User talk:NinjaRobotPirate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Edin balgarin (talk | contribs) at 13:51, 11 March 2022 (→‎Accusation of sockpuppetry in 2019: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Did you know that F5 is the "generate drama" key? Try it! Every time you press it, more drama is auto-generated on Wikipedia.
I hope you find my addition to your talk page aggravating and stressful, just the way you like it! :) Natureium (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I haven't checked my email for a while, and I have something like 250+ new messages. If you sent me something, and it was actually important, you should probably let me know. Also: let me know if you're playing Diablo 2 hardcore, and maybe I'll give you some free stuff.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sock and vandalism

Hello, JdbolivarChavezmarcos (talk · contribs) and JdbolivarChavez (talk · contribs) seems the same, doing also a lot of vandalism and needs at least rollback to fix it. Maybe someone act before you see this but I felt had to report what I saw. Nubia86 (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're part of a sock farm around Andres Jonathan Balingit Fajardo (talk · contribs). I blocked everything I saw, but let me know if you see more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Thank you Nubia86 (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing NinjaRobotPirate a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Idneed

Idneed (talk · contribs)

This editor keep removing sourced content without explaining why in the article Circles [1] [2] [3]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They might have stopped after the edit warring notice. I guess we'll see. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I let you know if they keep on edit warring after that warning. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions?

Or just ignore? This IP is only responsible for one lot of edits on one day, but elicited this rather rude response to a Welcome message: User talk:110.175.224.137. Happy new year! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could remove the message from the talk page if you think it's inappropriate. The person will eventually realize that they should create an account. It seems like such a strange thing to rant about, like "I stepped into my shower with my clothes on, and my clothes got wet! The people who made this shower stall are morons!" If people post stuff like that on their own IP talk page, I ignore it. If they post it to an article talk page (where someone might actually see it), I remove it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's pretty strange. I suppose it only makes them look a bit silly, so perhaps I'll just ignore it for now. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky III

Hello, you recently reverted my edits on the Rocky III page and Rocky Franchise. Instead of reverting it and starting a back and forth between us, I would just like to state my point and hear your’s as well. I am simply going by the real sources such box office mojo, the numbers, and financial information. The sources previously listed were all outdated newspaper columns that were simply presuming what the gross would be. It was harder back then to get the box office info at an early time so they should not be the sources listed. The box office information should reflect what the websites dedicated to tracking box office records shows. I mean no disrespect nor disruption, I’m simply trying to get the correct numbers. Hope to hear from you. Zvig47 (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Real sources"? Newspaper articles are not like food and don't go bad over time. Box Office Mojo and The Numbers only list the US gross, as sometimes happens. They are perfectly reliable sources, and they are used throughout the website for exactly this purpose. However, they are not the end-all, be-all for sourcing. We do not remove sourced content simply because it's missing from their databases. UPI is perfectly fine, and the source is not randomly pulling numbers out of thin air – it's stating a fact. At the time of writing, the worldwide gross was nearly $270 million. The biggest problem, in my mind, is that we don't know the final worldwide gross from that source because it's speaking in present tense about an action that has not yet completed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent disruption, part 9

So I went back and discovered this is the ninth time I've reached out to you about this, so now these section headings will actually carry real meaning! ;)

Our "masonkim" friend is back, yet again. I've tolerated them for several months to see if things would eventually change, but alas, my time is still getting consumed by cleaning up their messes. About 1 in 4 edits requires some kind of correction or warrants outright removal (improperly sourced or not sourced at all). Here's one example that shows the source they're adding is linked to the same editor: this source was added in this edit.

Thanks in advance! --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP for a year. It seems pretty static. I really wouldn't advise waiting months to report a sock puppet, but it's not my mess to clean up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probable SPA

Hi NRP. ChromaticaCali appears to be a single-purpose account whose sole motivation is to remove any negative criticism from the Grace Randolph article, over which they have edit warred since first creating an account; their user talkpage claim that they joined WP to "fight the good fight" is pretty telling. Their edits usually involve claiming the sources are wrong and questioning the motives of other editors (including repeatedly calling editors "trolls" despite having been informed that constitutes a personal attack). There might be some COI at play, but it could also just be a superfan, so I haven't filed at COIN. It also doesn't seem disruptive enough to necessitate ANI, but trusted admin eyes are probably needed at this point. Maybe an enforced break just from that page will encourage ChromaticaCali to find other subjects to which they can contribute? Grandpallama (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, do I have to read the article and the sources and the talk page discussions and all kinds of other drama? I left a message for the editor instead, including a discretionary sanctions alert. Maybe they'll just go to WP:BLPN and discuss the issue. If not, I can look further into the situation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you're a masochist! Let's hope the message does the trick. Grandpallama (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you

Thanks for your action on User:BillCaxton and his related socks. He'll re-appear any time a by-election comes around, but now that he's been confirmed by the checkuser it'll be easier to tag and block him. Cheers! — Czello 12:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it might help. Most often, it just helps a bit with mitigation, though. Hopefully, I can more easily connect the accounts to each other and find blockable IP ranges. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Victor Aify

Victor Aify (talk · contribs)

This editor is only adding the website The Afro Desk Journal in articles [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Clearly that they are only using this account for promotion then anything else (WP:NOTHERE). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could be citation spam. I left a message. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion by Cool a123 (again)

Hi. I reported IP 2603:8000:400:41B4:408B:DFF8:AD79:F776/44 to you in this message from October, as the user is a persistent block evader. They were given a three month block, but the block has now expired, and the editor has resumed editing again. Any chance something can be done? Yowashi (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reblocked the IP range for six months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the editor has made a fairly new account @Sheridides. Editor edits the same pages as the IP that you had blocked previously. Yowashi (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me something more to go on, like diffs? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, the two accounts both edit sports related content. More specifically the Anaheim Ducks, USC Trojans related articles, along with the 2021 KC Chiefs season page. In addition, Sheridides is using their user talk page as a sandbox, similar to what Cool a123 was doing. On Sheridides user page, they mention that they live in Placentia, California. The IP 2603:8000:400:41B4:408B:DFF8:AD79:F776/44 that they were using is coming from the Anaheim/Placentia area.[9] Yowashi (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like pretty solid evidence. Blocked indef. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits from 72.83.34.66

Hello. I am writing this message to inform you that I am seeing some disruptive editing from the Metrobus fleet (Washington, D.C.) articles for one reasons. An anonymous user 72.83.34.66 is vandalizing one too many times on this article, constantly adding some trivial details on the article. I have been reverting this user's edits back as many details became pointless, and bore readers, or by saying, notes contains excessive details. I warned this user 4 times already after adding back unnecessary notes to the article. Is there anything you can do to help? Analyze all his edits and let me know is the user should be blocked. I saw that this IP was previously blocked for the same reason as it is currently happening to the article. Thank you for your time. Leobran2018 (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia isn't vandalism. Also, I don't understand why you're asking me to analyze every edit that an IP editor made to an article that I've never edited. That's kind of random... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. If you say so. Leobran2018 (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting BowserJr3

BowserJr3 (talk · contribs)

There's an editor who is adding unsourced date ranges in articles [10] [11] [12]. I think this editor is MakaveliReed evades their block yet again. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAmazingPeanuts: seems fairly likely to me. Dangerouspositions is on the same wide IP range. Could you look at those edits? I don't really remember a lot of details about what edits MakaveliReed made, and there don't seem to be many date ranges. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just take a look at Dangerouspositions' edits, I don't think they related. MakaveliReed's edit history is just changing date ranges or unsourced date ranges. However, I do think that Dangerouspositions' edits are disruptive by adding unsourced content in articles. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Hello. I noticed you reverted an edit made by a sockpuppet account on the British Expedition to Abyssinia. Did you also see the edit made after? It looks like another sockpuppet of the user making the same edit change. Ue3lman (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I watchlisted a few of the articles but not that one. Yeah, that looks like User:PaullyMathews, too. He mostly edit wars using sock puppets to maintain his POV about Ethiopian history. He sometimes has a dozen socks active at once, so I occasionally miss a couple. If he hits the same article too many times, let me know, and I'll semi-protect it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2600:387:9:0:0:0:0:0/48

User is back editing award articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:AE (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS

You may get some amusement out of UTRS appeal #53724. No action necessary, the request just made me smile. :) If you don't have access to UTRS, let me know and I'll mail it to you. Hope you are having a great day! --Yamla (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the apparent confusion over my username? I'd be surprised if there weren't more appeals like that. My username is probably confusing for people who aren't drenched in Western pop culture. I don't like choosing usernames and usually just pick the first thing that pops into my head. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LTA issue

You made a block on this [[13]], looks like they are back [[14]]. Unbroken Chain (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't both accounts belong to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnathan57Joyceefyt? Girth Summit? I'll let the checkusers sort it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not too familiar personally and I didn't have the evidence needed to file a case. Hi Bbb23, good to see you around. Unbroken Chain (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Unbroken Chain, I don't think there's any need to file a case. My post was to NRP and to GS just in case they're not aware of the possible connection. NRP didn't name an LTA (although he mentioned Kingshowman), but it was a CU block. I may block the new account without tags awaiting action from the checkusers, but so far the sock has made only the one edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's Johnathan57Joyceefyt. From my block, I guess I disagreed on the ultimate master, but you can also tell that I don't care all that much who exactly it is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP keeps on added unsourced content

Hi NinjaRobotPirate! IP 27.32.71.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (blocked by you on 2 Feb) keeps on editing as 203.220.72.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) , adding the same unsourced/incorrent material to various pages[15][16][17]. –Austronesier (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, must be the same person. I'd prefer to leave Orang Asli unprotected for now, though, so that I can track the IP addresses used, like a honeypot. From prior experience with this ISP, I don't think it will help much, but it's worth a try. Sometimes I can do a range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Back as 220.240.86.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). And starting to remind me of this one: 113.197.13.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), with the same mix of Asian/Oceanic ethnicity-related topics, obsession for Aussie crime-related topics, and extreme obstinance. –Austronesier (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked, and Austronesian peoples semi-protected. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Kkollaps

Kkollaps (talk · contribs)

Genre warring in the article Kids See Ghosts [18] [19] [20] [21]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this account is might be related to Giubbotto non ortodosso, but I not so sure. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute is mostly happening on Kids See Ghosts (album), right? I protected that article for a couple days. I don't really know that sock puppeteer, so you're going to have to tell me why you think this might be a sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I think this editor is related to Giubbotto non ortodosso because they made these edits at Blonde (Frank Ocean album) recently. Giubbotto non ortodosso has made edits back in September as Hotbox eron. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, wrong continent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just making sure. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help on reviewing page edits, please?

Long time no see, N.R.P. I have recently made edits on pages involving Billboard's Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart, it's archived lists of number-one albums, as well as Nas' album, Life Is Good and an unsure edit on an article about record and movie executive Lance "Un" Rivera. I have also redirect number one rap album lists to number one R&B/hip-hop album lists and move the R&B album article names without asking first. I don't know if I had all the edits right with the sources I added and some I noticeably forgot or couldn't find. Can you review those pages for me and see where I went wrong? Thanks and all due respect. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 05:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know... it looks fine to me. Billboard is a reliable source, of course. I don't think you should be tagging your own statements as unsourced, and I don't really know anything about music charts, but it looks like you're just making obvious statements (that two charts have been consolidated into the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart). Discogs isn't a reliable source, though. Beatport looks like it's an online store? That wouldn't be a reliable source, either. I don't recognize some of the other sources that you cited. I saw some weird formatting errors, but it looks like they were caused by Visual Editor, not you. I probably know more about hip hop than the average heavy metal fan, and I've become pretty competent at sourcing music articles, but I'm not really the person to ask about hip hop articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @DBrown SPS: I think it's better to ask Ss112 for this kind of question, since he's the one who been adding these charts to articles for years. Also, don't use Discogs as a source, it's not reliable. There is a list of reliable and unreliable sources at WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAmazingPeanuts: Didn't mean to bug anybody here. I just needed some help. Thanks also for fixing up the page regarding Nas' album and removing the Billboard Independent entry on Frank Ocean's album per WP:Record charts. Also, credit owed to you for showing reliable and deprecated sources involving music (artists, charts, albums, etc.); I'll try to be cautious next time. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 19:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: My bad, buddy. Didn't mean to bother you if that's the case. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 19:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112: as per N.R.P.'s suggestion, can you look to some recent edits I did on Wikipedia? I may have not done them right. There may be unreliable or deprecated sources I unexpectedly added. I have just re-edited the page regarding entertainment exec. Lance "Un" Rivera. There still may be some unsourced edits on there. Fix this situation for me, please and thank you. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 19:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DBrown SPS: Ss112 have the pings turned off, so he might not see your comment. The best thing to do is go to his talk page instead. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAmazingPeanuts: Thanks for reminding me. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 21:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem asking admins for help or advice. It's just that I'm not as familiar with those topics as some others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnifer sock using Wikiquote now

User:Jinnifer's latest sock puppet account has taken to Wikiquote to canvas me, and a few other users to make their requested edits to the decades on the horror film article.[22] Is this something you can address directly, perhaps a global block, or is there a proper procedure I'm unaware of? I ask because the Wikiquote account doesn't seem to have an active accompanying Wikipedia account to report. Thanks NJZombie (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that most of Jinnifer's IP addresses are already blocked on English Wikipedia. But, unfortunately, that doesn't affect other projects. The first thing I'd suggest that you do is disable email from every project except English Wikipedia. Once I did this, the number of email death threats I got dropped significantly. See m:Help:Unified login. m:Global blocks are a thing, but they can cause a lot of collateral damage because they affect every Wikimedia project (Commons, Wikidata, English Wikipedia, Japanese Wikipedia, Wikiquote, etc). However, if you explain that it's for an LTA who engages in harassment on multiple projects, it's a lot easier. You can also request that registered accounts get a m:global lock. You'll have to find a m:steward, though. Easiest way is to follow the instructions at m:Steward requests/Global. There are a couple English Wikipedia administrators who are stewards, so you could try asking them. AmandaNP is a steward and English Wikipedia CheckUser. You might have better luck approaching her than other stewards, but I don't really know. For individual projects, you can look for their equivalent to WP:AIV. For example: Wikiquote:Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress. When reporting socks, you can link to en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnifer, which might help. Unfortunately, each project is run independently, so admins on English Wikipedia can't really do anything on Wikiquote unless they happen to be admins on there, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive edits

There is an editor who is using this range for making unconstructive edits in articles [23] [24] [25]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish these IPs were arguing over something like industrial metal. Well, it's unsourced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Box office bomb

Removal of that is because the line 'the film was a box office bomb' is so endemic that it's thrown around by some editors as if it must be declared (we've got around 150 articles with the phrase minus drafts), and it's often not sourced as to why it was a bomb (or done so by a drive-by who doesn't like the film). I do understand your argument about films still being a bomb minus theater cuts, but just that line above...it's so repetitive and needs finessing or variations on the phrasing. Nate • (chatter) 22:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, of course it's unsourced editorializing when people add stuff like "box office success" or "box office bomb". That sort of analysis needs to come from reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting 66.220.200.160

66.220.200.160 (talk · contribs)

This IP is adding unsourced content in articles [26] [27] [28] [29]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first warning this IP editor got was after their last edit. That's what we call "insufficiently warned" at AIV. They're supposed to continue their disruptive editing after having seen the warning. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I let you know if this continues. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

There's an editor who is using multiple accounts for disruptive editing and keep restoring their edits in articles, such as the article Life Is Good [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those are IP addresses, not accounts. Also, those IP addresses are spread out over the world. Some things just look wrong, and it doesn't matter how much you try to convince people that it's not wrong – they'll still fix it. See, for example, 0.999... and Monty Hall problem. If it gets bad, I can semi-protect the page. If it only happens once in a while, I'd suggest simply reverting it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just making sure that these IP addresses are not related to the same person. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mspriz

https://sigma.toolforge.org/timeline.py?page=Russia&users=Mspriz&users=Thelastcheck&server=enwiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 14:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it looks like I figured out what you wanted. Thelastcheck is a sock of Horope. You can be as terse as Rorschach, but please write messages in English. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

user talk:Metoo15

I had tagged user talk:Metoo15 with db-attack. This does blank your block notice. Should I remove the db-attack, or let it stay? user:Meto15 is un-created. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't delete talk pages. It was revision deleted, anyway. I probably would have just reverted it, but it's not a big deal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is there a way to find out if someone was stealth-canvassed to a discussion via an email through Wikipedia? I have a not-concrete suspicion (due to someone campaigning and forum shopping a dispute on an unrelated noticeboard, and one of their frequent collaborators tag-teaming with them on both threads), but there's nothing concrete other than that. The possibility of this happening doesn't sit well with me. Darkknight2149 09:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. For privacy reasons, anything that would be useful is not logged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I might be alone, but that's a little unnerving. Given how the consensus process and administrative forums work, unintentionally giving editors a backdoor to secretly canvass other editors undetected seems counterproductive. I feel replacing the Email this user system with a Wiki private message system (that can only be checked by trusted administrators for specific reasons, similar to CheckUser) would be a better option. I'm not sure if anything like that has been proposed before. Darkknight2149 20:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would never happen, and it wouldn't make much difference, anyway. You can't prevent people from colluding, engaging in sock puppetry, or whatever. The best you can do is mitigate it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I figured as much. Darkknight2149 22:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing of edits and blocking users who oppose you.

I often see you change edits which you don’t agree with and accuse them of being sock puppets you need to change your banning policy you are banning public networks like library wifi. Wikichangerei (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. Are you really claiming that User:Himyaricboy27187 and User:Himyarkid27181 aren't the same person? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

46.177.147.100

Can you reblock 46.177.147.100 (talk · contribs). Thanks. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why people edit war with blocked editors on their own talk page. I've disabled the IP's talk page privileges, but there's no reason to revert every edit that a blocked editor makes to their talk page. For example, they are explicitly allowed to remove warnings. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 08:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious IP

I think 2600:100C:B229:B22A:EDFB:5345:448A:C892 is Angel Arreguin Hernandez. Editing the same articles, and exhibiting the same behaviors regarding them. The "I know" after having already added the redundant information and being told it's redundant (meaning they made the edits knowingly) was the same thing Angel did last time--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty suspicious. I semi-protected the articles and did a short range block, which might help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block request

Hi,

Can you please block Special:Contributions/92.98.241.69 due to persistent vandalism on United Arab Emirates national football team?

I can attach examples should you need, though they're all available in the recent edit history

Many thanks,

Felixsv7 (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I warned the IP editor. People should ideally be warned before they're blocked. If the IP continues after the warning, I'll block them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, just wanted to bring it to your attention! Felixsv7 (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block request

Sup,

Can you block Hiimarcelo due to vandalism on Ariana Grande's Discography, Selena Gomez, Mac Miller and also wrote a irrelevant and god faith article Ariana Carper for its impersonation of Ariana Grande. When I told them, they've even offended me- but that's something I'm not even worried about.

Kindlecomelio (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OzonedOut

These edits seem rather suspicious, especially this and its revert. Do you think its just run of the mill vandalism? Or is it a sock? -- Whpq (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, kind of suspicious. I don't recognize that account as anyone in particular, though, and it's definitely not TwentytwoAug. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I've given them a welcome message with a bit of a warning. -- Whpq (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Latest revision to David A. R. White

Hello,

I noticed you removed some info from the article about David White. Why is that? Also, what does unsourced mean? Isn't there enough sources there? Just scroll through if you can't find what you're looking for. In fact you removed a lot more info than necessary in my opinion (eg. the categories, when he moved to LA, etc). If you don't think those are sourced, I think you're wrong because there are plenty of sources on the article. The article has been the way before you edited it for a while and I again don't see why that was nessecary. Just please clarify and let me know what you think was unsourced.

Anston 172.221.217.126 (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't just some random blog that nobody reads. You have to be careful about what you say – the stuff that's written here shows up prominently in web searches and gets uncritically added to books, newspaper articles, and other sources. Biographies of living people on Wikipedia need to be easily verified through inline citations to reliable sources. This is so that biographies don't become full of guesswork and misinterpretation. For example, someone could say that they grew up in a city, and a Wikipedian may interpret that to mean that they were born there. It's a pain to go through this when you're sure that you're right, but this is important. When Wikipedia gets this stuff wrong, it can affect people's lives. And just because an issue might not have been noticed earlier doesn't mean that we should continue to ignore it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block IP

Hi,

This IP: Special:Contributions/14.248.191.144 has been editing players' club and age data at random across multiple national team sites.

Please block!

Thanks Felixsv7 (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, they should be warned first, but this seems to be overt hoaxes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Ytpks896 block

Hi! I've noticed that you've blocked Ytpks896 as a sockpuppet. Is that a CU block? The most recent SPI case I can see is from 2020, it was against the same user but was dismissed because of the absence of evidence. – Uanfala (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my blocks are not from SPI cases. But, no, it doesn't look like it was a CU block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I haven't kept up to date with how sock hunting is done nowadays, but my experience from a couple of years ago was that for an editor to be banned as a sock, there needed to be evidence, solid evidence usually. – Uanfala (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There has never been a requirement for a case at SPI before someone is blocked as a sock puppet. Luckily, Wikipedia's bureaucracy does have limits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if a formal SPI is required, but the presence of solid evidence certainly is. I don't believe you've just blocked this established regular editor on a whim? – Uanfala (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go away. I don't like passive-aggressive people. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't intend that to sound aggressive. I was trying to give you the chance to amend what I thought was an honest omission. I'll go away from your talk page. But the attitude you've shown here – that advanced administrative actions should be exempt from accountability – is concerning, so I've brought the case to Wikipedia:Administrative action review. – Uanfala (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conversing with senior colleague

For some reason your username reminds me of Cyrax, & Sector From mortal kombat, did you get inspiration from there? lol I’m sorry if you didn’t find this funny. My main purpose for messaging you was concerning this I’m not so sure that was a good idea but in any case I bow to your superiority and vast knowledge. Celestina007 (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a conscious reference, no. I dislike choosing usernames and usually pick the first thing that I think of. Ninja and pirates are an old internet meme. I preferred the first two Mortal Kombat games, anyway. The later games introduced a bunch of odd characters that I didn't really like, and the games got increasingly overcomplicated. And maybe my reflexes simply weren't good enough to beat teenagers any more by the time of the fourth game. I doubt that the editors I unblocked are sock puppets, and if they write anything too spammy, it'll probably get caught. They're apparently part of a Meta-organized event. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheKerberos01

Hi there,

it's about the account TheKerberos01. He was banned because I allegedly used multiple accounts. I want this account to be unblocked again - I haven't figured out exactly how to do it with my actual account yet and didn't have time until then or I kept forgetting.

In any case, if you do an unannounced edit, it does NOT count as an account. Furthermore, you don't have to believe me, but every few days a program on my computer "cleans" my browser history and makes sure that I'm not logged in every now and then. So that means I often have to log in again, also on other websites. The problem with this is that I am not automatically logged out of every website at the same time! And since I don't always check if I'm still logged in on Wikipedia, I often end up making edits without being logged in.

I didn't find out I was blocked until December when I registered again. But I knew that I was unannounced for a while. I didn't log in because I forgot my password for a while. I didn't know what email I used either. After I remembered what my password was, I logged in again. I made this account to sort things out with the other account. However, I don't know on which specific page this is possible.

Why am I bringing this up now? I haven't really had the time to do that lately, I've also forgotten the name of this account and for the most part didn't think about it.

Therefore I ask again to unblock my account TheKerberos01. Why would I edit page with different accounts and compromise my TheKerberos01 account?

Regards

--MisterGengar (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)MisterGengar[reply]

It looks like I blocked TheKerberos01 (talk · contribs) because you were restoring edits by a sock puppet, and, from Special:Diff/1045740214, it looked like you were actively coordinating with that sock puppet. However, I think I was too harsh, and I should have taken into account that the sock puppeteer may have simply been trying to entice you into proxying instead of admitting that this was already happening. I'll unblock your account. If you read through Wikipedia:Banning policy and Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, it will explain the policies regarding sock puppets and restoring their edits. The short version is that you can do it, but you shouldn't do it at their behest. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for unblocking and yes I actually have nothing to do. I was also very surprised that someone took advantage of me for editing. As soon as I remember my password, I'll log out with it and go in with the others. I use this account as a "replacement". By that I don't mean that I edit something with both accounts at the same time, but if it should happen again with TheKerberos01, e.g. a blocking so that I can use this account and clarify it with it.
Then I have one more thing. It's about The Walking Dead. And one person always puts an edit back on some characters and says it's kind of unimportant and that's mainly how people know the character. So now I mean characters like Negan, Yumiko, Ezekiel and Tomi (and other little things). In any case, his surname was confirmed in the television series - in the case of Tomi even the full name; Tomichi Okumura. Negan's name is Smith, Yumiko's name is Okumura, and Ezekiel's last name is Sutton. Normally I know that if something has been confirmed on something then that information should be added. I know that Negan, Ezekiel, and Yumiko's last names were not confirmed in the comics, but what I don't understand is that Glenn, Stephanie, Shane, Carol, Sophia, Eric, Tyreese, and Dale's last names are also not confirmed in the comics were, but in the television series. And those last names are on the characters, both on the section and on the season pages and in the charts. Furthermore, some also have their own page, with their last names.
My question now is whether this information is really unimportant or not? I personally think that this information is added. --MisterGengar (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of sockpuppetry in 2019

Hi NinjaRobotPirate. I just did a random check of my own username using this method, and was - horrified - to see that I was once accused of sockpuppetry. I am very glad that you had the accumen to close the case without blocking my account, particularly as the same thread calls for talkpage access to be revoked wherever Evlekis sockpuppets are discovered. I have two questions. First, why was I not notified that a discussion was taking place? Surely one has the right to defend himself against malicious accusations? I at least expected the podium to express my own viewpoint once if no more. This leads to my second question, what does "technically indistinguishable" mean? It's obviously some jargon, but there is a frightening aspect here which is that I could have been banned indefinitely with talk page access removed and without so much as a whimper as to the purpose. When you get time, please let me know about it - thanks. --Edin balgarin (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NinjaRobotPirate&oldid=1076509983"