User talk:NinjaRobotPirate

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

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)

Hosting space IP addresses are not public proxies

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

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

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

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

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

Help with War Editing Report

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

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

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes • WJBscribe • Wizardman

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ • TheDJ

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD • GB fan

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

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

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

Possible Sockpuppet of GTVM92

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

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

That's right. Thanks. Benyamin-ln (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

I found another one :) Special:Contributions/80.242.15.46. Thnanks for your attention. Benyamin-ln (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

That also looks like him behaviorally. Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you help me in fighting against Vandalism by user?

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Queensland socks

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

Blocked. Some of these IP addresses seem to get allocated at random but stay assigned for a few months. It's like the most boring game of Whac-A-Mole ever, but he'll run out of useable IP addresses eventually. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't really get the logic of the IP assignment, but the person is nothing if not persistent... Special:Contributions/101.178.108.103 geolocates to Victoria, but is obviously the same person. Hasn't been used since 29 June, but it was also used, and blocked, in Feburary. The weird thing is the timeline between that and Special:Contributions/58.161.97.90, it's like suddenly they switch to another IP halfway across the country, then switch right back again. --IamNotU (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You can't always trust geolocation data. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, thanks for doing all that! I think you may have missed one though, Special:Contributions/144.139.177.141? Also thanks for helping with the "name-remover"... I might think about going for an adminship sometime, I could probably get it with some work, and it would be nice to have access to the tools. I'd probably have to have a user page though - I've always thought if I find myself making a user page, then I'm getting too caught up in it... but maybe when I have a little more time available. In the meantime I hope you don't mind me asking you to do things now and then, I appreciate it! --IamNotU (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

You're right; I missed that one. Blocked now. I don't mind – I have to do the same thing when it comes to cross-wiki abuse and the stewards. There's always someone who has more permissions than you do... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2001:8003:6461:3E00::/64 is back again after the one-month block, playing all their greatest hits... and another golden oldie, Special:Contributions/210.215.155.148. --IamNotU (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I wish this screwy ISP would just allocate him one IP address and be done with it. Oh well. Both blocked long-term. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't I know it... I found a dozen more dynamic IPs from the last few weeks that I didn't mention. I couldn't see a good block so I just reverted them. I'm sure there are more that I'm missing, I should look into the edit filters idea. There have been edits from about ten different ISPs overall. All I can think of is that they're on the road a lot (maybe with a parent?), using WiFi from various locations that they sometimes revisit. Would be consistent with the "adventure travel" and Wikivoyage stuff, and their focus, when they add text, on various locations in Australia. Hopefully not with the child murder stuff though... --IamNotU (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Another long-term one, looks to be exclusively their edits since 2016: Special:Contributions/58.96.59.233, back right after the three-month block. --IamNotU (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a year this time. Probably will just return in a year, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

This one has been active again recently, all edits since October 2018 are theirs: Special:Contributions/203.27.104.254. Also, I don't know if this is useful information, but Special:Contributions/KerryGarragh40 looks like one of the bunch of socks of JohnLickor372 from June. --IamNotU (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Policy makes it difficult to justify blocks of IP addresses that have not edited for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh sorry, that was the wrong number, I meant Special:Contributions/203.16.108.2, last active 31 August. --IamNotU (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I should probably block that one for a year, but I did a shorter one to start us off. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/210.215.155.0/24, active today in a favorite article, seems to be exclusively them for the past couple of years or so (you blocked the range for a week in May 2018, and Special:Contributions/210.215.155.148 for a year last month). Also, Special:Contributions/AlbertGleit423 looks rather familiar... --IamNotU (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

May 2018? Really? Ugh. Blocked for 3 months this time; there doesn't seem to be any collateral damage. Registered account blocked, too. Probably related to the JohnLickor sock farm, but could be older. I blocked a few accounts in mid-2018 that are just as likely to be the master. No comment on whether he's related to any of the IPs, of course. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Another sporadic long-term one is back after the latest block expired: Special:Contributions/113.11.187.71. --IamNotU (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months this time. I know I could probably just default to blocking every IP that pops up for a year (or longer), but I think it would be kind of a bad idea. I've recently been trying to discourage other admins from doing really long blocks for petty disruption. If people see me dropping year-long blocks seemingly on a whim, I'm concerned that what little progress I've made on this front could be set back. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I understand the concerns. This one could use a short block I guess: Special:Contributions/2001:8003:6437:9E00::/64. Seems they've cut back on adding empty "expand section" ones lately, which is good, but now it's harder to search for their edits. --IamNotU (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

What I used to do was camp out at articles about "adventure" topics: adventure films, travel visas, safaris, etc. I haven't seen any socks in there in a while, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

They've cut back on the "adventure" stuff too, though they still do it [1]. The main thing these days is creating a new "History" heading, then moving a bunch of existing sections under it, in many random articles. It's almost never helpful, like putting the whole article underneath it like they did in their last edit [2]. I do have a bunch of articles on my watchlist that they sometimes come back to, and I look through some of the ranges they've shown up in before, but otherwise it's hard to track down.

I thought about requesting an edit filter to log the addition of any "History" header, but I imagine it wouldn't be approved just to look for this one person, because of the performance impact. Looks like there are only about 200 edit filters in total, so I guess they're not very efficient. It wouldn't need to check every edit in real time though, because it wouldn't need to take any action other than logging it. The edit filter request page says:

There is a limit to what filters can check for. More complex, non-essential tasks, such as those that need to perform a more in-depth check of the page or fetch information that the filter system does not have access to, are better served by separate software, run by an individual user on their own machine or dedicated server such as Tool Labs, rather than those used to actually host Wikipedia.

I can do a bit of scripting and regular expressions, so I started looking at Tool Labs/Toolforge documentation. But at the moment it's still a bit of the proverbial "maze of twisty little passages, all alike". Could be interesting to figure out how to do offline filtering/processing of recent changes though. If you know of any shortcuts to that, or somewhere/someone I could ask, let me know... --IamNotU (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The best place to start would probably be WP:VPT. You might also take a look at MediaWiki to see what they've got over there. Some of their help pages are actually pretty helpful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like they've been using this one since 2016 - sporadically but exclusively: Special:Contributions/165.228.213.221. --IamNotU (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. Too difficult to ignore the behavioral evidence on this one. Blocked for a year. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

They've been at it the past few days from Special:Contributions/2001:8003:6004:A100::/64, mainly re-doing recent reverts. --IamNotU (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Another one range blocked for a month. I guess that means we'll be back here in a month, but I suppose it gives us something to look forward to. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

sent ya something special

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Persistent disruption after multiple blocks

You've blocked Hashirama56 twice already for edit warring/disruptive editing based on their repeated removal of "estimate" from estimated net worth on the Rihanna article. Since they just did it again, something tells me that the message isn't getting through: [3]. Bakazaka (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Thanks for getting back to me

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

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

Thanks again for getting back to me. I'm guessing that will work, with the exemption if necessary in the future. Hopefully it won't come to that. Activist (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

SAQ

And again [4]. History at User_talk:NinjaRobotPirate/Archive2019-1#SAQ-stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. I can semi-protect the page again if more show up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This reminds me of a guy who has spent years genre warring on Eagles songs. I had to long-term protection on some of those articles, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll get back to you in a year, maybe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible problem account

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

That's weird. Maybe it's just some random person who doesn't feel comfortable editing articles in English. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I'll see if I can maybe help them out. Thanks. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Sock stuff

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate,

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

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

Yeah, he plagues TV-related articles. Son of Zorn typically uses a throwaway account to create new categories, then uses IP socks to obsessively populate them. It can be a bit of work to locate and block all the socks, but I try to range block them as they pop up. Thanks for taking care of that IP. And, yeah, I've noticed a couple veteran editors whose edits intersected with Son of Zorn socks. I think they're just wikignomes who share a common interest in TV-related categories, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

That's all good information, thanks, NinjaRobotPirate (that is SUCH a great name!). I think sock hunting would drive me nuts, so you have my respect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I chose this name partly to prevent taking myself too seriously, which I think has had mixed success. One mitigating factor in sock hunting is that you can choose how much of a workload you want. I wouldn't want to deal with it as a fulltime job. NinjaRobotPirate (talk)

Multiple accounts

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

common words

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

@Kku: please read WP:OVERLINK. We do not link words like "beans", "farming", "hunting", and "cattle". The vast majority of your links were incorrect according to the manual of style. Also, your attitude needs some work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I would concede w.r.t. "beans". My attitude is in general not to bluntly revert other people's work with a general notice about general policies, but surgically remove nonsense, leave things that make sense. You did not explain how exogamy fit into your scheme. Thanks in advance. -- Kku (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Koo Bon-moo

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

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

174.102.161.185

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

I don't really see a big problem with having both in place, but you can undo my block if you think it's unnecessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I'd rather leave the block, if the IP is here to edit war over infoboxes, there's more than one article they can do that on. Best be on the safe side. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like the sort of battleground issue that could spread. But feel free to do what you think is best; I'm sure you have more experience in this arena. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion

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

@STATicVapor: that's kind of a weird situation. I did a range block because someone was avoiding scrutiny by disruptively editing while logged out, but I left the account itself unblocked. Is the IP doing something disruptive again? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a weird situation. I don't think it is someone avoiding scrutiny (unless it is a user that was blocked long ago). Either that, or it's a meatpuppet for Addicted4517. I notice a lot of tag teaming on notability/deletion discussions (only on Australian wrestling articles). It seems like whenever an edit by Addicted4517 is challenged the IP editor shows up to defend him. You'll notice that they have both been working towards deletion on the article that the IP requested the AfD for. I haven't taken this to SPI, because that isn't really for IPs that are not 1000% obvious, and even then IP reports usually do not get responded to until the issue is stale.

The IP range was blocked for harassing me over a dispute over a notability tag, range blocked because they have a new IP everytime they edit it seems. Since the month range block isn't up this user should still be blocked right? Even if they are not doing anything disruptive yet. StaticVapor message me! 19:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2001:8003:594A:6800::/64 was not anyone who had previously edited professional wrestling topics, but they were logging out to edit war on professional wrestling articles and make uncivil comments. The range block was mostly to force this person to stop hiding behind an anonymous IP address to make uncivil comments and edit war. If the IP starts this up again, let me know. I guess I could do another range block right now, but I'd prefer to wait until there's a problem. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I just did not think it was right that the same person that was supposed to be blocked for a month, is editing still with no care to the block. The edits to Wikipedia talk: Articles for creation makes it WP:DUCKish that it is the same persom editing Wikipedia. StaticVapor message me! 05:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Gaming

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

Handled by Bbb23 through another report. -- ferret (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually handled by me through this report. I suspected who the master (ConsumersDistributingonline) was and I've found sufficient evidence to block, but I couldn't confirm. NRP, does the sock remind you of anyone else?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, bad assumption that AIV report triggered it. -- ferret (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

There was one person I half-remember who was focused on malls and department stores. I think that one was located elsewhere, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I suspect you're thinking of EdelweissofNE (talk · contribs · count), but you're right, locations don't match, and this one is more specific in terms of target articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like the one I was thinking of. Beyond that, I can't think of anything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

WayForward - Polygram relation

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

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

July 2019

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

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

Please explain

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

@Addicted4517: it's an alert that general sanctions are under effect for this topic. That template uses older wording, which is significantly scarier-looking than {{alert}}. Although you must be alerted before you are sanctioned, it doesn't necessarily mean that you will be sanctioned. That said, the drama level at Adam Brooks (wrestler) is getting to the point where an admin may need to step in eventually. Also, please note that the proper channel to determine notability is articles for deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, MPJ-DK is providing a lot of drama which I have been trying to defuse but he keeps coming back for more. I'm thinking of hiding that part in a box but I can't find another example to copy and use. WP:DRAMA says don't ignore it, which was my original option. Do you have any reference for it? Also, the issue isn't about notability. It's about sourcing, with notability being a symptom. It's been very frustrating that people (yourself now included) think that it's about notability alone. I'm not sending something to AfD when my own vote if it was would be an extremely weak keep. His notability at present is borderline - not definitely not notable. I just want better sources to prove notability beyond doubt. If people are misunderstanding my intent maybe I should start the RfC again. Your thoughts? Addicted4517 (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Addicted4517: you seem a bit confused to me. You've been edit warring to include a cleanup tag that you don't even believe belongs on the article? This is the sort of thing that gets someone topic banned from professional wrestling. If you don't want an article deleted, please don't challenge its notability. If you think an article is notable but needs more sources, you're probably going to have to add them yourself instead of using cleanup templates. Notability is based on the existence of sources, not whether those sources are currently in the article. So, {{notability}} should not be put on articles simply because they lack sources. As the template says: "Do not use this tag merely because the page requires significant work." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not confused. It would seem that I'm not getting my message across. How can I make this clear? Sourcing is the core problem, not notability. Notability is symptom only. The tag is there because of that symptom, and because there isn't a more appropriate tag available that covers the issue. Your call that I find sources assumes that I have the time to do so. I do not. I'm not going to glance at a Google search. That's lazy and inappropriate. The tag is ultimately a call for better sources, and a small warning that anyone else (not me) could send it to AfD. Now if there's a better tag to use, please point it out to me. Meanwhile, you never did answer my query as to how to hide (not remove) the drama section in the RfC. Not to mention the idea of restarting the RfC. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel like I'm repeating myself. If you think an article is probably notable but have a problem with the number of sources in the article, you probably need to fix it yourself instead of adding cleanup templates. Our guidelines say that articles do not need to cite a minimum number of sources. The sources just need to exist. Thus, if you think an article would survive a deletion discussion, there is no problem to solve and it does not need a cleanup template. If there is unsourced content in the article, you can remove it or tag it with {{citation needed}}. I would suggest that you avoid causing any more drama at the talk page, such as hiding other people's messages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I see that conversing with you has been a waste of my time. Addicted4517 (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Easy4me?

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

Wrong ISP, wrong geolocation. Easy4me still had the same ISP/geolocation while Sc2353 was active, so I'm pretty sure this isn't him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Easy4you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You better watch out. If you make too many bad jokes, someone might block your account as compromised by EEng. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

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

Once again, it looks like I'm too slow. By the way, don't worry about posting here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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

You've got mail!

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

Did you get my message, NinjaRobotPirate? I thought I would have heard back from you by now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I wasn't as obvious as I thought. I left a message on the editor's talk page with some instructions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Washington Metro rolling stock article

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

Yeah, I see what you mean. The IP was recently warned about getting blocked, so let me know if there's any more disruption, and I'll block. Sometimes IP editors stop being disruptive once they're warned about blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. I’ll keep in touch with the other contributors, and if the next report of this act from that user, I’ll immediately notify you. Thank you. Really appreciate it. Leobran2018 (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

History man busy again

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

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think that this is another sock, redoing what I'd reverted earlier: Special:Contributions/144.130.156.129. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I did a three-month block on that one, too. These IPs seem to stick around for a very long time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, they do. And here's another one: Special:Contributions/1.128.105.47, please. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. That one seems to have been allocated to someone else back in April, so I did a shorter block. I suspect we'll be seeing it again soon nonetheless. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Proxy

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Guide to checking open proxies is a useful guide. Honestly, I'm better at setting up proxies than identifying them in the wild, but if you can't get anything useful out of the IP, it's probably not a SOCKS open proxy, at least. People sometimes report various suspicious IP addresses even if they're technically not open proxies. A couple times, I blocked IP ranges allocated to colocation centres, only to find that some kind of infrastructure was hosted there, like wifi access on public transportation. The IPCheck tool helps, but it's difficult to know what you're dealing with sometimes. That's why I generally stick to the easy ones – less risk of accidentally causing several multinational corporations to suddenly lose the ability to edit Wikipedia. Believe me, the email you get is not at all cheerful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Amen to that. Just a small comment, rather than only saying "unlikely" at the project page: When you combine having both those port numbers, and add in the country, along with some other stuff, you're probably looking at a proxy which probably isn't open. This type of result would be common for these types. If you look closely at search results, one might even conclude that it's used by one particular hotel in Madhya Pradesh, so you can factor that in. The edits are also all apparently regionally appropriate, which is a good indication. As is mentioned on the guide page, saying with certainty that something isn't open is incredibly difficult. Also Ninja, lol Taokaka (openvpn). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, where did you find that it is used by a hotel in Madhya Pradesh? I only found that it was registered to iEnergizer IT Services Pvt., "a global provider of Business Process Outsourcing", located in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India. --MrClog (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I know Google probably varies their results for different users, but for me, it's right there in the Google search results page, which are not too numerous at this time, and I can't think of any other good reason for that. Well actually there could be other reasons but let's not go into that on someone else's talk page. Sometimes we can never be completely sure about some things, so who knows? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Query

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

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

Quick question

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

@Kingboyk: any admin is free to block suspected sock puppets at WP:SPI if they find the evidence convincing enough. The instructions are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions. Admins can also leave comments, such as asking for more evidence. Non-admin clerks sometimes ask admins to take an action for them, such as blocking an editor or reporting the contents of a deleted page. So, basically, a "patrolling admin" would be anyone who takes an interest in the case and wants to help out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah I see - and thanks very much for the link. Will you be taking action at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balljgh? --kingboyk (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Everyone I checked was on the same IP address, but sometimes people say that's because they're on a transparent proxy or at a Wikimedia meetup. So, I figured I'd see what other people thought should be done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

OK. I'm off to bed now. I'll read the instructions and check back in on the case later. I'll hold onto my thoughts until then. Thanks again, really appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions. --kingboyk (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Localities.cy

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

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

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

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

@DrVogel: you could remove the links if you think they fail WP:EL. I usually do this manually by tracking edits via Special:LinkSearch. Twinkle can make it go by a little faster. There's also advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! Is there a venue on Wikipedia where you can report the addition of hundreds and hundreds of external links? Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@DrVogel: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, I suppose. There are a couple other places you could try, but they're more specific. For example, one could request blacklisting of the URL at the spam blacklist. That would prevent anyone from adding the URL anywhere on Wikipedia, even talk pages. WP:ANI or WP:AIV would be the place to report the spammers themselves to be blocked. Wikipedia:Cleanup is useful for highlighting problems, but it's mostly set up to address a single article that needs a lot of work. Each of these pages contains additional help and links to other forums. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Spam bots

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

Specifically the ones that were about "free email hosting". There were two hard promotional user name blocks mixed in on that diff. The rest were "free email hosting". -- ferret (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

In my experience, range blocks usually aren't possible on spam bots. I'll give it a look, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

No sweat, just curious if anything possible. -- ferret (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Spammers, but likely not bots

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

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

Untitled comment by Kaleen bhaiyaa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible OWSLAjosh666 range

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

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

Brazilian date vandal

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

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

Potential block evasion

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

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

Hypocorisms

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

Ducky

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

SINDOiNews is confirmed to a bunch of globally locked accounts: MandaNews 95, News 95, and Nick, M95. I think Azra is in a different city but using the same ISP. It's difficult to speculate further. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The trail is difficult for me to follow because the accounts aren't tagged, but I think SINDOiNews is Manda 1993 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

As I looked deeper I saw that the iNews article seems to have a very long history of socking. -- ferret (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like Manda 1993 has been fairly active on the same IP range as SINDOiNews, though many of the locked accounts haven't made edits to English Wikipedia. I requested a global lock for SINDOiNews because I'm pretty sure of that one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

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

Administrator changes

Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee

Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos

Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

RickinBaltimore

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox

RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

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

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

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

Udaitenma

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

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

Before editing those articles, I checked.

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

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

Same disruptive IP

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

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

I'll be watching...:) Thanks! Robvanvee 15:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Untitled message Magin-z

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

From The Chessah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Gawli sock...

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

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

Yash Gawli

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

New York Times

Hey- I don't mean to bring this up again, but I just saw an instance of the "50's" usage in the New York Times. ([5]) I quoted from that article as part of a new article that I participated in the creation of on the contested 1948 United States Senate election in Texas. I know that there is some kind of rule or consensus against this typography, but I think that this method of writing it is as common as grass in the USA. I think we shouldn't hinder people from using English as it stands. Do YOU think (YOU personally) that there's any merit to this proposal/my claims? Should this usage be researched further? I'm scared to bring it up with you, but I think you will see that my intent is positive. Please note that I haven't talked about this issue for a while. I didn't intentionally go out and find another "50's" example- I was just doing research on a 1948 campaign and saw it. Although I am too scared to go to that MoS page and put forth my position and hence I will never edit that page or talk page again, I think that this new evidence of the usage of this form goes further to showing that "50's" is used in English. That's all I want to say! If I am approaching another block just by bring this up, let me know and I will cease and desist! Thanks for any feedback. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Help with socks

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

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

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

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

Thanks! This is the only page... for now! Corky 21:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

David Permut Bio Help

Hello NinjaRobotPirate,

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

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

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

(Redacted)

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

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

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

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

Bad Girls Club vandal(s)?

Hi NRP! You recently did a CU on a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The fashionable baby. I'm coming here to your UTP to ask if you recall any other sockpuppet masters related to Bad Girls Club? I recall there being a few (e.g., Thestarborn1028) but none of the ones I recall seem to have had SPIs filed recently. Over at Bad Girls Club (season 13) I hear some quacking, but want to file it in the right place. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course the instant I post this, I think I figured out the sockmaster. Please disregard. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The major sock puppets on reality TV shows that I know of are Starbucks6789 (talk · contribs) and Leviathan648 (talk · contribs). They edit war against each other pretty regularly. For example, one likes the tables a certain way, and the other hates them that way. So, the tables sometimes go back-and-forth between sock puppets until I semi-protect the articles. There are also some not-here types who do fantasy rankings and a couple vandals. See, for example, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Missedge1/Archive. You'll have to look at the filter log, though, because all the evidence has been deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Sock explosion

Hi NRP, hope all is well. I'm looking at Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai. I recently had to block Diva166 for disruptive editing and competency issues. Bloom167 looks like a potential sock, considering that account was created about a week after Diva was blocked. There are also four areas of intersection with a huge interest in this Yeh Rishta article. Simultaneously, I notice Lisa290, and as I scroll through the article edit history, I notice that Lisamol was a suspected sock of Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw. Several interesectionss here, but also:

• Lisamol's first edit was to paste an article in their user space.
• Lisa 290 uses tons of minor edit ticks.
• Lisamol also used tons of minor edit ticks.
• Buuuut then Bloom167, who doesn't have any minor edits, has pasted an article into their user page as their first edit.

So, I suspect a good deal of socking, but I'm not quite sure of where to begin with the filing. Help? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll try taking a look with the CU tool and see if that clears up anything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Lisa290 and Lisamol are  Confirmed but editing from somewhere that could have public computers. Diva166 and Bloom167 are  Confirmed. Perhaps interesting to note, Ankit G Dubey was on the same ISP as these two back in December 2017. I don't know if that means anything. I'll block everyone, but I don't think the two sets are related to each other. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Help with user habitually abusing edits

You blocked a user for a month for habitually violating the 3 revert rule...now they are doing it again, on the same article they got blocked for 1 month. How do I go about reporting this? Is this person going to begin another edit war? I don't understand how this person can continue doing this over and over and over. Help please? And if I'm in the wrong place, going about this the wrong way, please advise. AnAudLife (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

You mean the dispute at The Real Housewives of New York City? You should both take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t want to mention any names but yes. I will read the article you suggest but honestly I don’t know how it will help. I’ve provided legitimate sources/references in support of my edit over and over and over and the other user refuses to acknowledge them as credible, even Webster’s, even the way, in English, we alphabetize exact or similar names. And then brings “a friend” agreeing with her/him so they think that should be the end of it. I see no end. But I will go read the article you suggested. Thank you. AnAudLife (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Question

Is using the same IP addresses as blocked accounts block evasion? Have curiosity to know. --195.24.157.250 (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

If you are randomly assigned the same IP address as someone who was blocked, it is not block evasion for you to edit. Blocks are only supposed to apply to the problematic editor who was the target of the block. However, MediaWiki sometimes causes innocent users to be blocked as collateral damage. For example, when a registered editor is blocked, their IP address is automatically blocked, too. Anyone using this IP address is temporarily blocked, too. If someone at a school or corporation is blocked, it can cause many other people to become temporarily blocked. This feature can be disabled if it causes too much trouble. So, sometimes innocent people get caught up in blocks. It's OK if they edit. It's just the person who was originally blocked who isn't allowed to edit. We can manually unblock people who get unintentionally caught up in situations like this. It also possible for range blocks to cause innocent people to be unable to edit, and there are ways to mitigate that, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

New Yash Gawli sock

FYI: Carodogip, created Draft:Yash gawli. Эlcobbola _talk 19:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

2014 Deletion

Hi NinjaRobotPirate. I've not written anything on Wikipedia. I hope I'm doing this correctly. Recently I received some disturbing news about the deletion of my Wikipedia page back in 2014. This came to my via one of my kids' high school teachers who seemed to be involved in that deletion. I'd rather not discuss this in public. If you don't mind, could you reach out to me? todd - at - goodbakerproductions - dot - com FiremanTodd (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

If you add an email address to your preferences in Special:Preferences, you can email other editors. If you email me, I'll read whatever you send, but I might not reply. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know anything about the situation you raised. If you would like to discuss it privately with Wikipedia's volunteer support, you might try Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Sock

Hi, User:Kaurwaki31 is a sock of User:Diva166 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4055:585:DADC:0:0:8FF:D0A0 (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right. Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 - Blac Chyna (but really, dates of birth)

I'm admittedly perplexed. I added the DOB based on information available in her IMDB profile. I know we're not checking birth certificates, so I'm curious what is considered a credible source for dates of birth. Waterspyder (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Waterspyder: the IMDb is not a reliable source. It's user-generated content. We also can't use public records. That essentially leaves newspaper or magazine articles, books from reputable publishers, reliable databases that are maintained by professional journalists or researchers, and self-published statements from the article subject. For musicians, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources has a long list of sources that one might use for music-related articles. AllMusic is probably the most likely source for a birth date, but sometimes magazines or newspapers will mention someone's age in passing. For example, this New York Times article says John Lydon was 61 years old in 2017. One could then use {{Birth based on age as of date}} to give an estimate. For actors, there's AllMovie, and WikiProject Film maintains a list of resources. For athletes, it's typically easy to locate an official database with vital statistics, such as FIFA. Many people simply do not publish their date of birth, and Wikipedia errs on the side of privacy in this circumstance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I'll skip the long story, and go straight to thanking you for taking the time to explain that.

Additional info since my ping

Hello NRP. I know that you will have seen my ping at the talk page for TheUnbeholden. When I posted I thought the editor had only added cats to a dozen or so pages. But checking farther back it turns out he had edited a couple hundred articles today. The change to the editing pattern is to mix adding ELs - which are ok AFAIK - to the article with then adding unsourced cats. I'm not sure where we should go from here. A topic ban maybe - also removal of hot cat would slow them down. For me their need to add genre cats that are unsourced is a problem that they just don't want to acknowledge so any suggestions that you have will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 02:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I don't know why TheUnbeholden has latched onto using external links like this, but a spot check verifies that the sources cited (AllMovie, generally, it looks like) are reliable and call the films "supernatural horror" verbatim. If you think these mass-categorizations are incorrect or disruptive, I'd probably suggest you ask for a topic ban at WP:AN. I don't think HotCat can be disabled per-user. That would probably have to be part of a topic ban proposal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input NRP. AFAIK per WP:CATVER the genres should be added as a reference and not an EL. I do appreciate your looking into this and letting me know about hot cat. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 08:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Update. Today he is finally adding references rather than just EL's. Many - though not all - of the additions are sub genres rather than the main one which goes against the general tone discussion here Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Genres and verification but I guess that is the way thing go. For me it waters down the cats making them meaningless but others may feel differently. Cheers to you. MarnetteD|Talk 09:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

ygm

TonyBallioni (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Block length

I noticed that you reduced the block length of User:2400:4053:95A0:5E00:0:0:0:0/64 from 2 years to 1 week. 2 years may be excessive but 1 week is probably far too short since it was exclusively being used by Sheynhertz-Unbayg. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Xezbeth: Oh wow, that really is Sheynhertz-Unbayg? I was looking around and found his LTA page, which seemed to sorta match but not quite (I'm not familiar with that user). I always thought they were up to no good, anyhow. There's another thread about this block on my talk page. It's occurred to me during the final stages of the cleanup of this IP that not many IP users in Japan would really want to edit the English Wikipedia ... Graham87 13:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a full set of his usual habits. Adding family trees to name articles with loads of redlinks and broken links to disambiguation pages, adding ethnicity categories to biographies with no references, adding multiple stub tags when there's already a valid one, adding mass inappropriate links to the German Wikipedia, angrily reverting anyone who undoes his edits and calling their edits vandalism. This edit is the most egregious example out of the ones I looked at. I thought that I'd made him give up a few years ago, but apparently not. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, there are no registered accounts on that IP range, and all the edits from the past few months are from the same person. I don't know anything about Sheynhertz-Unbayg, but if it's sustained block evasion, that would warrant a longer block length. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's very, very, sustained. (I've taken the liberty of fixing the link to the above edit). This is too long ago for checkuser, but there's also Hyrtl-Liszthy. Do you think six months is a reasonable block length, under the circumstances? Graham87 14:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I already extended it to three months. If it starts up again, we can always reblock. That's already a pretty long time for a block without talk page access. The potential for collateral damage on a /64 is generally pretty minimal, but they could be reallocated at any time – and it's not easy to appeal range blocks that have talk page access disabled. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

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

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

183.171.114.62

183.171.114.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who you blocked back in May has been dropping me a lot of messages on Meta. As far as I can tell they have generally been constructive, but I thought I'd pass this along as I don't know the background of the block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

That's probably a genre warring sock puppeteer that I've blocked a few times. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi NRP. You blocked Gregotheus 01 while they were block evading as an IP here. I see they are back under a different IP address making pretty much the same edits as before. See here and then the following few consecutive edits for the blocked IP's change versus this edit by our new IP. They are also editing very similar pretty much the same articles. Could you take a look or would you prefer me to take it to SPI? Robvanvee 17:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The behavior looks very similar between all three accounts. Blocked for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Robvanvee 18:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Sock proxy

Hi, thanks for blocking the hosts I reported as Shingling334 IP socks. There's another Linode one I missed that I'm sure is also him: Special:Contributions/192.155.89.248. He's tried to edit the photo in Ilham Aliyev many times before. Maybe you could take a look? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. I don't know Shingling334 very well, but Linode IP ranges are easy enough to identify. Some of the less reputable companies hide behind shell corporations. I saw one that had a fake website and everything. It wasn't very good, though. It was something like, "Hello, we are legitamate company. Welcome to do business here!" with stock photos. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Unfortunately, I know him all too well, though I don't know all that much about proxies. He must have access to some list of hacked/compromised servers or something, he uses a lot of different ones. But he also edits often without them, from Essex/Ipswich. His attempts at deception are usually about as effective as "hello, I am legitimate editor"... --IamNotU (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, some sock puppets are easy to identify. I guess they wouldn't have gotten indefinitely blocked if they could change their behavior. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

He does persevere... He's been using Special:Contributions/5.188.168.66 and Special:Contributions/5.188.168.67 the last few days, https://gcorelabs.com/hosting/ Oh, I just noticed that WP:OP seems to be functioning again, I guess I should go back to reporting them there... --IamNotU (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

PS there is also Special:Contributions/2.25.106.235, which isn't a proxy, but looks like a new ISP for him. It's behavioral, should I make an SPI report? His "Talk Talk" ISP IPs change so quickly that I don't bother reporting them, but this one looks more sticky. --IamNotU (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I range blocked the proxy. I don't really know what the behavioral signs are, so maybe an SPI report for the non-proxy would be best. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, will do, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, that was a waste of time. Apparently the edits are too old (two days since the last one) to consider a block, even if it's been going on for a couple of weeks and all the edits from that IP are obviously his. Sometimes the SPI decisions about IPs seem a bit random to me... --IamNotU (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes SPI's bureaucracy can be perplexing to outsiders. Many decisions are up to admin discretion, but policy does discourage blocks on stale IPs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

What's up?

Hi, Ninja. Just wondering what's up with the message on my page? We've always gotten along, and it just surprised me since I don't recall being disruptive. It's really not my way. If you give me some specifics, I'd be happy to try to work out whatever the issue is. Thanks. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

People can get very worked up about Manual of Style, which is why it's under discretionary sanctions. You seem to be getting a bit worked up about the MOS, so I've notified you about the discretionary sanctions. I don't care about italicization of websites, but obviously the people who voted in the italicization of websites RFC do. My personal suggestion would be to just drop the issue and accept the result of the RFC. However, if you intend to push the issue, I'd suggest you start an RFC on Help talk:Citation Style 1 (the same page as the RFC) to establish consensus for exceptions instead of trying to establish a local consensus to overturn the RFC on a project's MOS talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

OK. I honesty don't believe I was uncivil at all, and no one in the discussion indicated to me that I had been. I appreciate and understand your intent, though.

I also think there's a miscommunication here that I'd like to clear up. The RfC you mentioned here was on a Citation Help page and was about a cite format — it didn't change the site-wide MOS at WP:CITESTYLE to say that Chicago Manual of Style is now banned from Wikipedia. You and I have edited together collegially for a couple of years now, I think of you as a friend, and I just want to make sure we're on the same page about the extent of this RfC before I do anything. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not worried about incivility, just that this could potentially dredge up MOS drama. Like the template says, it's an alert, not a warning. You seem to be saying that the RFC only applies to Citation Style 1 and doesn't apply to any other citations. Assuming that's correct, you could forgo the use of {{cite web}} and format all your citations according to the CMOS, Harvard-style, or whatever. Seems logical enough. But I don't think you can override a project-wide consensus on a local MOS talk page such that {{cite web}} no longer italicizes websites. Or maybe I'm wrong, and that's perfectly legit. I don't care that much, and I don't want to get dragged into long debates about the MOS, what policies apply where, or when to italicize websites. My suggestion would be to start an RFC somewhere, preferably on the same page as the original RFC – assuming that you want to establish exceptions to the original RFC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the collegial reply, Ninja. No, no, I'm not talking about "cite web" at all. "Cite web" italicizes website names. That was the RfC. I know that ship has sailed.

At FILMMOS, I was suggesting that we not use "cite web" for the three things we already have templated: RT, BOM and MC — i.e., "forgo[ing] the use of {{cite web}} [to] format [those three] citations according to the CMOS, Harvard-style, or whatever." So I think FILMMOS would be the right place for that RfC, since that's the only pace these templates are used. What do you think?--Tenebrae (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you're right that I misread or misunderstood one of your posts – I don't really see where we disagree on anything. I apologize for whatever confusion I caused. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not a prob. We've always worked together well. I thank you for your patience and not skimming! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

One favor: To avoid confusion for the FILMMOS RfC, would it be OK with you if I deleted that whole section where we miscommunicated? That way the RfC can start fresh.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I guess, but wouldn't it be cleaner to just start a new section? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Taking the "I guess" as OK ... then thanks! I just didn't want the miscommunication we were experiencing there to muddy the waters and conflate unrelated issues if people read that adjacent section. I'm indeed starting a new section ... though not tonight. It's dinner time! :)  --Tenebrae (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

2601:2C7:680:19F0:9018:1699:2AD:7401 (talk · contribs) , can you please check out this ip as they are introducing misinformation possibly intentionally. For example on The Magic Roundabout using the US spelling of Dougal in the plot instead of the English version which the plot is based on, and a number of other dubious changes on Bet, Who Framed Roger Rabbit. They are also editwarring to keep their version, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Warned for edit warring. Communicating with IP editors is pretty hit or miss, but you should try raising any issues with the edits on the talk page. You could then post a pointer to the discussion on the IP editor's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, will try in future Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

More block evasion

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WelcometoJurassicPark, please see Special:Contributions/92.249.237.28. Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like him. Blocked for a week. He might come back on a different IP. Let me know if he does, and I can try to find a range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with socking

You might remember recently blocking a number of user accounts and IP addresses i had reported to ANI for socking and harassment. Minutes earlier, the IP address 2A02:C7F:2215:1E00:B180:4A19:6B1E:22EB (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edited my talk page, this time impersonating Esowteric. I don't think it's worth taking this to ANI or SPI, so i am contacting you directly as a CheckUser, hoping that you will be able to help me deal with this issue (permanently, if possible). Radiphus (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Radiphus. Esowteric+Talk 19:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like a range block that I did wore off. The IP range has already been reblocked, and your talk page has been semi-protected. Let me know if it starts up again, and I'll do what I can. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Radiphus (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring notice

Why did you post a notice of edit warring on my talk page? Edit warring involves multiple people, by definition. To be fair, you should post it on the others' user talks... ɱ (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Roxy the dog violated 3RR, too. Both of you have been warned now. Everyone gets carried away during disputes, but I shouldn't have to go through this article's history and count reverts for every recent contributor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail.

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

LampGenie01 (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Receieved. Thank you for the note. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

PohranicniStraze (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Thanks for handling the latest Alex9777777 sock!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

You're welcome. It's easier to use the CU tool if you know what you're looking for, so you already did some of the work for me by identifying the sock puppet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Non sequitur

Hello. I think you misunderstood my comment (which one?). [6] I haven’t accused Guy of anything, so I can’t respond to your requests for diffs. If you have any lingering concerns feel free to raise them on my talk page. By now the underlying dispute seems to have been settled, so it may not be worth rehashing it. Jehochman ^Talk 21:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: accusing Guy Macon of "waiting for an opportunity to get Ceoil banned" is casting aspersions. Given that you seem to be taking sides in this apparent feud, I think you should be wary of any further involvement as an administrator. It's a bad idea to unilaterally close ongoing discussions at ANI to silence one side of a debate, especialy when you've accused that side of being part of a conspiracy. I expect you'll probably end up at Arbcom if you do that again, though I have no idea how that case would go. For all I know, it would go in your favor. But you should be aware that if it does go to Arbcom, and you don't provide evidence of wrongdoing by Guy Macon and his supposed conspiracists, it will probably end with a desysop. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon had the full history to hand and posted it when he observed Ceoil being incivil to a third party. That's a fact that can be determined from reading the thread carefully. I was not closing a discussion to silence one side of a debate, but to stop a bunch of editors who habitually fight one another, and then they subsequently started feuding when the thread was reopened, to no productive result. I haven't used the word conspiracy. Please don't put words in my mouth. Many Wikipedians use tools like chat or email and mailing lists, such as the functionaries list that you're on. This is fine, until they start using these tools to organize the placement of sanctions on other editors who they dislike. I experienced this first hand when I was on the now defunct cyberstalking mailing list. At first the list was used to organize useful defense of editors being harassed, but then it morphed into a star chamber like thing. I'm wise to the danger of these things. As for taking sides in a feud, Ceoil has for a long time disliked me, and I've not been fond of him. We are not friends. So, please dial back your criticism and don't just assume I'm an idiot. Jehochman ^Talk 23:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The functionaries mailing list is pretty boring. Besides the occasional email from concerned editors ("help, my IP is hard blocked"), Arbcom uses it sometimes to coordinate issues related to all functionaries. This doesn't happen very often, so it's usually pretty quiet. But the existence of the functionaries mailing list is not evidence that someone has used off-wiki means to attempt to get their enemies blocked. If you have no evidence that people are doing this, maybe you shouldn't vow to thwart their efforts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The functionaries list sounds benign. EEML was at the other extreme. There are lots of mailing lists. They run the gamut. Jehochman ^Talk 07:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Another Favor

Would it be at all possible if I could ask you to block this IP 139.228.179.253 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) for a while? It's the latest IP being misused by a long-term abuse vandal that uses the IP ranges of 139.XXX.XXX.XXX to 140.XXX.XXX.XXX in order to spam pages with poorly to incoherently written, usually WP:OR opinion nonsense (it likes haunting the "list of fictional (animals)" pages to do this), or spam inappropriate, nonexistent, and or inappropriate and nonexistent categories (usually for extinct and prehistoric animal pages). Thank you very much for hearing me out.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like block evasion. There's at least one block still active on this editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

arigato gyozamaster--Mr Fink (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

And 139.228.179.253 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) has just returned from its block to immediately resume business.Mr Fink (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a month this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you muchly.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Name remover

Hi, looks like the St. Petersburg name remover hasn't been discouraged by any of the blocks or reverts. Almost all the edits lately in Special:Contributions/178.70.0.0/16 are theirs. They've come from Special:Contributions/178.70.32.0/20, Special:Contributions/178.70.64.0/20, and Special:Contributions/178.70.208.0/20, though Special:Contributions/178.70.16.0/20 was blocked until yesterday, and Special:Contributions/178.70.160.0/20 still is for a couple more days. I haven't seen them in any of the other ranges from before... --IamNotU (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I range blocked the whole /16 this time. Seems like it's only being used for disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Lovifm LTA

Hello! The LoviFM Alex9777777 sock is back again. I notice in the last few incarnations of their spam pages, they are linking to a Google post message. Is there a way to blacklist a specific webpage (not a whole domain) to make the spamming a little more difficult? Thanks! PohranicniStraze (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't remember. You should probably ask at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. That's where all the experts hang out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I've left a question there, and posted the latest socks at AIV. Thanks for the help! PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

What does no sleepers mean?

[7] is the first time I have opened a SPI. I'm assuming that no sleepers means something, but I'm not sure what. Clovermoss (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, that's Wikipedia jargon. It essentially means I didn't see any other blatantly obvious accounts on the same IP address. Sometimes, disruptive editors will create a bunch of accounts at once and keep some of them in reserve. This way, if one account is blocked, they can switch to using another. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Zee Madhya Pradesh Chhattisgarh

Zee Madhya Pradesh Chhattisgarh was re-created, a page you've deleted in the past. Figured I'll drop you a line, obviously I can't see if its the same page, nor if it's a sock. Hydromania (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC) Chitra Saha and KKKKXYZ either socks or meatpuppets, recreating a bunch of previously deleted articles. Hydromania (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll take a look at it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

PenguinsElite

Thanks for the clarification on WP:3X which leads to the consideration of the banned user. Iggy (Swan) 21:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

A year or two ago, people were proposing site bans for editors who certainly deserved them, but there was no chance an admin would unblock them anyway. So, to reduce the number of threads, we instituted the 3X policy, which cuts through the bureaucracy and defaults to site-banning abusive sock puppeteers. If you notice a sock puppeteer who should be site banned, it would probably be easier in the future to contact a checkuser, SPI clerk, or administrator familiar with the case. They can adjust the tags appropriately to indicate that the user is now banned. Discussions at AN should only really happen in cases where it's controversial or where there isn't CU evidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I see the thread used for the overwhelming support which is now 18 months old re "update to banning policy for repeat sockmasters" which I now know the proposals are no longer necessary. Cheers. Iggy (Swan) 14:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated

I figured it was probably somebody's sock, but despite my best sock-fu couldn't come up with anything to open an SPI. GMG^talk 23:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally understand. There have been times when I couldn't figure out who an obvious sock puppet was, but Bbb23 easily identified him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

IP editor back

You blocked 2.101.89.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) last week for block evasion. They are now back making the same unhelpful changes. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks this time. I've noticed that sometimes these TalkTalk IP addresses stay allocated to the same person for a long time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate it when they stay on the same IP address. I don't know how you keep track of all the different sock patterns you see, even with the tools. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

One trick is to realize that sock puppeteers are often like characters in ghost stories – restless spirits who repeat the same behavior forever. If they could change their behavior, they probably wouldn't have been indefinitely blocked. Like ghosts, many sock puppeteers have unfinished business and go right back to haunting the articles they were editing before their block. So, sometimes, it's just a matter of looking through an article's history and saying, "Not him, not that one, no, no, no – hey, wait, this is an exact behavioral match for this editor. I forgot about that guy." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

NRP this is one of the most apt and elegant statements about socks I've ever read. It should be enshrined somewhere other than this pages archives. MarnetteD|Talk 19:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I guess a lot of it is just taking the time to go through the edit histories. It is amazing how many of them spend hours making multiple changes even when they know those pages are being watched. Thanks for all the work you put in. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, sorry to both you, but IP editor 131.94.186.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) just made several changes to my talk page that suggest a prior history [8]. Is there anything to do in a situation like this other than revert and ignore? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I left a comment on the IP editor's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Similar edits from a new IP: 2.96.158.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously the same person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Calvinkulit

IIRC you helped block some IPs related to this editors attempts to circumvent their indef block. There's currently a discussion at AN/I where he's now resorting to using proxies/meatpuppets to edit on his behalf, but I was wondering if you could check and see if he's been trying to circumvent his indef block via other means. Thank you for any assistance you can provide. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: yeah, I saw. I'm not sure I can do much, though. We only keep login data for 3 months, so the account went stale a while ago. You might consider asking for help at Commons at their admin noticeboard: Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. I don't think there's anything I can do here on English Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, posted on there! —Locke Cole • t • c 08:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Haylad

Since you said you don't want more pings on User:Haylad's talkpage, I'd like to request that you reconsider one final time here. I totally understand your view and respect it, but I want to understand, the Blocked user did not make the uncalled-for statement that unsettles you (and of course, me). He should not bear the mistake of others after he's already blocked for policy violations found to be incorrect a day after the block. The implication of this is that we can frustrate anybody's attempt to sincerely come back to the community by randomly turning up on their unblock request and making weird accusations against admins, and then the person would remain unlocked for no fault of theirs.

Please separate what JamieTuber said and consider Haylad request independently on its own merit. Thanks. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion (Sep19)

Hi NRP - hope you are well. Would you agree with my comments here, or am I way off the mark? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The site's privacy policy makes it difficult for me to comment on IP editors. It would probably be best to file a case at WP:SPI if you think there's enough evidence to block. The IP range used by this person is Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:4637:9200::/64. All of those edits would be by the same person. Personally, I don't think the behavioral evidence is strong enough to block yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Ed, Edd n Eddy characters, List of Teen Titans Go! episodes, and AJ Lee

You might kindly wish to unlock the gates to the three articles mentioned in the headline above. It was very unwise of Lectonar and Deepfriedokra to reject these requests. To clarify, the former two are a pair of Cartoon Network-related lists. Please re-protect if any form of disruption resumes.

Ceasing transmissions,

47.16.146.238 (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You should probably make this request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level, so it can get input from other people. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

AFI vs. Variety

I'm torn between choosing the AFI Catalog of Feature Films and a Variety review in sourcing a movie's studio/s and distributor/s; each is likely correct in supporting these. If said sources disagree on the studio/distributor of movie X, which source do you recommend I go to? You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

For production companies, I favor AFI. Because Variety replicates the billing block without explicitly labeling the production companies, it's kind of left open to interpretation; for example, some of the companies could be investors. I doubt that many of us truly understand the intricacies of how Hollywood works – it has been designed by well-paid lawyers and accountants to be as opaque as possible. So, after I had the same question as you, the consensus at WikiProject Film was to edit {{infobox film}} to suggest that people go to secondary sources that explicitly label the production companies. AFI does this, as do several other prominent sites. For example, I think The Hollywood Reporter explicitly labels production companies in their reviews. If you still end up with conflicting information, I guess I'd just add everything that's reliably sourced. It's pointless to try to figure this stuff out yourself; you'll just give yourself a headache. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Untitled message from 94.225.75.202

Um, no idea how to send you a message, hope this is okay to put here. I updated the Madeline Brewer with her actual birthday but you said the source wasn't acceptable. The source is Wikipedia.fr! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.225.75.202 (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, editing this page is how to leave me a message. New messages should generally be placed at the bottom, though, so I've moved you comment here. The problem is that Wikipedia is user-generated and thus not usable as a source. You need to cite a source that is reliable: for example, a newspaper or magazine article. Verified social media accounts operated by the person are also allowed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Demanding one way ban with user

One user is biting me on WIKIPEDIA by contantly reverting my edits and giving unnecessary warnings. He is also reverting my edits under CSECTION by citing it as policy and result of community consensus. I want to have one way ban with that user. What can be done with him so that I can have peaceful editing on Wikipedia.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: you should probably take a look at WP:WIKIHOUNDING and see if that applies to your situation. If so, you could file a complaint at WP:ANI. The community can institute an interaction ban, but individual admins can't unilaterally do that. Sometimes all it takes to resolve a contentious argument is dispute resolution, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

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

Administrator changes

Barkeep49

Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma

Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno

JamesBWatson → JBW

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Joseph kargbo

Hey again NRP. I see you are on the Joseph kargbo bandwagon this morning and was wondering if you could assist in this log I started this morning. As you can see, I cocked up the title somehow inadvertently by adding text to it. Could you assist renaming the title/fixing this? Robvanvee 05:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems easiest to just delete the page, seeing as how it was accidentally created. I semi-protected the page he was editing and blocked the latest IP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks! I was hesitant to delete, assuming that it wasn't really my place to do and that it was perhaps better suited for an admin. Have a great day. Robvanvee 05:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Potential block evasion on film productions

I think you recently dealt with some socks who were editing film production companies. A new user, OmarWarsame57, seems to be doing similar edits, and they also restored some material that you had removed for block evasion [9]. Most of their edits are unsourced and hard for me to verify. I just wanted to give you a heads up about it. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, at the very least, this is a sock puppet of David Nicolas14. But I think the disruption probably goes back several years earlier than that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't always know when to revert these additions to film productions, especially if I haven't spent the time to verify the information as incorrect. I guess the genre/category socks are still worse just due to their numbers. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

For this sock puppeteer, I think the previous accounts were too disruptive to give any new ones the benefit of the doubt, so it's safe to revert anything that looks doubtful per WP:BANREVERT. It's frustrating that so many people mess around with difficult-to-verify information like production companies without sources. I've been trying to discourage this, but it's nearly impossible to get people to believe that they need to use sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

193.136.189.9 evading block of Martimc123

Blocked user Martimc123 is back as 193.136.189.9 (talk · contribs). IP has made the same changes (1, 2) done by the blocked user (1, 2). SLBedit (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The older IP was a CU block, so I can't comment on who that may or may not have been. But the new one is blocked now, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Anthony22 is back to making grammar/stylistic edits

Hi,

Just thought to let you know that User:Anthony22 is back at making grammar and stylistic changes (that once again aren't improvements and lead to other editors having to spend time undoing the damage he does), despite the specific ban. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I did a short block, which will hopefully be the end of it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Thank You

I want to say thank you for giving me another chance on this site. Although I don't know what you meant by "your English proficiency seems limited"? I still live in the USA, and I am being truthful and honest with the statements I put down even if the wording might confuse you. I am willing to make up my mistakes and take in the advice you give me.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Sigh

The editor's just done what he promised not to do[10] ..... I'm not going to revert as would rather not open old wounds but thought you'd like to know, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@AnimeDisneylover95: this is not a good start. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay then, I'll stop editing warring on the Emily Deschanel today better yet the majority of this month.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this some kind of poorly-programmed chatbot? I think we're being trolled. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know how this happened, guess I should've checked before publishing it. But I'm not a chatbot,--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I honestly don't know whether we're being trolled or whether ermmm there's something lacking up there .... I'm thinking the latter if I'm honest. –Davey2010^Talk 22:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a user with obvious anger and WP:CIR issues; it also doesn't help that some of his posts resemble that of a chatbot. Look at his talkpage - he's now attempting to pin the blame onto me instead, when he's the one that screwed up in the first place. I'm also not convinced in the least that he understands what he did wrong. He still doesn't get that test edits are prohibited.

EDIT: Annnnnnnnnnd he's been reblocked indefinitely. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It's kind of sad, really, because I was cautiously optimistic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Long-term harrassment

Hi NinjaRobotPirate,

Seven months ago, you put a long-term protection on the talk page of my old account in response to ongoing harrassment from a series of sockpuppets and IP accounts (who I believe to be GeoJoe1000, who blames me for getting him indefinitely blocked). Unfortunately, it seems that he is back. Could you please try and do something about it? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17 has a history of crying "harassment" even though he has only himself to blame. I would recommend he look in the mirror to find the source of his problems. 2606:A000:C883:EA00:355F:35D4:D6F9:B0EE (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)