCsw

There are millions of English speakers who live, work, and teach around the world. I had previously edited multiple pages unrelated to cryptocurrency in the months prior, including a page about election ink in Cambodia. And no, my computer is not infected with malware. 58.97.215.166 (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address is on multiple blacklists, including the XBL, SpamCop, and StopForumSpam. I really couldn't care less about some picture on the internet. You could post a picture of yourself shaking hands with the king of Cambodia while making an unblock request, and it still wouldn't change the fact that your IP address is on multiple blacklists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Matthew Jarvis

User:Hiiiii63562hrhd is making edits to this disambiguation about some guy of that name who was born in 2012 and is described in some variation of "the greatest). This is obviously a new account for banned User:535gstjb. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seems kind of obvious. If more show up, I can start semi-protecting the pages or something. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The return of 45.8.146.82

Previously you blocked 45.8.146.82. I'm dropping a note to let you know that one IP blocked by another admin, 91.192.81.61, and a currently unblocked IPs 185.104.63.112 are editing the same topics in the same style. There has been a persistent problem with a user behind these IPs that I notice when they edit in questionable information about the use of herbs by ethnicities, particularly the Roma. I think you're well aware of this nonsense but for completeness here are three other previous IPs:

103.171.44.94
2A02:27AA:0:0:0:0:0:1571
2600:6C50:7EF0:4A70:8855:31B:12E7:5D7A

Please let me know if I should be putting this at a particular board when I see this block evader return again in the future, as they will almost undoubtedly return. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I was right about them returning quickly. Now editing as 86.107.179.231. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be using VPNs or something like that. There's a bot that automatically blocks them, but it doesn't get everything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

Guideline and policy news

An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did just as you said

@NinjaRobotPirate Well, thanks for helping me, man. I removed the information from my user page and you're right. I should just shrug it off like it's no big deal. Cheers. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	I know it seems pretty weird to give a barnstar for such a simple problem, but since it's like you helped me get out of a pit I wasn't able to escape, I couldn't help but thank you for your mentorship. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to see things clearly when you're uninvolved. Also, I've been on the internet since the early 1990s. I've had a lot of time to learn this stuff. My email account is older than a lot of Wikipedians, I think. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the thing is that I was born in the 2000s, so I've just become an adult. I need to learn even more about how dangerous the internet is. I actually have been reading up on books talking about networking, internet, and hackers. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Wikipedia has something like an internet survival guide. If not, maybe it'd be interesting to write something like that some day. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably I could do something like that (such as writing a book or story) when I'm in college and then publish it lol. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think there may be a "Wikipedia for Dummies" book in my local library, actually. I might check it out the next time I go there. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sockpuppeteer

When I typed all that stream-of-consciousness diatribe, I was unaware of that account. I didn't see there was a category with nearly 20; I only went from the banner of "Emmy Fan" or w/e to that user page, which showed me a "Keyblade420"; thus, I never saw that death threat. I can understand your aggravation.

As I said in my response, everything I said was as far as I knew him on the 96th Oscars page. I was not involved with a Law & Order forensic sockpuppetry investigation, which is impressive. And examining those other accounts....I just noticed Key Clue #1: He repeatedly blanked ALL of his talk pages there too! Quite an obvious pattern–circumstantial, but nonetheless compelling.

Well, he asked me to vouch for him, and I did as I knew of him then for all of 2 weeks. Can't blame me beyond that. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 16:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my advice would be not to write passionate testimonials in defense of someone that you've only known for 2 weeks, especially if you're not going to make any effort to learn who you're defending. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I ought not get involved at all, unless I'm certain it's some miscarriage of justice. When you posted the death threat, I was taken aback, because my statement about him was only about present-day him, not past him.

However, I just woke up at the time. I did make an effort to check. Just a minuscule one, not thorough. For future sockpuppetry, I'm more aware of how to ascertain more details now. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 23:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting a disruptive editor - February 2024

Hello, I've noticed some edit-warring over on The Magic Roundabout (film) and I would like to report an editor who is adding in unnecessary detail. The same applies with The Wizard of Oz (1939 film). I have a feeling that his edits are a WP:FILMPLOT violation. TPercival (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bbc1984 has been warned about edit warring a couple times, so I did a short edit warring block. I don't know if it'll do much, but I also left a note. For what it's worth, Bbc19812 is

Confirmed, but there doesn't seem to be any illegitimate socking. The user page ("don't ban me") strikes me as a bit suspicious, but sometimes younger editors just blurt out stuff like that without realizing that it makes them sound suspicious. I've even seen a couple user pages that said stuff like "stop banning me". It boggles the mind. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

rationalwiki

A user with your username was registered over at rationalwiki.org https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NinjaRobotPirate a couple of days ago, is this you? if it ain't you I'm probs going to block it for a disruptive impersonation of a Wikipedia admin. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not mine. Probably just some random dude. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think so.. I've blocked for impersonating a Wikipedia admin. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That one IP user doing bad warnings and reverts

Hi, I saw you blocked one of their /18 ranges (are these VPNs?). I just noticed <this> one though, which is on the /17. I guess they didn't do much with it, but I figured you might want to know.
– 2804:F14:8086:5501:5D65:401E:4412:A164 (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it could be a VPN. There seem to be some unreverted edits on Chinese Wikipedia, though, so there may be legit editors here. I expanded the range block to the /17, which should help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense.

I asked if it was VPNs more because of the geolocation differences - the ones you blocked and the ones Zzuuzz blocked (1, 2) are close together, but the other single IPs doing the same thing recently weren't: 1, 2. Although, I was under the wrong impression that the ones Zzuuzz blocked were in a different location when I asked.

Thanks for expanding the block.

– 2804:F14:8086:5501:5D65:401E:4412:A164 (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many East Asian IP addresses that edit English Wikipedia seem to be proxies, VPNs, or similar. A decent amount of long-term disruption and sock puppetry comes from them. They'll get increasingly harsher range blocks as they're abused, regardless of whether they're VPNs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check two suspected sockpuppets

Could you please check whether RyanW1995 is the sockpuppet of Raja Nine to Five? Thanks. Natsuikomin (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think they're related? You'd have to give some sort of evidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a report on Indonesian Wikipedia, but the checkusers there don't give immediate response. So, I ask you here hoping that you can directly check it. Natsuikomin (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Violation

Hi NRP. I've already reverted this[4] and dropped a warning on the user's talkpage[5], but it's so egregious that I still wanted to call attention to an admin; the user may require some monitoring. Thanks. Grandpallama (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DAHcat, MannEdith, TheHetStopper, and Frankypedia are all

Confirmed to each other. I figured it would be some LTA vandal in the Israel-Palestine topic area, but I guess it's just a garden variety political troll. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I pointed it in your direction, then. I was just focused on the BLP side, though I did note the odd editing history; even so, I wouldn't have had anyone against which to match the user in order to file at SPI. Grandpallama (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request

Hi NinjaRobotPirate. Could you please do a check of PukeFlower? The account looks like a possible sockpuppet of Bobbylonardo based on behavioral similarities, interaction analysis, and timeline analysis. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbylonardo has an extensive history of logged out editing, but his IP address was blocked for a lengthy period of time. That seems to be around when he switched to using his account. PukeFlower looks

Unrelated. There's a little overlap in their editing, but they're probably both just fans of pop culture. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed it...

You might find this amusing. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jauerback I couldn't help but cracking a smile at that. I know this may not be my business, but it makes me laugh a bit at it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess the whole "why does everyone think I'm a bad person just because I sent death threats and keep sneaking back under different names" thing is a bit amusing, but it makes you wonder whether Gen X were even worse parents than the Baby Boomers. I used to think our parents screwed up the world much worse than us, but you can only really blame reality TV, the commercialization of the internet, email spam, Millennials, and Gen Z on us. At least we're not responsible for most of the political messes in the world. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that's true. To be fair though, I am a Gen Z, and I only started learning all about this generation stuff and I was pretty surprised to hear that my dad was literally right at the end of the Baby Boomers. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lines can get pretty hazy. I think statisticians mostly just make up date ranges, then the rest of the world more-or-less goes along with them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My user talk page

Ah, crap. Looks like I've become another target of their non-stop attacks against other editors. Oh well, it was well worth explaining the issue to other editors unfamiliar with the long-term abuse issue on the ANI thread (which was actually filed by them using a previous IP, ended in boomerang action of course). The more editors aware of their behavioural pattern and reverting them, the better, IMO. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Special:Diff/1209591097? It's ironic that this person would talk about living in someone's head rent free. Sounds like a pretty obvious case of projection to me. Not so surprising that they so worried about what people say about them that they're reading through admin boards, too. It doesn't really matter. I'll just semi-protect your talk page. I let him post to mine so I can collect IP addresses and use them as data for range blocks. If it gets out of hand, I'll just complain to the ISP and ask for his parents' service to be cut off. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.

I honestly don't really mind the occassional or weekly personal attack, I deal with a fair share of different LTAs here, and legitimate IPs / new accounts do post to my talk page from time to time, but thanks for that.

The post they made to RfD lately gave me a good laugh. I don't feel upset in the slightest, I found it pretty funny. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad you've got a thick skin. It helps a lot when dealing with unsupervised children. If you're really that chill about abuse being lobbed at you, you might consider trying your hand at being an administrator some day. It makes cleaning up after LTA vandals a lot easier. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This message is not a response to NinjaRobotPirate, but to 'that guy':

Lol. Just thought I'd let you know, that I'm not upset at all by your sayings. I'm having a good laugh here. If you read carefully, I didn't specifically request page protection here. The lack of me responding means I don't care at all. In fact this is the last time I'll ever respond directly. Bye! — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC). 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.

NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My other message

Don't forget to send the form to the other administrators as well. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The form is in your Gmail. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not really interested. If I ever get bored enough to click on random links that people send me via email, I've got about 1000 PC games I can play instead. I'm terrible about buying cheap games and never playing them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. Okay. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I asked DFO if he would do the response, and both he and Yamla did them. The responses though? Very interesting lol. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppet

Hi! Could you please check whether HotTwoDagon is a sockpuppet of TotalTruthTeller24? This looks like this. This looks like this. Thanks. --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's TTT24. Some of my old range blocks are timing out. I guess I need to start doing them for 1 year instead of 6 months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Administrator changes

Bureaucrat changes

SilkTork

Guideline and policy news

Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news

The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

100% certain this account is another Gamerguy94 sock. There are some obvious editing behaviors on display. The sockmaster doesn't have a SPI page, so I'm bringing this straight to you. Also pinging Ponyo since they've blocked a number of the socks, too. Recent history at The Sixth Sense shows they were using an IP last week for block evasion, too. Grandpallama (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exceedhingly obvious sock is now blocked, along with Trollhunter97.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--you wasted no time! :) Grandpallama (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

“removing sources”

I did not “remove” references on Footloose. I moved the same AFI to cite the companies not in the credits. I mean do you want 8 of the same references in the INFOBOX? Ok. Gotcha. A lot of other good edits were reverted. Please don’t template me like I’m a vandal. I’ve been here the same time you have. Mike Allen 09:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whos?

Snowfallen 678? See That's Entertainment (Hazbin Hotel) -- ferret (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that'd be TotalTruthTeller24 (talk · contribs), along with Kneelint (talk · contribs) and a bunch of new proxies that I hadn't blocked yet. TTT24 socks have been diversifying their interests somewhat – the newest socks typically go on a run of edits to unrelated articles before developing an obsessive interest in cartoons, comic books, and superheroes. It's like, "Hello, I'm just an average editor who's interested in copy editing articles about financial investments, and, oh yeah, here's a 20KB article about some cartoon character." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boo. That's less interesting than some other sock I simply haven't seen before. It was clear not new but I didn't make the cartoon connection since I deal with Ttt24 mostly through VGs. -- ferret (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, TTT24 has been on a cartoon binge recently. Or, at least, I'm pretty sure they're all cartoons. I haven't really kept up with pop culture in years, so I have to look this stuff up sometimes. I finally got around to watching the John Wick films this month. They're not bad. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate Oh yeah, today I just watched KFP4. I don't understand how critics think it's bad, because I like the chemistry between Po and Zhen. Sadly though, the Furious Five don't appear until the freaking end. Honestly, it might not be as good as the first three films, but it's not entirely inferior as the critics say. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I don't know much about that. I tend to prefer art (in its various forms) that is dark, violent, and surreal. H. P. Lovecraft, H. R. Giger, David Lynch, David Cronenberg, that sort of thing. I had a girlfriend in college who tried to get me to listen to uplifting music because she thought all my music was too depressing. I was like, "It's not all industrial music, death metal, and The Cure. I listen to happy music, too." I put on something that I thought was pretty damn happy. She said, "You call that happy?" NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hate when those adults always have that cliched saying "Video game music isn't real music." Well, I'm telling you, they are so wrong. Have they never listened to Super Mario Galaxy music? Believe me, Nintendo actually used a live orchestra to record it. I had never known they would use an orchestra for a video game, since it sounds way more lifelike than a chip-tuner and has a lot of depth. Mario Galaxy will always remain one of my favorite games of all time, because seriously, I can never get over how damn good the Bowser music is. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New forms of media often struggle at first to be recognized as worthwhile art. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facts. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WorldWideBallCaps's Sockpuppets

Hey Remember when you Blocked WorldWideBallCaps, Well Guess what He's Back. Somehow they came back on Wikipedia and it has been a On going War since then. I would really Appreciate your Help. Here are the 2 Accounts, he has been Using: Special:Contributions/172.92.204.120 and Special:Contributions/172.92.235.185. How can I tell it's Him, Well WorldWideBallCaps openly Admitted that he's from Washington State and I have traced both IP Ranges and they are also from Washington State, so clearly it's the Same Person 100%. Also, they have Edited a Bunch of Pages that WorldWideBallCaps edited and bunch of them are Sports pages. They have been Annoying and a Bully and they are Using their IP address instead of Creating an new Account so they Can't get Blocked again. And if they Reply to this, Don't Fall for their BS.

Original Account: [6] Their Contributions:[7] 2601:84:8D00:2DCB:39E1:BD80:7BAA:6A82 (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he isn't that much better either. He's the one who's really in the wrong here. 172.92.204.120 (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serves You Right! Nah, you Were in the Wrong Here! 2601:84:8D00:2DCB:A817:49D4:930E:FAA9 (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You NinjaRobotPirate for taking Care of it. See he Basically Confirms and Admitted that he is WorldWideBallCaps. Kinda Wish he was Blocked Indefinitely instead. They have been really Annoying. He 100% Deserves it. Again, Thanks for the Help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:401:902B:15A6:2439:6220:8582 (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting un-protecting of the Sweet Baby Inc.-talk page

Following proper Wikipedia conduct, I first contact you, the Wikipedia editor who put the SBI talk page to "semi-protected" status, denying people to further bring up criticism to the current state of the article.

You yourself mention that Wikipedia requires more civil behavior, yet you immediately accuse all critics of having "strong feelings", when the talk-page shows how all people were doing was calmly bring up valid criticism against the current state of the SBI-article. To imply that critics have "strong feelings" comes off as an attempt to de-rationalize their criticism or in other words, paint them as "idiots" or else.

You wrote: "Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs or expose the truth."

Certainly, though, Wikipedia is here to report factual information to the best conscience of all contributors, right? In the case of the SBI-article, several named Wikipedia-editors have shown to ignore all and any criticism brought forward, mostly under the flimsy given reason of "Wikipedia doesn't allow social media posts as a source". Which could have been acceptable, if then the consequence would be to remove the entire article (or at least the controversial section) until proper sources exist to shine light on the entire situation. By omitting key information (not feelings), the article is currently abused by bad faith-actors as ammunition for their cause. All that while named Wikipedia-editors are aware of the article's misinformation, because they themselves were shown primary sources such as official tweets by SBI employees and CEO as well as videos, all of which while it cannot be used on Wikipedia ("because social media posts aren't a source"), certainly prove to the individual human Wikipedia-editors that indeed there is crucial information missing to the current article. In which case a removal of the entire controversy-section should have long been the logical consequence.

I hope this gets through to you and those it needs to reach. Otherwise I will follow proper Wikipedia conduct and issue an official un-protection of the article. Thank you. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that almost all of your concerns are addressed by reading the linked pages in my message. You're not the first person to come to Wikipedia to wage an ideological battle using primary sources and links to social media. Those links will answer your questions and complaints. Please also be aware that Wikipedia editors must assume good faith. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just violated the "good faith"-rule by accusing me of "waging an ideological battle". I have repeatedly explained that this is not about anyone's opinion, it's about a factually incorrect article, omitting key information. In a hypothetical scenario where you chose to only include information from the other side, it'd be just as bad. It shouldn't be that hard to understand that a situation ought to be portrayed in its entirety before a Wikipedia-article is warranted. Right now, you are the one "waging an ideological battle", whether you intend to or not.

I will now request an official un-protecting of the article since you have shown to not act in good faith. After all the calmly brought forward arguments, this has ended in a very disappointed manner. Have a nice day regardless. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs or expose the truth."

The fact that you're openly admitting, as a Wikipedia admin, that this site isn't here to tell the truth, should get you removed from your position immediately. Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective, unbiased source and there is no place for people like you in it. 157.131.103.182 (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or we should promote him to Super Admin, since he's exactly right, per our policies and guidelines. -- ferret (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret I literally agree. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this edit in recent changes, not to dogpile any further but this essay on verifiability, not truth may be useful to understanding this policy. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@157.131.103.182 Yes, he did say that the site isn't here to tell the truth, but it was all for the right reasons. Also, saying that he can't even be in it is considered as a personal attack. Don't ever do that again, as you may get potentially blocked. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret Or not even Super Admin; possibly we could even promote him to a bureaucrat (though the threshold is pretty tight). NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's frustrating how all of this appears to be "fun" for you. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrats don't really do anything except supervote during requests for adminship. I'm not even sure why we have them. The reason why people think it's amusing is because they've grown cynical. Wikipedia's admins have to deal with this day-in and day-out – people trying to convince you that you need to cite self-published blogs and social media to get the full story on Flat Earthers, or vaccines, or astrology, or UFO abductions, or... it's just endless. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NO no no no no... this is definitely our first rodeo at all this! -- ferret (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know there's a Wikipedia Bingo? Very cynical indeed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I'm laughing at all of this. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about WP:BINGO. I think I win at least once a week. I want all my nothings now please. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't offer a genuine Marvel No-Prize, but you can have a cheap knockoff that was made in New Jersey. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2409:40E6:0:0:0:0:0:0/36

Thank you for the above block. The same sock seems to be editing from this range as well - [8].

FYI, @User:Bbb23.

Chaipau (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Special:Contributions/2409:4065::/36? There's actually a bunch of socks active on there. Probably on the new one above, too, since it's pretty busy and wide. I don't usually have a problem with blocking wide IP ranges, but that one is a bit busier than I usually like. I could disable anonymous editing and see if that helps any. It should make any sock puppets a bit easier to see, at least. It's harder to track them when they're popping up all over the place on random IP ranges. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that works. You have already protected them! Chaipau (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some games not in your list

At User:NinjaRobotPirate/Games. Since that table compromises a list of games without a Wikipedia page, why isn't Gorilla Tag, Sun Haven and Dinkum there, given that they are all quite popular and have at least 10k Steam reviews?. In my eyes, they would be notable but Wikipedia says otherwise. (edit 16:55 UTC - corrected link as that used to take to the talk page of that table of games page)

How about Cuisineer and Travellers Rest given that both has at least a thousand Steam reviews? JuniperChill (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page started out as a place for me to store my notes for video game articles that I intended to create. As time went on, I looked through more sources and expanded the scope to include more stuff, such as console games, pixel art games, and obscure Eurojank. However, it's still limited to what I've found and what's notable by Wikipedia's standards. For example, Sun Haven has no critic reviews at Metacritic. But if someone sees anything that I missed, it can't hurt to mention it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. I thought that was just a list of somewhat popular games without a Wikipedia page. It feels odd seeing that games like Dinkum and Sun Haven are more popular than say, Fae Farm even though the latter has a page but the former don't. In other words, popular video games (including the ones I mentioned) don't have a page and obscure video games can which is out of the ordinary. Any idea what would have been the most popular video game (using Steam reviews) without a WP article? Supermarket Simulator springs into mind, more popular than Sun Haven, also not having a Metacritic. That table of games seems to also help other creatirs make those video games because you already listed some of them. I think three reliable sources is the minimum. I also feel like your the one who has created the most video game articles yet. JuniperChill (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most popular one that I found was Brotato, which had 64K reviews before I moved the draft into mainspace. Of the articles I personally created, it was probably Timberborn, which had around 20K reviews before I created the article. I created Dave the Diver just after it was released, but it already had around 10K or 15K reviews, and reviewers were calling it one of the best games of the year. Timberborn was mentioned in some lists of the most popular indie games of all time, but it's still in early access. That somewhat limited its coverage in reliable sources, but there was enough to make an article. Right now, Unheard has almost 27K Steam reviews.

It's hard to figure what causes one game to get reviewed but another one to be ignored. I think the glut of indie games makes it difficult to find gems, especially if you only have a few reviewers on staff. They can only play so many games per week. The other problem is that so many games are clones of clones. There are zillions of games that have the same basic gameplay and similar graphics. That might attract fans of the genre, but it can alienate others. And if you have to play games for a living, I imagine it gets boring playing the same game repeatedly.

I think I've created around 200 video game articles now, but it could be more. There are probably people who've created more than that – it's certainly not a huge number. The thing is that I can pump them out pretty quickly, so my name shows up a lot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well anyway, thank you for the discussion about what video games belong to your user page table and how popular games do not end up having an article. JuniperChill (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this you?

Hello. While clerking reports at WP:EFFPR, I stumbled upon this account, NinjaRabitPilot, claiming that it was an alt account of yours.

Is this you or just an impersanator? Thanks – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same as SpaceSuitSpiff. Some long-term vandal or another. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP sock

Hey, sorry to bother you. Regarding this, the sock keeps coming: here and here. ภץאคгöร 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's got to be the same sock. I can semi-protect Barbie (film), which might help. I'm not going to remember this, so I'll write it here: the first one looks like it's a hotel or something, so I range blocked the /29; and the second one looks like more Comcast IP-hopping, so I range blocked that /44. If the sock shows up again, just let me know. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, have a nice day. ภץאคгöร 21:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wasn't sure if creating a new section would be ideal as this IP looks like the same sock, similar editing while continuing to imitate my edit summaries. ภץאคгöร 23:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's more of a problem when people literally edit some section in the middle of the page. I'm visually impaired and sometimes find it difficult to focus on the right spot in a sea of text. There don't seem to be many other obvious sock edits on that IP range. I'll just block the IP for a week, and I guess we can figure out what to next time when it comes around. Sometimes Comcast customers continue to pop up for a while on random IP ranges. It's mostly a matter of Whac-A-Mole, I guess. Page protection is also an option. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.

The personal attacks have started again. Just a notice Trade (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised at all that their username is a violation of the username policy with the word "bot". NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. I forgot to keep checking the talk page after the protection ended. I could try to keep a closer eye on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats ;)

You're at exactly 140,000 edits right this moment, good job ;) -- ferret (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I didn't notice. I can't wait for the free gift at 150,000. I heard that this year, it's going to be a DVD of Highlander 2. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Special:Contributions/2600:1702:C0:8CA0:0:0:0:0/64

I would be interested in hearing the rationale for blocking this user. Thank you. Useight (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was pretty clearly labeled: BLP violations. See, for example, Special:Diff/1215782576. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was clearly labeled. Perhaps I didn't clearly word my question. Let me be more specific. What was the rationale behind considering those edits to be BLP violations as opposed to good faith edits, the rationale for not warning the user, and the rationale for not notifying the user of the block on the user's talk page? Obviously, "good faith edits" is subjective, warnings are not required, and administrators should (not must) notify the user - I'm not trying to call anything out as wrong or get us in some kind of attack/defend dynamic. I'm just curious about your process, as it is very different from my own. Useight (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a range block. There's no talk page for an IP range. Blocked editors see instructions and links on how to proceed – I think MediaWiki:Blockedtext. It's been a while since I looked at the internals of MediaWiki; there may be additional pages or a different one for IP addresses. But the point is that they're not left adrift with no instructions on how to request an unblock. The reason why I didn't leave a block notice on one of the IP addresses on that IP range is that it's pointless. ISPs rapidly cycle the addresses allocated to customers, so the customer is going to be on a different IP address by the time they try to next edit.

On some rather frustrating ISPs, customers on IPv6 addresses will rarely see any messages. Though some people take this to mean all messages to IPv6 editors are pointless, I don't believe that. The reason why this editor didn't get warned, though, is because they've already gotten a final warning on Special:Permalink/927228667 and was previously blocked for the same issue. Unfortunately, I didn't notice that this was several years ago, which is a bit embarrassing because I didn't think my vision was that bad yet. Despite having recently increased the size of my font, I may have to do it again. Regardless, it's still the same person and still the same disruptive edits.

As far as good faith edits go, almost every edit on Wikipedia is made in good faith. The only ones that aren't are from vandals and trolls. When it comes to sensitive articles, I've come to believe that Wikipedia needs to tell more people, "Thank you, but we don't need your help." When you repeatedly add unsourced biographical information to Wikipedia articles – and even remove sources – I think that's a pretty big net negative. The last thing that Wikipedia needs is more people inventing full names, birth dates, and marriages for living people. WP:DOB is pretty clear that there are privacy issues involved. This isn't the sort of thing that you can just make a best-guess at and say, "My bad!" if you're wrong.

I have personally seen my Wikipedia edits show up in CNN articles, reported as if they were fact. Well, they were facts, but that's not the point. People credulously copy-paste content from Wikipedia into reliable sources, and it gets replicated elsewhere. Suddenly, it's all over the place, and impeccable sources are saying that it's true. Except that the celebrity is posting to their official social media, "Hey, that's not true." But people keep re-adding it to Wikipedia because CNN says it's true.

Many people see access the Wikipedia as some kind of human right. I think that's grandiose – Wikipedia is probably 50% "in popular culture" sections – but it's quite understandable. In a post-truth world, sources like Wikipedia are important. But, in my opinion, having the ability to edit Wikipedia is not anything like a human right. I'm not saying that you see editing Wikipedia like that, but it's a feeling I get sometimes from the community. Like being blocked is some kind of horrible personal hardship. I used to live next door to a crack house. I think my definition of "personal hardship" is a bit off from the majority of Wikipedians.

Sorry, I was thinking about this recently. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that thorough and informative answer. I appreciate the time you took to explain it and I wish you luck with your eyesight. Eat a lot of carrots. Unless that's an old wives' tale. But even if it is, carrots are still tasty. Useight (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2024 (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.Yamla (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article request Corn Kidz 64

Can you create an article Goat Kidz 64 on Wikipedia please. 166.48.119.67 (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this one? Sadly, there's no coverage in reliable sources, so it would just get deleted. You could potentially squeak through with just three professional reviews, but I generally prefer to have four. They'd have to be big names, like IGN, Rock Paper Shotgun, PC Gamer, etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is more reliable sources now! Can you add pages like Super Kiwi 64 just like indie games when reliable sources Siactro games please. 166.48.119.67 (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 569: / Line 569: @@
 Can you create an article ''Goat Kidz 64'' on Wikipedia please. [[Special:Contributions/166.48.119.67|166.48.119.67]] ([[User talk:166.48.119.67|talk]]) 05:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 : You mean [https://www.metacritic.com/game/corn-kidz-64/ this one]?  Sadly, there's no coverage in [[WP:VG/RS|reliable sources]], so it would just get deleted.  You could potentially squeak through with just three professional reviews, but I generally prefer to have four.  They'd have to be big names, like ''[[IGN]]'', ''[[Rock Paper Shotgun]]'', ''[[PC Gamer]]'', etc. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate#top|talk]]) 14:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
+::There is more reliable sources now! Can you add pages like ''Super Kiwi 64 '' just like indie games when reliable sources Siactro games please. [[Special:Contributions/166.48.119.67|166.48.119.67]] ([[User talk:166.48.119.67|talk]]) 03:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)