User talk:NinjaRobotPirate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

User:118 alex has found a way to (illegally) hack into his main and sockpuppets despite the global locks.[edit]

Hi, 118 alex the sockmaster has found a way to (illegally) hack into his main and sockpuppets despite the global locks. He says he will hack into his sockmaster/puppets at 1600 Singapore Time. Could you/your fellow administrators block indefinitely (TP) access and disable email service to all his sockmaster(118 alex's)/puppets'((118(0-9)) alex's) Wikimedia Foundation accounts. Thank you and have a nice day. 180.255.242.88 (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There's no way to login to a globally locked account, so there's nothing he can do to them. One can login to blocked accounts, but I don't think any of his have talk page access. I'll disable email access if he abuses it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
There was also an suspicion account which I've added into the SPI report. SA 13 Bro (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

User:118 alex claims he will hack into his account. Can you block talk page access and revoke all email access to all his accounts. Anyway, 118 alex slept at 1445(UTC) and the account was created at 1501(UTC). Hence it is not possible to create an account because all his internet devices are in the living room, after he slept he did not come out until 0200(UTC). Oh and another thing, he loves the number 118 so much that he could not have used the number 1193. 14.100.136.164 (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) You seem to know his movements very well! — fortunavelut luna 07:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I assume it's tips from the United States government, who clearly have him under 24 hour surveillance by the CIA. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
This anonymous IPs seemed to be like User:118 alex's friend or relative, knew about his actions and movements very well. SA 13 Bro (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
You don't think it's the CIA? I guess MI6 is a possibility. Or it could be that 118 alex is bored and looking to spice things up a bit by trolling on my talk page. That's alright, though, it livens up the place a bit. It's certainly better than having Nate Speed here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Some advice[edit]

Hey NRP, Apologies but wanted some advice on how to deal with a situation, in some football related articles we include a table overview which is a very condensed summary of the basic stats and overall result of all competitions, one user is sweepingly removing these citing verifiability reasons, the information in the table is easily verifiable and common sense. I raised a discussion at the project Here, and almost everyone agreed to keep the table, but the user still persists on removing, ignoring that consensus see [Talk:2016–17_Celtic_F.C._season|Here]],Maybe i am wrong along with the rest of the project? I want to close this out so would appreciate any type of advice on how we can settle this, I don't want to end up in another edit war! Kyndigs (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kyndigs: it's difficult for me to understand what the dispute is about since I know so little about the topic. It looks like you're already engaging in dispute resolution by bringing it to attention of WikiProject Football. I know it's frustrating, but sometimes you have to wait for Wikipedia's slow bureaucracy to react to stuff. WP:DRN can sometimes help with that by giving a more structured place to discuss and find consensus. Plus, it's moderated, so it helps to keep tempers down (hopefully). If a dispute looks like it's heading toward an edit war, you can request page protection at WP:RFPP and say that there's a content dispute that requires full protection. That forces the issue – if nobody can revert, they have to discuss and get consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Awesome that helps, it is a very simple dispute but seems never ending! I will see if anyone else wan't to weigh in but the RFPP might be a bit tricky as the changes are being made across the board in football articles by one user. Kyndigs (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@Kyndigs: if it gets bad enough, there are administrative noticeboards where you can complain about user behavior, but it's best to avoid them until you've tried everything else. You can get blocked if consensus is that you're causing more disruption than the person you complained about. People don't call them the "drama boards" for nothing. If you're dead set on going that route, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents would be the place to go. Read Wikipedia:ANI advice before you go there, though. And, remember, ANI is a last resort. It's not where you go to resolve a problem; it's where you when the problem has already been resolved, but the other person refuses to admit it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I want to try avoid that route as you say, I don't want the user blocked for having a view but he needs to get involved in the discussion instead of just sweepingly removing the content, I have added it back into one article for the last time with a comment referring to project discussion and talk page, any further undo from him I will just have to let it play out with the discussions. [1]. I guess this type of dispute is typical on Wikipedia in all categories and topics! haha Kyndigs (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Module:Convert request[edit]

I need to do some Module:Convert maintenance (described here). However, I can't edit the module due to cascading protection from the main page. Would you please edit Wikipedia:Today's featured list/June 30, 2017 to:

replace: {{convert|100|km/h|mph|round=1}}
with its output: 100 kilometres per hour (62 mph)

As it happens, the parameter |round=1 is ignored because it is invalid. The module update will flag problems like that. I picked you as someone recently active at ANI; no problem if this does not appeal. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks a lot for sorting out this guy!! Face-smile.svg Linguist111 17:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Paramount Pictures[edit]

IPs from Nate Speed are going crazy on the talk page after the article was semi-protected. Please protect the talk page. —MRD2014 02:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Scream[edit]

That guy reverted me first if you hadn't noticed. Not the other way around. LordAtlas (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@LordAtlas: it doesn't matter who started it. By my count, you've made three reverts already, so you should be careful about continuing this. You can be blocked if you breach 3RR. Personally, I don't think adding a cast list is worth getting blocked over. If someone reverts you again, I'd suggest just letting it go and continuing the discussion on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

For myself NinjaRobotPirate, I made two reverts only and was warned about edit warring. The other user, who is clearly edit warring and who keeps reverting everyone has not been warned, however. Meanwhile I am participating in the discussion both in the talk page of the article, where I have been harassed, and in the discussion about this in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Cast, where a clear consensus is expressed for having a cast section in the article. An editor before me had created the section in question according to the consensus and he was reverted. So I reverted and I was then reverted with a very erroneous justification, to which I have replied in the talk page. Note also that I have also been harassed in my talk page, where I was told "I see you can't fucking read", which is not true and highly incivil. I do not intend to keep reverting in this article, but I do want to see the editor in this page displaying civility and respecting consensus. Hoverfish Talk 01:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Normally, I'd consider fully protecting the article for a few days, but I'm kind of "involved". I saw that there's been some uncivil discussion, but my advice would be to try to ignore the petty stuff. If it keeps up, I can issue warnings, or you could try making a complaint at WP:ANI. But this dispute needs to be resolved through discussion and consensus. I know it's frustrating, and I sometimes get caught up in the heat of the moment, too. But you can't resolve something like this by repeatedly reverting people. All it does is fill up the page history with "you're wrong" and "no, you're wrong". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
What's your take on his personal attacks? LordAtlas (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

72.200.184.142[edit]

72.200.184.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

FYI, The Eagles edit warring vandal is back using this IP. 5.248.106.28 (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Materialscientist already semi-protected a bunch of articles. I blocked the IP, but this ISP seems to have a lot of available IP ranges. It makes dealing with this rather difficult. Well, I can just protect the pages as they get targeted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

IP Blockage[edit]

This note is to note that a block of entire IP ranges is overkill for childish vandalism, but more importantly, ineffectual. Blocking a /24 or /23 subnet operated by a major mobile telephone provider temporarily blocks editing for hundreds of potential users, but it is unlikely to affect the culprit, as IPs are assigned dynamically. (I opened up a mobile hotspot on my phone only to be blocked in order to anonymously *remove* vandalism; I put my phone into airplane mode and back and am now able to block. Most users will not be as technically savvy or persistent.)

For this particular rangeblock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.56.28.0), it was unilaterally invoked without any recourse, as it has the key parameters of (anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page). Without being able to create an account or edit a talk page, these IP addresses are effectively cut off from Wikipedia. [Cross-posted to User_talk:NinjaRobotPirate and User_talk:Graham87] 205.254.146.76 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC) (random T-Mobile IP address)

I don't usually do range blocks with talk page access disabled. I think you're right appealing them can be confusing. However, there are ways. One can appeal to UTRS or request an account be created through this form. If you're worried about collateral damage, it's something that's generally investigated before any range block. If you find yourself unable to edit Wikipedia, you might consider complaining to your mobile telephone operator. They may take action to discontinue the vandal's service or at least warn him. This is a really frustrating long-term vandal, and further range blocks are likely if the mobile provider doesn't take action. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. I don't usually block at all with talk page access disabled, but that vandal has also used their talk page for major disruption (I can't find a link at the moment, but I remember it happening). Graham87 08:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

CheckUser for The fashionable baby[edit]

In reply to your comment about a potential CheckUser for The fashionable baby:

  1. A CheckUser was performed last month, and it was said that an effective range block was not feasible. I'm not sure whether that would have changed now, but it might be a good idea to find out the details.
  2. Ideally, I would like to have the articles for all 23 seasons indefinitely pending changes-protected (these pages have been vandalized so often, going back months; I remember edit-warring with an IP vandal for 25 minutes straight once, across multiple Top Model-related pages), but I seriously doubt that will happen.

Linguist111 15:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

PC1 on 23 articles is possible, but it's kind of a pain. I think Twinkle can do it as a batch job, but I've never tried doing that before. Too bad the range block was declined, though. I doubt it has changed. It's probably a mobile provider or popular ISP in a major city. Those two are both very difficult to range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017[edit]

ANEWSicon.png

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

added Happyme22Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake[edit]

Seeing this in response to you, you should block him. This kind of unrepentant attitude pretty much violates WP:CIVIL. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree it's the wrong response. I gave him a final warning. I don't understand why he's doing this. It's completely gratuitous. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

Can The Challenge: Rivals and The Challenge: Battle of the Exes II get protection from the banned user? Sdfakjdfjklklasdf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's been enough disruption to warrant page protection yet. I'll keep an eye on those articles, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ninja can you protect the pages? Some of them just got undone again. Sdfakjdfjklklasdf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sdfakjdfjklklasdf: what do you mean? You suspect that Starbucks6789/Realitytvshow is editing those articles? I recently blocked his main IP range for a month, so he shouldn't be bothering us for a while. The rules for when to protect pages make it difficult for me to protect articles unless there's been persistent disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like he did it again on the 12th. I am going to fix them but please keep them locked permanently. He did it from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2605:6000:640A:CB00:A11A:51E3:757A:CB0F Sdfakjdfjklklasdf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sdfakjdfjklklasdf: I don't think that's Starbucks6789/Realitytvshow. That 2605:6000 IP editor sometimes edit wars with Starbucks' sock puppets. For example: this revert. It could be someone else's sock puppet, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Amusement Park[edit]

Well, in the Wikipedia article, it said it will also be produced by Ilion Animation Studios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.31.224 (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article cites a 2015 article from Variety, but Variety says in their database, which is advertised as fact-checked, that it's just Paramount Animation. I don't know why the two Variety sources contradict each other, but, in my opinion, it would probably best to go with the latest information. This is one of the reasons why it's such a pain to work with these articles. The sources often contradict each other, and many seem to have different definitions of what exactly a "production company" is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I just remembered this[edit]

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, since the discussion on categorization is getting lengthy and this is not very essential, I thought of mentioning this here. When we created the Film Categorization page, the idea behind placing the 3 primary categories at the top of the category list before any other simple or combined categories, was not just a matter of maintenance. It was mainly so that these 3 categories would be easy to see in the begining of the footer category box, before all the numerous categories that make them then hard to spot. I appreiate your feedback and I am currently picking up the mess. Best regards. Hoverfish Talk 19:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. I think either way could work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/118 alex[edit]

FYI, this SPI case is open once again since you last closed it. Regards. 2601:1C0:10D:3ACF:5C50:CA04:F35F:9FA (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. There will probably be more, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Sock Puppet ALERT[edit]

Can you protect Ink Master (season 7) along with the rest of the seasons from Realitytvshows' sock puppet? That jerk just left me a message on my talk page saying that I should stop doing it. But nope, not gonna happen cause I knew right away that its the same user whose abusing Rupaul's Drag Race again.Unicornaholic243 (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely him. It looks like Ad Orientem already blocked him. I know it's frustrating, but there isn't really enough recent disruption to warrant page protection yet. I'll add that article to my watchlist so that I can tell when he's active on it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Irony.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Sigh... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's disappointing, but wars between sock puppets aren't as rare as one might expect. If I'm serious about patrolling these articles, it looks like I'll have to spend a bit more time learning the reality TV sock puppets. I think I'm spreading myself a bit thin, though, if I'm not seeing obvious sock puppets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism[edit]

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. You suggested that I let you know if I had further problems with IP vandals on my talk page. I am (the latest IP vandal is also following my edit history and reverting me out of spite). Either semi-protecting my talk page or doing a range block would seem like a suitable response. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Range blocked for three days. It looks like this IP editor is probably going to be a pain. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
FYI, this is an ongoing problem, as note the recent edit by the newly registered account Greented1 at my talk page. Someone out there really needs to find a better use for their time. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
This edit at User talk:Enigmaman by another brand new account, Whoeven, appears to be more of the same. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
These accounts snuck in between the time when the previous range block expired and when the new one started. It's possible there are more, but we'd need a checkuser to tell. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Help with rangeblock[edit]

Hi Ninja, I would like to thank you for this. You seem to be comfortable performing rangeblocks so I was wondering if you could help with related ongoing disruption. This person has been restoring Tom and Jerry articles to much older versions (which contain unsourced trivia) for some time now, a rate of about one edit per day. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ritvik12. Here are some sample IP's from the past few days: Special:Contributions/2600:1010:B051:E66A:4A0:F3B:DED0:3F61, Special:Contributions/2600:1010:B02D:8247:1348:2599:969A:425D, Special:Contributions/2600:1010:B062:2C44:DFC6:F1EB:AA7C:7585, Special:Contributions/2600:1010:B041:A5CC:7679:F64:8226:6A24. Would a rangeblock be at all possible? Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that's a specific sock? I was wondering who that might be. Yeah, I could probably range block that. I saw it because I was looking for collateral damage for a range block to stop another sock puppet. The problem is that it's a very wide range block. I've done two short range blocks on it already, but I may be able to do a longer one. I just got a death threat via email from Nate Speed, and I'm trying to clean up his disruption. It's keeping me kind of busy at the moment, but I'll definitely look at this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sro23: OK, I checked my notes. I was thinking of slightly different IP range when I said I had already blocked this one (and I struck through the error above). This looks like 2600:1010:b000::/41, which I was scanning because it's used by JShanley98 (talk · contribs), a blocked wikignome. Back before I became an admin, I identified a couple sock puppets who had used this range (including JShanley98 and Ritvik12), and I asked KrakatoaKatie to range block it. She declined, which has made me rather reluctant to range block it myself despite the continuing disruption. I don't like the idea of overriding a "no" answer that I got from a CU, so I'd prefer if you asked her. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I understand. Thank you for looking into this. Sro23 (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

User:118 alex[edit]

Hi, Could you add the proven sock template at User:(TIB994PTIB995LTIB996JTIB997GTIB998DTIB999BTIB1000BTIB1001Z) and (TIB958UTIB959STIB960LTIB961JTIB962G)]] page?14.100.136.71 (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

float TOC in Cult film[edit]

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, I was reading Cult film and wondered if you have tried placing {{TOC left}} at the end of the text of the lead, before the first section heading. I think the layout would go pro, but of course this is just my view. Very good article indeed. Congratulations. Hoverfish Talk 01:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, the reason why I didn't do anything like that is kind of complicated. The way I initially envisioned the article was to have a "obsessive fandom" sidebar to the right, which would link to various topics, such as cult video game and cult television. B movie, a featured article I used as a template, does this, and I thought it worked well. However, because of burn out, I never got around to working on these other articles. Most of them are either redirects or glorified stubs, so I never really thought adding the sidebar was necessary. It looks like few people on Wikipedia are willing to work on these topics, so it's an incentive to eventually continue my work. I'll get around to it some day. But if you think a floating TOC is a good idea, you might add it. In the long run, if I ever do make that sidebar (and work on those other topics), it might squish the text, but that's in the future. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Since you don't have an objection I'll go ahead and float the TOC, mainly to avoid the big white space between the lead and the rest, but if you ever place other sidebars under the infobox and it inteferes, by all means do remove it. - By the way, if you wish to add/modify some points in my prep page for the project-wide discussion on film categorizaton that I plan to start sometime soon, your experience and input will be most appreciated. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 14:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

88.111.79.56[edit]

Just saw your warning at User talk:88.111.79.56 after reverting some of this editor's edits. Your point about currency symbols reminded of this chap who did the same thing (changing dollar signs to pounds). Just thought you should know. I will leave it to your discretion as to whether your warning is enough or whether you want to escalate your response. Betty Logan (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that definitely looks like the same person. It's pretty frustrating that I already blocked him once – I didn't remember that. I'll keep an eye on that IP. It looks like a range block may be possible if this becomes a habitual thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Linode block[edit]

"We're all here to make a better encyclopedia, and there is room for everyone." Can you please include Linode users as part of everyone? I'm leaving this on your talk page since you're the one who placed the block, and I don't know a better place to put it.

I use my Linode to route my traffic, due to an ISP that, to save bandwidth and "improve your experience", selectively filters, recompresses, injects javascript into, and otherwise screws with your connections. I've been editing wikipedia from this setup for 4 years now. I went to fix a typo in an article today, and found out I'm now blocked.

Linode provides only static IPs. To change your IP, you have to give them money and perform complex setup. Very few random vandals will spend money just to evade blocks, when there's far easier options. I do not run any form of public proxy, and the IP I edit from is exclusive to me. All contributions from my IP are mine alone, dating back to 2013. Linode IPs are actually a lot less anonymous than most other IPs, since it's trivial (two lookups) to get my name, address, and other contact information, due to being statically assigned and having working DNS, unlike dynamic home connection IPs, which are not specific to a user, and provide no information about the user.

Have you actually had problems with users changing their linode IPs to evade blocks, or did a few people running open proxies cause problems, for which multiple /19 bans is utterly inappropriate, and simply blocking the IPs known to contain proxies or problems users is the right solution?

I requested to be unblocked using the unblock template twice, but was denied both times, with the answer essentially "Don't use linode, or don't contribute to wikipedia". I can only find policies against open proxies, but no policy against private servers with static, non-anonymous IPs. Given how difficult (and costly - really, very few people will pay money just to evade a wikipedia block! And if they're that desperate, there's probably easier, cheaper, and more effective ways.) it is to change your linode IP, I do not see how banning the entire address range is covered by any policy.

Due to the block, I couldn't contact you, or edit anything other than my talk page. So now, I've been forced to evade the block, just to be able to discuss the block. I would rather not keep doing this, as it's a lot easier just to not contribute.

Unless you have actual evidence of people changing their IP within linode's ranges to evade blocks, please remove the blanket blocks and block specific problem users and open proxies as needed. Thanks! 172.56.38.96 (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The Linode range blocks were placed in part because of extensive racist trolling that was coming from multiple IPs on various /19s. If you're not the racist troll (and I have to assume that you're not), you're not evading a block. Sometimes innocent people get caught up in wide range blocks. However, you have a few choices here:
  • Create an account. If you can't create an account, you can request one at this link, but you should be able to create an account through this current IP address. If you can't edit from the newly-created account, you can make a request for IP block exemption. This allows trusted editors to edit from blocked proxies.
  • Find a different proxy that isn't range blocked because of abuse. It's likely nobody will ever notice it – until, of course, a troll or vandal begins using that proxy.
  • Use a different ISP. I know people don't always have control over their choice of ISP, but it sounds like you're dissatisfied with your current one's service.
  • Ask for assistance at Wikipedia's computing reference desk. There may be an obvious solution that I don't know about, such as an opt out for your ISP's "enhancements".
  • If all else fails, you could raise the issue at the administrators' noticeboard. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Valerian[edit]

Hello, I helped create the page of this film a long time ago and keep right informations on it. Someone, TropicAces, is putting wrong informations again and again everytime I'm correcting them. I hope you can do something to stop this. Thank you.

Herve.toullec (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Cast section and character descriptions of Die Hard 2[edit]

there's an argument on Die Hard 2 about the cast section and character descriptions. A lot of film articles have character descriptions which I feel are very necessary, but that version of the cast section has been switched back and reverted by TheOldJacobite and Deloop82. It is on this section of the article's talk page. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you requesting administrative action? There isn't really much that I can do about about content disputes. If there's excessive edit warring, I can lock the page so that nobody can edit it. It doesn't look like there've been any reverts today, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I meant the talk page on the issue of character descriptions in the cast section. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

New Zealand TW-17.svg Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Nine Lives (2016 film)[edit]

Hey, I don't get this chinese part, looks bizarre. Where is the original source of this info? Thanks. ziel & 21:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ziel: it's sourced in the infobox. Like I said in the edit summary, it's from the British Film Institute (see this link). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know what BFI meant, mea culpa. ziel & 19:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
That would be my fault, then, because I wasn't clear enough. I'll try to remember that in the future. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

An apology to you[edit]

I'm so very sorry, NinjaRobotPirate, for disruptive editing, but let me tell you something: Hollywood has just accepted my idea for a second film adaption of Brian Selznick's The Invention of Hugo Cabret titled Hugo & Splodyhead (which not only features the same characters from the original 2011 Martin Scorsese film Hugo, but also new ones, especially animated characters like Splodyhead (Experiment 619), Yaarp (Experiment 613), Slugger (Experiment 608), Slushy (Experiment 523), Richter (Experiment 513), and Sparky (Experiment 221) from the Lilo & Stitch franchise (who will serve as Hugo and Isabelle's pets, with Splodyhead, Yaarp, and Slugger being Hugo's experiment pets and Slushy, Richter, and Sparky being Isabelle's experiment pets), Judy Hopps and Nick Wilde from the 2016 Walt Disney Animation Studios CGI animated feature film Zootopia, Mr. Peabody from the 2014 DreamWorks Animation CGI animated feature film Mr. Peabody & Sherman, and Gidget from the 2016 Illumination Entertainment CGI animated feature film The Secret Life of Pets), and Paramount Pictures has agreed to distribute the new live-action/animated reboot to the original 2011 film! Unfortunately, Hugo & Splodyhead hadn't entered development yet, and I couldn't find any source related to it. 213.10.103.177 (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If reliable sources, such as trade magazines, report on this, it can be added to Wikipedia. Until that happens, Wikipedia is not the right place. If this is fan fiction, you can publish it in various places around the web, such as FanFiction.Net. If it's really an upcoming film project, you can discuss it on the IMDb or issue a press release through your publicist. None of these are considered reliable sources, so they can't be used on Wikipedia, but they can get the word out on your project. I know it may seem kind of arbitrary and bureaucratic to have these rules, but they're in place so that the content on Wikipedia is easily verifiable and trustworthy. Readers need to be able to find proof that what's on Wikipedia is real. If they can't, Wikipedia becomes useless as a tertiary source. This is why I insist all entries must be sourced on these articles. Let me know if you need help finding a source, and maybe I can assist you. But we can't keep unsourced content on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Your response[edit]

Umm... I don't know what to say about your response. May you please explain? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You asked what should be done about Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Detailed instructions, since it hasn't been updated in a long time. I don't see anything that needs to be done, and it seems like if we just left it alone, nothing bad would happen. If we need to rewrite it or update it, we could do that. I don't see anything wrong with it, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

RE:Sock Puppetry galore[edit]

I'm not sure if you already knew this (I noticed that you compile data on various sock puppet M.O.), but the suspected socks mentioned at my Talk Page that you blocked are certainly this exact editor. In fact, I wasn't even aware of VillegasD2002 until the user made this edit. This user has been very elusive, as they are known to use a variety of IPs and accounts. It's easy to identify this user when spotted, because all of the socks make the same types of edits on the exact same articles and related WP:FILM articles. Here is one of the user's IP addresses that I spotted a while back, but was never blocked. It shouldn't be blocked now, since it hasn't been active since February 2017, but it might become active in the future. At the time, I had planned to update the SPI page with this IP but I got preoccupied with other activities both on-and-off wiki.

Having dealt with this sock puppeteer many times in the past (dating all the way back to 2015), I am willing to provide any diff comparisons, knowledge, ETC, should the need arise (such as in another SPI). DarkKnight2149 01:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: VillegasD2002 mostly edits horror films, action films, and filmmaker biographies. He has very poor English skills, and I think he's probably a native Spanish speaker. I didn't spend a long time scanning the edits from the IP range, but that 2601 IP looks like it could be him. 2601:407:8402:C926:7158:EB55:45E5:7529 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) looks like him, too. If you think it's the same person as the socks I just blocked, I could easily do a range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I am indeed certain they are the same user, but I'll leave it to you to assess whether or not a range block is necessary. DarkKnight2149 23:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If the evidence between all of these IPs and accounts were compiled, would it be possible to merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VillegasD2002 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/97.95.13.3? DarkKnight2149 23:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Only an SPI clerk can do that. There's a list at WP:SPI/C. If you don't want to, I could ask one of them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I ask one of them from the SPI clerk list (I asked the second admin listed, since the first hadn't edited in a couple of days). See User_talk:GeneralizationsAreBad#SPI_merge. DarkKnight2149 02:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added AnarchyteGeneralizationsAreBadCullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed CpromptRockpocketRambo's RevengeAnimumTexasAndroidChuck SMITHMikeLynchCrazytalesAd Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblock?[edit]

Hello, Ninja! Could you please look into a possible range block for disruptive editing at The American Dollar (band)? Over the past two weeks the same material has been removed from that article, with insulting edit summaries, by (in chronological order):

  • ‪165.230.225.234‬
  • ‪165.230.225.144‬
  • ‪165.230.225.85‬
  • ‪165.230.225.72‬
  • ‪165.230.225.47‬

Those are just the recent ones. This appears to be a long-term issue dating back to at least January. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: from the article history, it looks a lot like block evasion by Americandollarband (talk · contribs). I did a range block on 165.230.225.0/24, but it might need to be widened to really stop him. The problem is that there would be some collateral damage. If he shows up again, I could widen the range block, but it might be better to semi-protect the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the range block! The article is currently PC protected, which is keeping the disruptive edits out but requiring input from page watchers. Let's see if the range block reduces the problem at the article. If it doesn't, I agree that semi-protection would be a better option than a potentially harmful range block. I'll watchlist the article and see what happens. --MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Annapurna Pictures[edit]

Ok, first of all I'm not trying to be disruptive. Second, as far as I can tell Annapurna is no longer distributing Death Wish (2017 film). That's why I deleted it. -100.0.6.143

As far as you can tell? What's your source that they're not? This entry from Variety Insight says they are, as does this post from Deadline.com. The Deadline.com article is two months old, so it could be wrong, but Variety Insight is usually updated often by professional maintainers from Variety, a trade magazine. If you've got a source that says Annapurna is no longer distributing it, it would be very helpful to see. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Does the trailer count as a source? -100.0.6.143 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.0.6.143 (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Generally not, because we don't know what contractual obligations each company has to appear in promotional material. A company can be contractually obligated to appear in promotional material despite not being directly involved, or a company could go uncredited in promotional material despite being directly involved. Trailers, posters, and other promotional material would count as primary sources, and to interpret them is original research. It'd be kind of like if someone took a picture of my family. If I chose not to appear in the picture, that doesn't mean that I'm no longer a part of the family. What if I brought along a friend, and he appears in the picture? That doesn't automatically make him my sibling. So, you can kind of see why interpreting primary sources is a bad idea. Luckily, we have databases like Variety Insight that tell us the distributors and production companies for upcoming films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Protecting Wynonna Earp (TV series) article[edit]

This article has consistently been targeted by anonymous editors who insist that one actor, Katherine Barrell, should appear as main cast in the infobox and *Cast and characters* section. The latest edits were done today and I undid them: 1 and 2. I created a topic in the Talk page about Barrell not being a main actor and why it is incorrect to keep changing how she's listed in the article. There are hidden comments in the editing screen advising editors of MOS:TV policies/guidelines -- but they are ignored. This whack-a-mole situation is not going to change unless editing of the article is restricted to registered users. For the sake of the article's integrity, can it be protected so that only established registered users can edit it? Pyxis Solitary talk 03:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: I know how annoying it is to deal with this kind of problem, but I don't think there's enough disruption yet to justify page protection. If this keeps up, though, I can do it. Let me know if it continues. I'll try to remember to keep an eye out for it, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Pyxis Solitary talk 05:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Anon editor returned to re-do the actor/character edits that were reverted. First time under IP address 2601:646:4001:1476:5cf2:ddb5:9ffe:a8d4 -- second time under IP address 2601:646:4001:1476:441a:e052:166b:543e. Pyxis Solitary talk 10:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I can briefly semi-protect it. Sometimes that discourages further disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Editors who care about the quality of the article and the information it provides will surely appreciate it. Hopefully, it will encourage the unfamiliar to learn Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you so much! Pyxis Solitary talk 23:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Temporary page protection expired. Anon is at it again: 2601:646:4001:1476:9555:16fe:c960:5dd7. 3rd different IP address — same obsession. Pyxis Solitary talk 07:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Geez, these people don't give up, do they? I semi-protected it for a week this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
No. They don't. Some people are stuck in fandoms and fanatics have one-track minds. (There are 3 episodes left in the season, but the stubborn edits will continue.) Thanks for protecting the page again. Pyxis Solitary talk 19:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

List of cults of personality[edit]

Hello NRP, would you take a look at my sandbox HERE and leave me any comments at my talk page. I see you don't always spend a lot of time editing , so if I don't hear back after a couple of days, I will assume you aren't available and will proceed to post it to the article. thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mercy11: I don't want to say anything too hasty because I mostly just skimmed over it and did a few spot checks on the sources. However, it seems to be engaging in a bit of original research. Especially when dealing with accusations about living people, the sources have to explicitly say what you're reporting, and some of them aren't. It looks like you're discussing a lot of post-1932 American politics there, and that's a minefield – it's under discretionary sanctions. Also, this is hugely undue weight if it's meant to go into list of cults of personality. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate the OR comment, though a specific statement or 2 that caught your eye would had been useful so I could remove the bit of perceived OR. It's good to hear from a relatively opposite angle. Once more, thanks for your thoughts. Mercy11 (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Trouble Brewing - The Lego Movie article[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I think you better step in quickly on this article - urgently request that you arrange some temporary protection, and then have a word with Joeymiskulin immediately. He's reverted three times again, and his edit summaries show a level of aggression that is not suitable conduct/behaviour for a wikipedian to display. GUtt01 (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it was taken care of. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Editor requesting your help - Erik, on article Dunkirk (2017 film)[edit]

Hey there. I just wanted to let you know that this user needs some help, and thought that they had Pinged you about it. They're in a bit of entrenched Edit Dispute with another Wikipedian over the film's status as being an international co-production and what sources being used are reliable. Thing is, he's decided to report the user he's in a dispute with for committing a 3RR breach, and an Admin just recently put a 12-hour temporary protection on the article. Could you take a look into the matter and help these two users out? I've already sent a message to another that they tried to Ping, so they can help as well. :-) GUtt01 (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I doubt this will end well. I forget why I removed that article my watchlist, but I think it was because there was too much drama. Well, it's settled for 12 hours, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblock renew[edit]

With regard to this conversation we had and my workpage about the vandal, can you put an appropriately long rangeblock in place for that source of disruption? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I range blocked 2606:A000:8C06:AA00::/64 for a month, but the other range is really wide. I don't think I can range block it without collateral damage. If it keeps up, I might be able to figure something out, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll keep an eye on the unblocked range. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Favour over a Small Matter regarding something being a reliable source, per WP:RS[edit]

Hi, could you do me a favour, please? I'm wondering if a website called EquestriaDaily.com, can be considered as an, in the words of another Wikipedian, "extremely reliable source", in regards to certain notes that were put up on these two articles - My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 6), and My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 7).

See, the notes in these articles have citations that linked to the website in question, yet... I'm not sure if it could be considered a reliable source. See the site puts up posts regarding the episodes, and the citations link to posts that apparantly back up what the article's notes state. Yet, checking on the profile of the authors of a couple posts, I found they led to profiles they have on blogger.com, in which it states that the website in question is a blog site itself. Now, I want to find out from someone if there is an issue, or whether the Wikipedian's quote that claimed the website is reliable is actually true. So the question I got to ask is this:

Is the sources for the article's notes likely to be considered questionable, in terms of WP:UGC, or could this source be considered an exception to WP:QUESTIONABLE?

Please respond when you have free time to do so. Much appreciate your input on this. GUtt01 (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

From the staff page, I'd probably say it's not reliable. However, sometimes fan sites become so prominent and well-known that they become kind of de facto reliable sources because 1) the articles they're used in are mostly written by the fans themselves; 2) the fans generally stick to using them for really trivial and uncontroversial facts; and 3) nobody wants to get involved in a long, tedious policy debate with the fans. So, if the content these citations are validating seems trivial and uncontroversial enough for you, you could let it go. Sometimes there are better sites, though. You might find some pointers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Resources. These WikiProjects (and WP:RSN, of course) can also provide a lot of useful input on whether sources are reliable. I sometimes turn to them when I have questions like this. The people in these WikiProjects are typically much more informed than I am about modern animation. I mostly just block vandals in this topic area, and I don't have much experience in actually writing the articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

163.232.200.0/22 (redux)[edit]

163.232.200.0/22 (XTools ·block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Hi NinjaRobotPirate,

Awhile back, I inquired at WP:AN that there was a lot of vandalism occurring from this range and had asked for a long-term rangeblock to be performed. Recently, this IP range was unblocked by a different admin. Normally, I wouldn't mind an admin unblocking this range, but it already looks like in less than a day that the range was unblocked, vandalism has resumed. See the range's recent edits here under the "result by time" section. It seems like whoever is behind this range (network operator ISP, probably a school district/school system, etc.) is the source for a lot of vandalism lately. In fact, the most recent edit occurred just 12 MINUTES after the block was lifted! Would you mind discussing this with the unblocking admin, User:Gnangarra. Thanks! 2601:1C0:104:B75E:E561:C239:FFE7:A689 (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gnangarra: does this range need to be unblocked? The range block I did was anon-only, which means it shouldn't affect registered editors. I've never done it personally, but any admin or account creator should be able to manually create registered accounts, as you did, but without having to unblock the range. There indeed does seem to be a lot of vandalism coming from here as soon as the block was lifted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I was running a workshop at a school in Albany Western Australia for a community group of Indigenous leaders & teachers on how to edit Wikipedia, if vandalism is coming from the IP range please reinstate the block. The workshop was showing them how to create accounts even I couldnt create accounts until the I lifted the block. This range must cover more than the one school in the area, though I'm quite surprised to see it resumed so quickly as noone outside of the room would have even known I had unblocked it. Gnangarra 02:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
It's kind of depressing that a few vandals can ruin it for everyone else. Yeah, it's weird that the vandalism resumed so quickly – as far as I can tell, the first vandalism was 12 minutes after the range block was lifted. Cluebot got most of it, though. Could be that it covers an entire school district full of kids itching to add their wit and wisdom to Wikipedia articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Assassin's creed[edit]

Hello, What defines the nationality of a film is the nationality of the production company. This is the rule everywhere, it has always been like this. And this is what is taken into account on all wikipedia pages about films. This is not "personnal research". The magazine which is indicated contains a mistake, as it was the case for Valerian. They made the change in their own article : the journalist said he had just looked at IMDB, where the informations were wrong. On Assassin's creed page, it used to be written French and American (because production companies (= intellectual and legal property) are French and American). Personnaly, I think it is not relevant to give a film a nationality. But if we do it, we have to rely on facts. That's why what the nationality depends on the nationality of the owner (production company)? Sometimes, there are several companies, from different countries. Thank you for your understanding Herve.toullec (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Herve.toullec: No, this is not true. See, for example, the instructions on {{infobox film}}, where it says to use what the trade magazines say. What defines the nationality of a film is what a reliable source says, nor your own original research. This seems to be a continuing problem with you. If you continue to change sourced content based on your own personal opinions, I will either block you myself (if I am uninvolved) or report you to ANI and have you blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

How do trade magazines (and all cinema institutions) do to determine the nationality of a film ? They look at the nationality of the production company. I know what I am talking about since I have worked in that field. And as far as cinema magazines are concerned, journalists generally don't make many research. Actually, they simply go look on... Wikipedia ! And the error gets spread. And sometimes, because they don't care about it, they write by default that the film is American because it is in English, and they don't even have the ide to check it out. Why do you say it seems to be a "continuing problem" ? Was I wrong with Valerian ? I say it again : it is not my own personal opinion. I noticed that it is a frequent error with French films shot in English or co-produced. So among the things I do on wikipedia, I'm trying to improve that. I can add sources indicating that Assassin's creed is a co-production but I fear it will be deleted again... : - http://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/assassin-s-creed - http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-hc-assassins-creed-first-look-20160506-snap-story.html - http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1532990/ubisoft-backtracks-statement-about-the-assassins-creed-movie-not-making-money - http://screenrant.com/assassins-creed-movie-michael-fassbender-ubisoft-splinter-cell/ Thank you. Herve.toullec (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Katherine Barrell : vandalism[edit]

Hi, NRP. The Barrell biography is being subjected to vandalism:

The latest revert I did, didn't change the article back to pre-vandalism status. I had to do a manual edit. Is there any way this page can be protected for longer than one week? (Whether as IP-address only or newly-created registered account, these are obviously the same people who have been screwing around with the Wynonna Earp (TV series) page.) Pyxis Solitary talk 12:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: I know it's kind of annoying, but we usually start off page protection for a short period of time to see if that resolves the issue. If disruption continues, it's easier to justify a lengthier protection. I could semi-protect this for a week and see if that resolves it. One other option is to go with a longer pending changes protection, which means the article's edits would be subject to review, but new editors and IP editors would still be able to edit it. I could then give you the reviewer user right so you could patrol the article. If this sounds OK to you, let me know. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The vandalism can probably be tackled best if it's stopped at the gate, so I'm willing to participate as a PC1 reviewer. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary talk 15:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Done. Pending changes-protected for a month, reviewer right added. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I sincerely appreciate the trust. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary talk 09:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm just curious about this: do you know why User:Alexf deleted the PC1 protection from the page ... then immediately reverted his edit? I truly don't understand the purpose. Pyxis Solitary talk 07:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know. It was probably an accident. It happens sometimes. Admins have a lot of extra buttons on the screen, and many people use scripts that add even more. It's easy to accidentally press the wrong one and revert a useful edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Kinda like. :-) Pyxis Solitary talk

Hello, NRP. The temporary PC1 protection you added expired on September 18, and the vandalism started again: Vandalism 6. At this time, Barrell has a fandom following because of her role as a lesbian character on Wynonna Earp who's involved in a same-sex relationship ("Wayhaught"). I think the PC1 protection needs to remain for a while longer. Pyxis Solitary talk 03:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I re-enabled the PC1 protection. These must be some dedicated fans. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, NRP. The "dedication" is more like trolling. There's one particular Wynonna Earp fan site where the moderators have to whack-a-mole constantly. Ugh. Pyxis Solitary talk 11:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, NRP. Just want to inform you of the following talk page message (@ 07:59, October 2, 2017) regarding edits accepted by User:Steam5 from an IP-only editor . Pyxis Solitary talk 08:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about it. I might not have accepted those edits, but some people have a looser interpretation of what's OK to accept. It's probably not a problem until outright vandalism sneaks in. I've seen people accept edits that were hoaxes. I thought the hoax was obvious, but I guess not. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
(I'm not making this up) There are actually three ways to add a web page citation: (1) URL–author–title, (2) URL–title–author, or (3) author–title–URL.
So I asked a question in WP:CITE that resulted in my finding out about WP:CITEVAR, which states: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change...If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page."
The citation style used in the article is: author–title–URL. So the reviewer should not have approved an edit that contradicted the existing style. But since I did not know about WP:CITEVAR until now, the reviewer might also not be aware of the guideline. Pyxis Solitary talk 12:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Wow. I've never communicated with User:Steam5 prior to the 2 October message on his talk page. Not only did he not reply, but he deleted it. I don't think that's a good sign about someone who has a PCR right. Pyxis Solitary talk 06:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's the best form of communication, but it usually means that you've read and acknowledged a message. I wouldn't take it personally. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
:-) Pyxis Solitary talk 09:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

125.197.207.188[edit]

FYI, this block evading IP address continued editing shortly after your previous 1 week block. 2601:1C0:109:A08D:952A:B885:17BA:B096 (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems possible this is someone else. But, then again, I'm not expert in identifying CadAPL/LeoHsn sock puppets. I guess I'll keep an eye on it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Ponyo just reblocked them for 2 weeks. 73.96.113.23 (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Japanese IP adding unsourced personal information to Turkish celebrity infoboxes? Check!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, I'm giving obvious sock puppets too much benefit of the doubt. But I guess it's better than the opposite problem, where I go berserk with the block button. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ponyo: It seems that CadAPL/LeoHsn is giving you a harsh nightmare ! impressive ! He is trying to edit articles with references but you block any of the edits regardless of the content ! He must be having a good time because your only purpose in life now is to undo edits by a certain person ! and you would delete this comment without even answering as well, since you are too sensitive snowflakes people! if that is the case, I hope that CadAPL/LeoHsn continue to bother the hell out of you because you are worthless people ! and Hey, undo all the edits related to this IP >>> very Sad creatures indeed ! 58.9.140.23 (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The return of Inactive user 20171 as an IP yet again[edit]

This editor was indefinitely blocked under a former name (still visible in their talk page history) by User:Drmies in June. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive959#Not so inactive user, where you issued a block of 2602:30A:C0FF:A6E0::/64 (XTools ·block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). This 17 August edit now appears to be evasion of a block by the renamed editor, and is a new edit from the range you previously blocked. We might not care if he only played with his own talk page, but his contributions include some new article edits, so this is plain vanilla block evasion. Would you support another one month block of the /64, or even longer? I have read that a /64 is about as severe as a single-IP block in the old IPv6 domain so a multi-month block of a /64 is not outlandish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Hmm sad. Yes, seems clear-cut. Please don't just roll back their edits--they're usually decent. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @EdJohnston: yeah, a /64 is usually a single customer. I'll reblock for 3 months since it seems to be sticking long-term. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The Notification[edit]

Why did you post an edit war notification at my talk stating the usual:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mansplaining. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

but ignored the other person reverting, when I have been trying to get them to talk but they are unwilling to participate at the talk page? On top of that, what I'm reverting was part of the stable edition for over a year. There is a tag-team of edit warrers who edit in very similar fashion and don't participate at talk. Another very long-time editor brought up accusations of sockpuppetry towards one. The most disruptive behavior is the bizarre removal of news articles. To point out fairness, there is also a long-time editor at play named Grayfell who opposed my edit as is but did not revert everything but instead edited to make it more suitable and most noticiably kept the news articles. I don't suspect him of any foul behavior and he looks like a real, normal editor with opposing views. Contrasting him with the group of very recently created accounts is like night and day. Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mr. Magoo and McBarker: if you have evidence of sock puppetry, you can file a report at WP:SPI, and I'll probably take a look at it. If someone else hasn't started a talk page discussion, that doesn't mean you can edit war indefinitely. Use Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
So it is in your authority to ignore the other party not participating in talk page discussions, and only to blame the party who has started a talk page discussion? Clearly, a mistake has been made. Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mr. Magoo and McBarker: just because I'm an administrator doesn't mean that my warnings carry any more weight than someone else's. If you believe that someone else should be warned, you're free to warn them yourself. You seem to be the one edit warring most (and, at the time, the one who made the latest revert), so you got warned. Maybe that's not fair, but I'm tired of seeing this edit war show up on my watchlist, and you seem to be the one most responsible per WP:ONUS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Another sock of Joanpuig2001?[edit]

Hi, I see you mass rollbacked edits by a sock of User:Joanpuig2001. Is this another? Special:Contributions/SimonVegaD. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 11:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely looks like her. Thanks for pointing that out. This is a rather frustrating sock master who occasionally goes on blanking sprees. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Starbuck[edit]

I just want to say thank you for blocking the puppet of Starbuck whatever you call it. Can I point out this is the same jerk that has been spreading too many stories and lying about 107 (the one that was mistakenly blocked) is a puppet of Leviathan648.2600:1:C268:D004:CC72:B60E:8142:61DF (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I take it you're Unicornaholic243/Leviathan648. You're kind of lucky in that I've spent so much of the past month dealing with Starbucks6789 that it's a lot easier for me to identify his socks than yours. However, that doesn't mean that you're allowed to evade your block. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you need to make an unblock request. Continued block evasion like this will only make the eventual unblock more difficult. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Soapboxing and spamming[edit]

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, can you or some admin take care of Special:Contributions/Carterturner, please? Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 06:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a spambot. I blocked him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is another one[edit]

I am about to open an WP:SPI on the socks of Memento2149. In the meantime, can you please block Dunkirk2419 (not to be confused with the already-blocked Dunkirk2149)? I signed in today to find my notifications flooded with over 25 Thanks from this user and they already tried to vandalise an article (the vandalism edit confirms my suspicions that this is indeed the "Clash of Clefairies" vandal). DarkKnight2149 17:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. You'll probably want to request CU, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. CU data is only kept for three months, so the oldest troll accounts are now too stale to connect them to these newer ones. Also, if it's the same troll, range blocks may be declined. During the last flare-up, the best I could do was to slow down the disruption, and other admins might not think it's worthwhile. As I understand it, the CUs are a bit overburdened presently after a few of them retired. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

And... The not-yet-blocked Insomnia2149 just thanked over 41 times. After I file the SPI (which will be sometime today, I was busy yesterday), I will probably ask MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist if it would be possible to blacklist usernames with "2149" (because, at this point, whoever creates it is probably either me or them). DarkKnight2149 20:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked, but it's probably going to be a game of Whac-A-Mole until the troll gets bored. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, which is the major reason for me even considering the TitleBlacklist request. DarkKnight2149 20:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ninja, to your knowledge, were any sock investigations opened on the "Clash" troll? I know there was a sock investigation on Zjec, but the problem is that I don't believe that the "Clash" troll and Zjec are the same user. I'm pretty sure that Zjec was just a disgruntled user that simply wanted to remove information they didn't like from Hulk (comics). They never really exhibited any troll-like behaviour and "Clash" (who was active long before the Hulk incident) didn't claim responsibility for Zjec's edits until after DangerousJXD and I began reverting Zjec. Also, at one point, the "Clash" troll tried to claim responsibility for the edits of the "Megavillain" vandal, once again only after the two of us began reverting them. I ask because I need to know if I should just open the SPI from scratch, or if there were any other sock investigations on the "Clash" troll/impersonator. Also tagging: @DangerousJXD: DarkKnight2149 16:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

While on the same topic, Memento2419 just spammed me with 70 notifications, so they're obviously not going away any time soon. DarkKnight2149 16:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there were ever any official investigations prior to the one you linked above. I probably did most of the admin actions after a certain point, and I usually labeled the troll as "Zjec" for the sake of convenience. There was a brief period of time when the checkuser tool could have settled the issue by revealing Zjec's IP address, but I figured it wasn't important enough to bother a checkuser. Generally, I think it's best to keep SPI cases in one place, so you should probably file an SPI report under Zjec's name. But you could ask an SPI clerk or checkuser for advice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I just requested the Title Blacklist, BTW. DarkKnight2149 17:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Bot and other oddities?[edit]

I see you're already aware of Biografer. I wanted to point out that the warning you pointed out that they had reverted... When they added it back, they refactored it to claim to have been from them, rather than you. I'm confident they're running a bot besides. Though I guess I should be thankful, reviewing contributions I saw them welcome Andy09988887.98799998uy, an LTA I am now blocking. -- ferret (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: yeah, I think it's likely to be an unauthorized bot, too. I didn't really want to argue about that or the refactoring, though. It felt like it was going to degenerate into drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to keep an idle eye, reverting warnings with whats clearly a full page replacement is an issue. Never mind other issues like problematic formatting changes and edit warring. -- ferret (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Mansplaining". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

LTA report for Nate Speed[edit]

Hello. I am looking to create a WP:LTA report for Nate Speed, but I do not know much about what he does in order to create the report. The only fact that I am aware of about Nate is that he targets articles using Wall Street Journal as a source and that his edit summaries show unnecessary anger when someone identifies an edit request or an edit made through one of his many proxies. Is there anything else I should be aware of if I decide to create this report? Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: there's a lot of stuff that one could write about. Probably the most important parts are:
  • He's site banned for sock puppetry, making death threats, and edit warring (discussion).
  • He uses proxies. His earliest recorded sock puppetry involved IP addresses in Arizona, US. Once they were blocked, he apparently began using a VPN called SumRando. This gives him IP addresses throughout the world, especially Asia and Eastern Europe. They should be range blocked when possible.
  • His favorite topic is film studios, such as 20th Century Fox and DreamWorks, and this is where much of his disruption occurs. He typically edit wars to add or restore large amounts of unsourced content to these articles. Sometimes it's lists of films a studio has produced, sometimes it's production deals with other studios, and sometimes it's listing production companies or distributors in individual film articles. When forced, he may grudgingly provide citations, but his typical response is to edit war.
  • He sometimes edit wars over URLs. This is newer behavior. If reverted, edit summaries will express extreme agitation and frustration at restoring what he believes to be dead links.
  • When reverted enough times, he may post death threats to an editor's talk page or create throwaway accounts to harass them in email. When his accounts are blocked, they should automatically have talk page and email access revoked. In general, edit summaries are usually incredibly whiny ("stooooooooop"), make impotent threats ("if you revert me again, I will murder you!"), or include violent fantasies ("*punches you in the face*"). They frequently include a trailing emoticon.
  • He typically returns to the same articles repeatedly over the course of months. If there's difficulty in identifying him based on behavior, look at whether the same content is being supported by a large number of new accounts, all editing from proxies. Talk page discussions with Nate Speed will typically devolve quickly into threats and whiny rants, so engaging editors in conversation can also identify him.
  • Articles he edits may need lengthy semi-protection to discourage further edit warring and sock puppetry.
What would be most helpful for me are a list of IP addresses used. I was keeping track for a while, but I got busy with other stuff. It would make range blocks easier. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the allcaps edit summaries and pseudo-emoticons are fairly common with this fellow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Per MOS:FILM, only the primary genre goes in the opening sentence.[edit]

Thank you! I see a number of driveby IPs make random genre changes and rarely know what to do. A bit of MOS to cite will be a great aid. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added NakonScott
removed SverdrupThespianElockidJames086FfirehorseCelestianpowerBoing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Response[edit]

Hello,

Just wanted to respond to your comment. While I strongly disagree with your assessment and if anything, I will probably increase my participation in patrolling recent changes, I'm always grateful to obtain feedback as well as any specific recommendations you may have to offer. Thanks! South Nashua (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

TheKurgan86 block evasion[edit]

I notice you reverted 84.108.65.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at Under Siege, while I have done similarly at Superman (1978 film). There are two key phrases in both I would like you to take a look at.

  • Under Siege: "Under Siege was released on October 9, 1992. Upon release, the film recieved generally positive from film critics worldwide. Many particuarly praised the direction, musical score, the storyline, the writing, the atmosphere, the humor, mostly the action sequences and the cast."
  • Superman: "Many reviewers particuarly praised Reeve's performance, the cast, the action sequences, storyline, screenplay writing, directing, the effects, and especially John Williams's musical score."

This matches TheKurgan86's MO. Here is as example of what he wrote at Conan the Barbarian (1982 film): "Conan was released on May 14, 1982 and in Spain, it was released on March 16, 1982. Upon release, the film recieved widespread critical acclaim, praising Schwarzennerg's performance, writing, action sequences, musical score, effects, stunts, and directing."

The language is virtually identical, and the spelling error seals it. Furthermore, the IP was making these types of edits until the end of May, and only makes a handful through June and July. The account boosted its output once again on August 20. TheKurgan86 first obtained his account on May 20 before being blocked on August 15. You can see their common editing pattern at http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=TheKurgan86&users=84.108.65.223&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki. Their edits are identical in many areas such as at [2] and [3].

This is clear-cut block evasion so I wondered if you wanted to deal with and save us all some time reverting this moron and filing reports? If you are feel you are involved through reverting him then I fully understand and can file an SPI; it's just that it's the weekend and we've all got better things to do, right? Betty Logan (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

There's a pretty big overlap between them, and they seem to restore each other's edits. Yeah, I agree it's block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Good riddance. Betty Logan (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

My movie edits[edit]

Thanks for the note about my recent edits. In terms of sources, I use Google Newspaper and Newspapers.com along with Variety's database. How do I source these? Also, the latter is inaccessible to anyone without a subscription. Udar55 (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Udar55: you need to cite your sources so that we know where you got the information. Otherwise, nobody can tell whether you're performing research or making up stuff on the spot. Sources don't need to be online, accessible for free, or even in English. Citation templates can make this stuff easier once you're familiar with their syntax. You've probably already used them. wikiEd can assist in adding citations, and I really like using it. I think there are also scripts that will automatically fill in all the fields for citation templates, but I don't remember where they are.
At first, citation templates may seem a bit too complicated since there are so many parameters. You'll probably never use most of parameters, though. As a basic example, you can do something like this:
  • <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.example.com/article.html|title=Example title|work=[[Example.com]]|accessdate=November 4, 2017}}</ref>
That example works well for most content, but if you're citing a newspaper article that's hosted somewhere else, you might use something like this:
  • <ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.google.com/article.html|title=Example title|work=[[Chicago Sun-Times]]|accessdate=November 4, 2017|via=[[Google News Archive]]}}</ref>
That would indicate you found a Chicago Sun-Times article in the Google News Archive. You could also add the page number, date, author, and other metadata if you wanted. For an archived news story behind a paywall, you might use something like this:
  • <ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/article.html|title=Example title|work=[[Chicago Sun-Times]]|accessdate=November 4, 2017|subscription=yes|via=[[Highbeam Research]]}}</ref>
That would indicate that you found an copy of a Chicago Sun-Times news story on Highbeam Research and that it's paywalled – inaccessible unless someone pays money. Once someone pays the fee, they can click on the URL and read the article. Or, maybe they could get a free account via The Wikipedia Library. Citation templates are not mandatory, and you don't have to use them. Personally, I find them very helpful, especially when citing paywalled or archived stuff, since they have specific parameters for that. Some editors prefer to write this stuff out freehand, without the templates getting in the way. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Another sock[edit]

This account is also this guy. There may be more clean-up/deleting etc. needed as the first account was only soft blocked for their username. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Yeah, I'm familiar with Stvincentcollege. I suspected Stvincentcollege was a sock of someone from early on (probably AtlusZachary), but I never really had enough evidence to prove anything. I kept an eye on Saintvincent's edits, and I think I already reverted the most disruptive ones; same with George. I went back and forth on whether George was a AtlusZachary or Stvincent sock, but I settled on AZ because it seemed to fit his M.O. a little more. Both of them have had pretty obvious socks active in film articles, and I usually catch them pretty quickly. It's getting harder for me to tell their socks apart from each other, and I think they may be the same person. Thanks for the note. This does make me feel that maybe my initial thoughts were right after all. It's too bad I can't point to any recent AtlusZachary socks to compare these against. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I looked around for something "unstale" to compare against but couldn't find anything. Stvincentcollege and George are definitely  Confirmed to each other however.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The last one that I'm 100% sure of is Smoke weeds (talk · contribs), and that was 8 months ago. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Unjust edit warning[edit]

I have not been reverting back to the same page. If you check, you'll see that I have adjusted my sources so as to comply with the criticism of User:Slightlymad. I see no reason why that user doesn't have an edit warning. First, he/she removed my edits on the basis that they didn't have a source (it did as you can see). Afterwards, I added a better source, though I neglected to delete the unreliable one, he/she deleted my edits stating that it isn't a reliable source. Only referring to one of them, when I had put two sources. This is by no means a two way street.Radiohist (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Radiohist: even if you're right, edit warring is still disruptive. We all get a bit too caught up in reverting edits that seem wrong, but there comes a point at which you need to go to an article's talk page and get consensus for your edit. Per WP:ONUS, the burden is on you to gain consensus for the edit. It seems Slightlymad doesn't like your sources. If you start a discussion on the talk page, maybe you can come to an agreement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Request rangeblocks[edit]

Hi Ninja, I'm asking you because you seem to be comfortable issuing rangeblocks. What do you think about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD"? (In short, a banned edit-warrior from Utah switches IP's so quickly that blocking individual IP's is almost always pointless). Do you think rangeblocks would be feasible? I know 97.117.0.0/18 is one range that has been blocked quite a few times in the past. Sro23 (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: I did three range blocks: 75.162.192.0/18, 174.23.96.0/19, 174.23.128.0/18. I think that should do it, though I tried to be a little conservative since I'm not really very familiar with this person. Let me know if I need to widen them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to range block 97.117.0.0/18, but it's done now, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll let you know if I see them getting around your rangeblocks. Thanks. Sro23 (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Malformed RevDel Request[edit]

Hey NRP, is this something you can address? Cheers! DonIago (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! DonIago (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Amy Adams[edit]

The article is being expanded and reshaped for an upcoming FAC. I've been through such a process several times before, so I humbly request you to please be patient and let me do some good here. If you have issues with it, please talk about it in the article's talk page or wait for it's FAC nomination. I hope you cooperate. Thanks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: You were bold, and some of your changes were reverted. Now you're edit warring to restore your synthesis and puffery. But I'm not really in the mood to deal with this, so I'm just going to remove the article from my watchlist. You can argue with a GA reviewer over this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Not in the mood to argue either. Just want to expand the article peacefully, for the time being. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

School Rangeblock Request (168.9.213.0/24)[edit]

Hi NinjaRobotPirate,

From what I can tell, you appear to be one of the admins knowledgeable about performing IP rangeblocks. With that said, would you mind taking a look at the recent edits from 168.9.213.0/24 (XTools ·block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))? I've seen IPs from this range a lot lately when reverting vandalism and the range appears to belong to Georgia Department of Education. Also, I guess there's a better system now for seeing edits within an entire IP range (example, 168.9.213.0/24) but it only shows edits from the last few days, I guess. Anyhow, could you look into performing a school rangeblock here, perhaps for a few months? Thanks. 172.58.43.188 (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Geez. Everything from 168.8.0.0/16 through 168.32.0.0/16 is allocated to the George Board of Regents. Well, if I ever get bored and need a rainy day project, I can spend hours looking through those /16s for vandalism. Looking through 168.9.0.0/16, most of the vandalism seems to come from 168.9.9.0/24 and 168.9.213.0/24. I'll range block them, but, ugh, the whole /16 is nothing but vandalism as far as I can tell. If this keeps up, the /16 might need to be blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Hi NRP, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 20:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Congrats on passing. I think it's interesting that you politely but firmly refused to answer a few optional questions. This might clear the way for more people to do the same thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
That was the intent, yep! No idea if it'll work though. ansh666 21:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Help with The Greatest Showman[edit]

I brought this up on the Wikifilmproject a while back, but it continues. An IP user keeps removing sourced material in the production section of The Greatest Showman and replacing it with their unsourced info. 1 2 3. "2" in particular is notable as he provided a source but it did not back up his claim. They seems to legitimately believe that his version is factually accurate but he doesn't seem to understand Wikipedia:Verifiability and as they're annynoumous. I can not explain the problem to them except through edit summaries. Any Suggestions. Or could you intervene in any way? --Deathawk (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Deathawk: it's difficult to communicate with IPv6 editors (the ones with the really long alphanumeric addresses). Their IP address often changes rapidly enough that they don't see any messages left for them. You might try posting to the article's talk page, and, even though it's kind of hopeless, leave warnings on the IP editor's talk page. You could use {{uw-unsourced}} or {{uw-nor}} for this. It looks like there's some disruption going on at the article, mostly over whether to include Zendaya and the blanking in the production section. I can semi-protect the article if this keeps up. That will force discussion over these issues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I guess page protection is probably the best option for now. I imagine if the IP comes by and sees that he can no longer edit it (as easily) he may drop the case or register at which point it'd be easier to explain to him why the edits are problematic. Do I have to request this formally, or can you just do it? --Deathawk (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Deathawk: if it flares up again, I'll do it myself without any formal requests. I watchlisted the article, but you might have to ping me or leave a note here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Response[edit]

I changed it because DreamWorks Animation has never distributed their own films, you can research that for yourself. AFI is not even that reliable for movies released in the past 10 years or so, but I'm not gonna fight with you about it since you seem to like to get editors blocked that disagree with you. Koala15 (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not what you personally believe. No source is always right, but AFI is a professionally-maintained database. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Barry Goldberg (volleyball coach)[edit]

Hello NinjaRobotPirate, could you hide the defamation vandalism edit by 103.75.116.121 at Barry Goldberg (volleyball coach)? Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. Also semi-protected, though it's probably going to need ECP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Greatest Showman again[edit]

You told me to notify you if it flared up again, it did, although this time they simply deleted the content without adding anything of their own, noting in the edit summary that it was "inaccurate". I subsequently made some changes to the text to note that this was "according to Entertainment Weekly" so we'll see what happens. --Deathawk (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for a week, which will hopefully help instigate discussion on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I also tried to explain through my revert editi summary why the edit was problematic, so hopefully all of these things help---Deathawk (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

207.157.128.0/17[edit]

Hey,

I've got another school IP range for you to take a look at whenever you can. This shows all of the range's recent edits. Thanks~ 153.229.79.32 (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that was a pretty bad one, too. The first half is from Alabama, and the second half is from California. Both are nothing but vandalism. I blocked the entire /16 for three months since most of the individual IP addresses I checked were already blocked. This will just make it a bit harder to evade those current blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! You know, there's one particular range that I've been following for awhile now, if you're interested, that I've always been coming across but I haven't reported it here because it just happens to be an entire /16 range, but since you seem comfortable enough blocking /16 ranges, I guess I'll leave it here as a project for you to work on whenever you're board... The IP range is 180.95.0.0/16 (XTools ·block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and it contains absolutely nothing but vandalism as far as thee eye can see. Right now, I'm editing from a school IP address myself, so eventually I'll create an account one day in order to avoid collateral damage if my IP network happens to be blocked... Anyway, thanks for all that you do for the project! :-) 198.236.58.11 (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Collateral damage usually makes wide range blocks inadvisable, but sometimes there's nothing but spam and/or vandalism. I see a few school blocks already on that IP range, but I'll try to remember to take a deeper look later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Problems at Ladybird article[edit]

Over at the Lady Bird article I'm encountering a very aggresive IP editor who keeps insisting on lnserting a PR quote to the release section. After deleting the page they kept on trying to insert it, while also reordering, the info I added, and at one point outright deleting it, in what I assume is retaliation. I left a note on their talk page, which I also noted you also commented on. Could you keep an eye on it.--Deathawk (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Deathawk: I realize the discussion isn't going so well on the IP's talk page, but you might consider starting a discussion on the article's talk page and alerting WT:FILM if there isn't any progress. This, or other dispute resolution, can help establish a consensus one way or another on the content issues. The IP editor seems willing to communicate, so there's at least some hope. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
It's actually going better than I thought it would, and we've been able to make some progress, I feel. The inclusion of the quote though is the main contentious issue. I added an RFC about it, so we'll see what happens. --Deathawk (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:71.55.216.64[edit]

Regarding the revert I just made at User talk:71.55.216.64, could you revoke talk page access? –72 (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Done, but that's probably going to require more attention later. Ugh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Suburbicon[edit]

But in the movie poster and at the end of the movie trailer, I actually saw the Dark Castle Entertainment logo instead of the Silver Pictures logo.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.31.113 (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean anything. The only thing a logo proves is that a company was contractually obligated to appear in promotional material. Per this consensus, production companies need to be cited to reliable sources. This is to cut down on the original research involved in interpreting primary sources, such as posters and trailers. Sometimes production companies don't appear in promotional material, and sometimes companies that were not involved in the production do appear. Reliable sources can help us identify which is which. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox deletion for a serial vandal[edit]

Greetings. This serial vandal/sock whom you blocked earlier in the week likes to create elaborate sandbox articles which, when allowed to stay indefinitely on WP, end up looking like trophies in public view: here and here. So that his "handiwork" doesn't get rewarded, could those sandboxes be deleted entirely with redacted edit histories, like what happens in the case of copyvios? He was also previously warned for sandbox misuse. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I can delete them via WP:G5. It probably won't stop them from coming back with the next sock puppet, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Much thanks. And I already have an idea for next time, at WP:EFR. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Dutt High School#Dutta, Datta, let's call the whole thing off[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dutt High School#Dutta, Datta, let's call the whole thing off. Worldbruce (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

What to do?[edit]

Hello NRP. Thanks for blocking the latest Dcasey98 IP. This new sock Thebishopandtheking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) just showed up on my talk page. Clearly a WP:DUCK do you need me to start a new SPI report? Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: nah, you don't need to file an SPI for something that obvious. I can block them easily enough without having to fill out forms and such. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. That lets me do some article editing :-) Enjoy your week. MarnetteD|Talk 01:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Source[edit]

I had enough of being blocked for no source! This wiki is making people do bad stuff to me and it cause me to be annoy be all of you! Why cant you leave me alone! I'm have autism you know. Crazybob2014 (talk)-

@Crazybob2014: if you don't want to be blocked, stop adding unsourced content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I can’t help it. Everytime i see something, i put it in and leave it alone but you keep erasing the stuff that i saw. Crazybob2014 (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added Boing! said ZebedeeAnsh666Ad Orientem
removed TonywaltonAmiDanielSilenceBanyanTreeMagioladitisVanamonde93Mr.Z-manJdavidbJakecRam-ManYelyosKurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Starting to feel really overwhelmed by production sections[edit]

I'm at a point where I'm not sure what to do about production sections. I feel like a lot of times Production sections are A) Either added when the article is created because editors feel like that's what needs to be done or B) Are overly long and contain an excessive amount of detail. When it's A, you can usually tell because the news is really generic and almost has like a template to it at this point. Both of these types of sections, I feel harm Wikipedia as they are not really readers I feel will turn away from these sections after encountering too many of them. The problem is I don't really know what to do about it. I try my best to change what I can, but the ammount of films is just too overwhelming. I'm kind of lost, do you have any suggestions about what we can do? --Deathawk (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Deathawk: I know what you mean. As far as guidance goes, I guess there are two options: reopen an RFC at MOS:FILM and contacting individual editors to ask them to avoid overly-detailed proseline. An RFC would probably have to be carefully written to avoid getting opposes based on WP:CREEP. As far as editing Wikipedia, I tend to focus on narrow areas, such as independent horror films, so that I don't feel overwhelmed. In writing production sections, I guess I can go in either direction: Leprechaun (film) is pretty concise and direct, but Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth is perhaps verging on too-detailed. The Hellraiser series is interesting, though, because there's so much to talk about with regards to the gore, special effects, producers who want to trim out the most extreme elements, etc. Maybe we could find an article that discusses such details without going into extreme detail about trivia like "on A date, studio B confirmed to magazine C that actor D was cast", like Wikipedia is a game of Mad Libs. If we can hold that up as an example, maybe it will help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Books[edit]

Hi, do you know anyone here who has unlimited access to online references such as books? SLIGHTLYmad 08:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: the closest thing I can think of is Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, which grants free access to e-books and subscription websites. You don't get unlimited access to all e-books, but I got several e-books for free by requesting them. If there's something that you want access to but can't get it through there, you can try Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. I usually use Google Books to find sources and request them through TWL if there isn't enough digitized for free. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

185.108.128.0/22[edit]

Hey, congrats on the CU tool! Speaking of which, I ran CU on Krajoyn's latest sock, Lantmast, and found you had blocked one of their proxies, and I was wondering what prompted that. User:Dlohcierekim, you seem to run into to those socks, and I don't know if you're aware of the SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Finley22 Waterman. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thanks. I didn't realize there'd be so many qualified candidates this year; if I did, I might have been too intimidated to apply. That range block (185.108.128.0/22) came from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Al-Quraish, who was accused of edit warring while logged out. The IP turned out to be part of Webworld, a webhost. I guess I check that sort of stuff habitually these days. I must be growing more pessimistic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss the soon to built, Interaction Timeline[edit]

Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Hi![edit]

Please doublecheck what happened, because you obviously made a mistake. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @The Quixotic Potato: To double check that your inflammatory editing behavior was indeed necessary, and that reverting a block notice is fully justified? Really? Alex ShihTalk 04:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: ? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I looked over the discussion again, and I don't see any evidence provided that the IP editor is a sock puppet. If you do have evidence (preferably in the form of diffs), you could file a case at WP:SPI. I don't really care that much if people revert a block notice I add. I usually take it as a sign that someone doesn't want me to edit their talk page, and I leave them alone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Replacing reverted blocknotices is usually not productive. Heck, blocking good faith users is usually not productive. FIM claimed they were Vote. I already knew that that was who FIM meant, because the IP used an ISP also used by Vote and came from roughly the same geographical location and was agreeing with Vote (this is an incredibly rare combination, WP:DUCK applies). I couldn't do a detailed check because I was on my phone, and it didn't seem to be necessary because FIM has a known track record of recognizing Vote (I edit the refdesk, and FIM has often rv-ed Vote there). At some point doubt was expressed, I explained that I would do research when I was back at my desktop computer. Old smartphones with a touch screen interface aren't really convenient for browsing. The IP posted personal attacks, so I pointed out that that behaviour makes confirming their identity basically irrelevant. Others posted personal attacks and a false accusation. I forgave them, because they clearly did not understand what was happening. You blocked for "Personal attacks or harassment: continued accusations without evidence at ANI" despite the facts that I did not post continued accusations and the fact that that is not allowed per WP:PUNITIVE. I was fixing typos and responding to people who posted unhelpful comments. You were 2,5 hours too late (last accusation posted at 21:31 6 October 2017, then I explained that I had to go to a desktop computer to check if FIM was incorrect but I was blocked at 23:58, 6 October 2017). Blocking is used to protect the encyclopedia, not to punish those you think are annoying/disagree with. If you would've blocked before I said that I would have to do some research to check if FIM was correct things would be different, but at that point it was a reasonable assumption to make imho because I have seen FIM identify Vote quite a few times succesfully, so it was only logical to assume FIM was correct in this instance as well. Blocking goodfaith users is a last resort, and rarely necessary, and in this case it obviously was unnecessary and counterproductive. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
In this edit, you alluded to evidence that would presumably change someone's mind about whether the IP was a sock puppet or not. Since you made this insinuation without posting the evidence, and this was ongoing despite warnings, I blocked you. You need to post your evidence at the time you make the accusation, not make the accusation and then go search for evidence later. There seemed to be consensus in the thread that it was not a WP:DUCK case. I think it would be best to drop these sorts of issues when the community says there isn't enough evidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Nope, I simply mentioned the fact that they did not understand the situation (because they didn't). You have misinterpreted that edit. You didn't ask for clarification. Someone from the same ISP from the same geographical location who defends the same point of view within a short timeframe is clearly a duck, FIM and myself both in good faith thought that. Hindsight is 20/20. Please block me again for one minute so you can note in my blocklog that my previous block was in error. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not clearly a duck – others disagreed with you, which disqualifies it as being a duck. I don't think I misinterpreted that edit, either. Drop it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, as I have explained it was justified in that situation to see it as a case of WP:DUCK, even without those 3 pieces of supporting evidence (and the fact that others disagreed afterwards is irrelevant because I do not own a time machine and they did not have access to the information required to make an informed decision). I have explained to you that you did misinterpret that edit, because you believe I (quote) "alluded to evidence that would presumably change someone's mind about whether the IP was a sock puppet or not" when in reality I simply mentioned the fact that they did not understand the situation (because they didn't); if they knew what I knew they would've understood why FIM and myself ended up thinking that, and how unlikely it was that this was someone else (statistically speaking). I see that it is pointless to try to explain that situation to you because you do not want to admit that you were wrong. That is disappointing. Quote: "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.". I'll go do something more productive now, but if you ever change your mind you are welcome to visit my talkpage. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect info Universal Soldier gross[edit]

Why did you change it to "worldwide",when the box office mojo link clearly says "domestic total gross"?Zykodern (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right, of course. I restored that fix. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

AIV[edit]

Hi there, there's a bit of a backlog at WP:AIV - do you mind taking a look? -KH-1 (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it's mostly under control now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the IP[edit]

That was Morty C-137. Doug Weller talk 13:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I figured, but I started getting kind of frustrated by all the Morty drama after a certain point, and I didn't follow it as closely any more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't blame you. I just can't understand people like that. None of it was necessary. Doug Weller talk 10:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

JSTOR[edit]

Hi, your user page indicates that you have JSTOR access through the Wiki Library. Is it possible that you can download this book from the JSTOR? I need it for one of my future projects. Slightlymad 08:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I got an error that says "your institution does not have access to this book". It probably requires some kind of "premiere" account to access entire books. My access may be limited to individual journal articles; I've never tried to access anything besides that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thank you for stepping in and taking care of that IP-hopping vandal. I was becoming frustrated trying to keep up with him. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I might be able to do something more about that if it keeps up, but it's not easy to deal with these IP hoppers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I know it is, and his IPs are in different ranges, so even range blocks will be difficult. Would it behoove us to protect some of the articles that have been repeat targets? There are 4-5 Coen Bros. films he's gone after repeatedly. Attempts to discuss with him have been fruitless, as he simply takes the "I didn't hear that" tack, and refuses to understand how we determine the nationality of a film. Very frustrating. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Range blocks are tricky in this circumstance, but sometimes they're workable. It's odd, because from what I see in the article histories, he seems to cite sources when they're favorable to his position and blank them when they're not. It looks like straight-up disruption to me. Page protection is a possibility, too. If more IPs show up and I can't figure out range blocks, I'll do that instead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Well hello there. It is I, the one that has "vandalized" all of these pages. Now im not giving you guys my real name but do you want to talk this over? Or are you going to block me? Your choise. 86.152.90.241 (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Evading your block will only result in further blocks. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. TOJ, let me know if more disruptive IPs show up. I've started on a few range blocks, but I need more data before they'll do much good. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Will do! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

He's back and up to the same old tricks. He apparently learned nothing from his block(s). ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked, but there's probably going to be more disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I have no doubt. Thanks for your efforts! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Here's another one: 86.142.4.196. He's not going to give up. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I did a few more blocks and protected a few pages. One thing that might help is adding citations to BFI or whatever. It won't stop the IP editor, of course, but it will attract more attention from recent changes patrollers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

A name that rings a bell for me...[edit]

Howdy! You appear to be the sagest repository of information regarding LTAers and repeat vandals; does the named "Newport Beach resident" here [4] ring a bell for you? I know I've requested revdel/oversight before of abuse directed at this person, potentially more than once, but I can't remember how long ago or anything else about the context. Anyway, if the vandal/defamer is on your radar, here's another blip for you. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's Jaredgk2008. Thanks for reporting that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Quack[edit]

I've noticed that you have reverted some problematic edits on film articles by User: Fourlaxers for including his own interpretations or original research, and have even left a couple of warnings on that user's page; I have done the same. This user came to my attention for edit warring to keep his material in Nocturnal Animals, and then after a quick check of his edits, I saw he was making similarly problematic edits over at Dave (film).

I've now also noticed that on those two pages, a new user has popped up to make the exact same type of edits with the exact same editing style after Fourlaxers has been reverted more than once. See this edit on Dave (film) [5], which was reverted, and then followed a few days later by this edit [6]. Note the same unusual random capitalization of certain words.

On Nocturnal Animals, Fourlaxers' attempts to add an interpretation to the end of the film have been reverted more than once [7]. Shortly after, a new user shows up; note the new user (whose username follows the same random-letter pattern of the Dave username) trying to insert the exact same Fourlaxers edit [8].

I'm not sure there's enough here to open an SPI, nor do I want to pick a fight with an editor who generally seems to be trying to make good-faith edits, but I also feel like this is a bit more than coincidental. Since you're an admin who has had some interaction here and also has plenty of experience with socks, I thought I'd get your read on how suspicious this is/isn't. Grandpallama (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: yeah, I think there's definitely something suspicious going on. Unfortunately, due to my previous content dispute with Fourlaxers, I'm not sure I'm the best one to handle this. I suggest you file it at WP:SPI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Another new profile showed up last night, in fact. Grandpallama (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

Thanks! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hard block - Thanks[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my email and sorry for what was probably unnecessary trouble. Possibly I had a VPN still running (although it should not have been) but in any case a restart fixed things. Greenshed (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Greenshed: if you continue to have trouble, let me know, and I might be able to do something about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Lacey Sculls wikipedia page, created by someone 2 years ago, then I edited it, then it was deleted, then I resubmitted, and was denied. May I ask kindly ask for your assistance, please?[edit]

NinjaRobotPirate (talk)

@NinjaRobotPirate:

Hello, NinjaRoboPirate! :-)

I hope this e-mail finds you well. :-) I am reaching out to you, because you have helped me tremendously before, in the past, and I want to kindly ask for your assistance once again. I don't have a lot of experience with editing, on wikipedia, but I do want to learn, and I want to improve! :-)

I am a fan of a person who is a singer, musician, and TV personality, named Lacey Sculls (formerly, Lacey Conner). Lacey Sculls had a wikipedia page, which someone had created a couple of years ago. Once day I came across the wikipedia page of Lacey Sculls, and I thought it would be fun for me to update it, since I am both a fan of hers, as well as of wikipedia. Updating her page was a learning curve for me, and I was given some great advice and help from several editors, (yourself included). However, recently I ran into some issues.

Before I get into the specifics, here is a link to the page of which I kindly ask for your help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lacey_Sculls

One editor told me relatively recently that I didn't have enough sources for the Lacey Sculls page, regarding the updates that I had made to her page. So I found a ton of sources (over 50 of them!), and I added those sources. I thought that would work for the editor that initially gave me that suggestion, but regardless of all the additional sources that I added to Lacey Scull's page, the page was deleted. First I was told that the updates that I added to Lacey Sculls' page made it read "too much like a press release". Once I was told that, I looked over it again, and I realized what the editor was saying to me. I understood how it may have looked that way, (I am a passionate fan, after all), so I made it my mission to fix it. I read several other wikipedia pages first, so that I could "get it down", in regards to the proper way to write a wikipedia page, and then I rewrote the Lacey Sculls wikipedia page to make it more neutral sounding (and LESS like a "press release"), and then I resubmitted it.

Unfortunately though, my resubmission was denied, and the Lacey Sculls wikipedia page remained deleted. This time, I was told by an editor that my sources weren't "good" sources, i.e., some were written by bloggers, etc. I told that editor that I am more than happy to remove those sources that were not deemed "good". I haven't done that yet, however, because I wanted kindly ask for advice from you, before I make any additional changes, (that might, in turn, not be the "right" changes). However, even if I were to remove the sources that aren't deemed "good" sources, that still leaves MANY sources which I already added, that are definitely, 100% legitimate publications, newspapers, magazines, etc., which were written by actual, legitimate editors, and are publications that have been in existence for well over a decade. (Several of which even have their own wikipedia pages.) Then that same editor then stated that Lacey Sculls was only "mentioned" in some of the articles of the sources that I listed, and told me that was a problem. However, many of the (legitimate) publications that I listed as sources ARE full articles that were written on Lacey Sculls - they are NOT just "mentions" of Lacey Sculls. That same editor then stated he/she felt that Lacey Sculls wasn't "noteworthy" enough to have a wikipedia page. However, Lacey Sculls was a primary character on one of the highest rated TV shows in the history of the television network Vh1, she also has been the lead singer for multiple prominent bands, she is currently listed on several different wikipedia pages written by other people, for her contributions to entertainment, music, and animal welfare & legislation. So that said, I don't understand how Lacey Sculls isn't considered "noteworthy".

I should add that Lacey Sculls (formerly Lacey Conner) had a wikipedia page that was written by someone else long before I ever came along, and her page was allowed to exist on wikipedia for a couple of years.

Lastly, I feel I should respectfully point out that I've seen many wikipedia pages that currently exist on wikipedia right now, of people who worked alongside Lacey Sculls in the SAME musical bands and in the SAME television shows that Lacey Sculls was simultaneously also a part of, and those people ARE allowed to have a wikipedia page. As a fan of hers, this confuses me why those people are considered to be "notable" enough to be on wikipedia, but Lacey Sculls is not considered "notable", when they all worked in literally the exact same musical bands and tv shows. So to sum this all up: When the editor told me there were "not enough sources", I listed MANY more sources. When that editor said that the sources I listed were "not good sources", I politely pointed out all the sources that ARE legitimate. When that same editor said Lacey Sculls is "not noteworthy", I responded by saying that Lacey Sculls is on one of the top rated TV shows of Vh1, and also is in many prominent musical bands. So my point is, I feel like this is getting personal, now, and that somehow I'm to blame for the person who I'm a huge fan of, Lacey Sculls, not getting to have her wikipedia page anymore.

My apologies for the long e-mail. What this all comes down to, is the fact that you personally have been really helpful to me in the past. I thought I could come to you, respectfully, to ask for your feedback. What am I doing wrong, here? I feel terrible that Lacey Sculls (formerly Lacey Conner) HAD a wikipedia page, and now she doesn't, and I want to fix this. If you wikipedia "search" for her maiden name, Lacey Conner, you will find that many other editors mention Lacey on several different wikipedia pages, because of the contributions that Lacey has made to both the music industry, and to the television industry. I truly appreciate your time, assistance, and consideration. Your feedback, in turn, helps me to become a better wikipedia editor. :-)

I apologize to you for writing you such a long e-mail. Thank you again. Take care.

Sincerely, Jen Sanders JSSanders JSSanders (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC) JSSanders (talk

@JSSanders: generally, there are two reasons why a page might be either declined (if submitted via articles for creation) or deleted (if created outside that process): 1) there's not enough evidence presented that the person satisfies our inclusion criteria, or 2) it reads as too promotional. Luckily, the inclusion criteria for musicians isn't too complicated. The most common way to satisfy the criteria is through coverage in mainstream media sources, such as Rolling Stone or Spin. There are other ways, too, such as having an album chart or be certified gold, winning a major award, ranking highly in a major competition, having a record deal with a major label, and being in multiple notable bands. The problem is that there's often debate over what counts as "major" (such as a major award), so you end up needing mainstream coverage anyway. If an award is given out, but nobody in the mainstream media cares, it doesn't really count as "major".

This leads to sources. Wikipedia also has rather high standards for what sources it accepts: the source needs to be staffed by professional journalists and have an editorial board. We require this to prevent fake news, press releases, self-published blogs, and user-generated content from being used to verify facts. That means sites like the IMDb, iTunes, Encyclopaedia Metallum, and Discogs are not allowed. PopMatters, NME, and Consequence of Sound, which you cited in the draft, are examples of sites that are allowed, since their articles are written by professional journalists. However, what Bearcat was complaining about when he declined your submission is that the articles you cited aren't really about Lacey Sculls so much as they mention her in passing. I haven't checked this myself – there's a lot of sources listed. But what you'd ideally want is for a news article to say something substantial about her, not just mention her name. Sometimes it helps to streamline the number of sources down a bit so that it's easier/more obvious to show that this is happening.

The other problem, though, is promotion. It's not so easy to write Wikipedia articles. You have to train yourself out of doing a lot of things that would never be considered problematic elsewhere. What I generally try to do is avoid adjectives and adverbs. Adjectives and adverbs simply don't work very well on Wikipedia. Consider this: "The hit record sold an amazingly high 100,000 copies" vs "The record sold 100,000 copies". One is promotional and will get you dinged, and the other will be quietly accepted into Wikipedia without trouble. Strip out the modifiers, especially the superlatives, and you'll have a much easier time of getting your articles published. It tough to not take this stuff personally, I know, but much of it can be fixed once you realize how Wikipedia's idiosyncratic rules work. Adjectives are evil, sources are only credible if they're written by professional journalists, and doing amazing things counts for nothing unless it's documented by the mainstream media. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate (talk)

@NinjaRobotPirate:

Hello, NinjaRoboPirate! :-) This is great information! Thank you so much for all of your wonderful feedback, and for taking the time to respond. May I kindly add though, Lacey Sculls is also tv personality (in addition to being a musician). She was a main character on one of the highest rated TV shows in Vh1 history! And again, she was a main character! How can a person be a main character in such a highly rated tv show, that aired in countries all over the world, (literally...I'm not exaggerating), yet still be considered "not notable" enough for wikipedia, even though that person had such a big impact in pop culture? Plus, in regards to Lacey Sculls' music career, most of the musicians who were in Lacey Sculls' own bands, currently have wikipedia pages of their own, yet she was front-woman. So the fact that her own bandmates have wiki pages, and she doesn't, is the other confusing part of this. And finally, Lacey Sculls (formerly Lacey Conner) is mentioned on MULTIPLE wikipedia pages - currently. So for all of these reasons, I am still confused about why her page will not be considered.

May I kindly ask one last favor of you? Would you mind taking a peak at the "draft" page that I created for Lacey Sculls, and let me know what you think? Again, her page already existed long before I ever added to it. I was building on her page that some other person created about 2 years ago - and everything was fine, then. It only got deleted when I came along, which sucks because I am such a big fans of hers. I feel like I did all of the things that you mentioned (watching out for to many adjectives and adverbs, etc), posting many reliable sources that DO talk about her in the full article (in addition to a few that only do "mentions"). Maybe you could make a couple of changes to her page, to make it fit the standards of what wikipedia editors are looking for? That way I could learn from the changes that you make(?), if you would be so kind(?) I apologize for taking so much of your time, but I truly appreciate your help and want to do this the right way. Here is the link to the draft page that I'm referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lacey_Sculls

Thanks so much, NinjaRobotPirate! I really appreciate your time and help! :-)

Sincerely, Jen Sanders JSSanders (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC) JSSanders (talk)

@JSSanders: the inclusion criteria for actors is a bit vague, as it talks about about "multiple significant roles", which again brings up issues of how exactly to define that. It sounds to me like being a main character on a top-rated program on a major cable network would count toward it, but, again, the easiest way to show that would probably be through coverage in mainstream media. For example, this article at Entertainment Weekly is about Norman Reedus and his thoughts about The Walking Dead. I've tried to fix up a few pages on industrial bands and musicians lately, such as old Ministry albums, but I'm far from being an expert on the topic. I can take a look at the draft later, though. Maybe I can see something easy to help with. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


NinjaRobotPirate (talk)

@NinjaRobotPirate:

Hi there, NinjaRoboPirate! Oh wow, thank you SO much. I really, really appreciate your offer (to take a look at the Lacey Sculls Draft page a little later.) That's really, really kind of you, and it would mean a lot to me. I'm sure you've got a thousand other things going on besides this - so I'm grateful to you for that offer.

I just looked over the Lacey Sculls page one more time, and I really do feel like it is written with a neutral tone. I know that the first time around, I was told it read "too much like a press release", but I understood that, and I really honestly feel that I "fixed" that specific problem. There was one sentence (currently) that said that the Lords of Acid tour she was on/sang for was "successful", but that's probably the only subjective thing in there. I really did try to keep it strictly factual.

On a side note, that's cool that you like industrial bands! I like many of them too. I LOVE Nine Inch Nails. They're my all-time favorite. It's funny you just happened to mention Ministry specifically, because I'm a huge fan of Ministry too. And to connect it back to this wikipedia page, I actually was first introduced to Lacey Sculls because she (and her band Nocturne) were opening for Ministry, and I loved the show. Then I saw Lacey Sculls many years later on Vh1 for an entire season, then again on a different Vh1 show, and I loved those tv shows too. She, and the show itself, were wildly entertaining! Anyway, I'm just bummed that the whole reason I even did this at all (back to wikipedia) is because I'm such a big fan of Lacey's and I just happened upon her wikipedia page one day. I thought it'd be "cool" to contribute to it, and I'd never contributed to a wikipedia page before. But what ended up happening instead is I somehow screwed it up and got the whole thing deleted. But with that said, I still don't understand WHY it was deleted all-together, when it looks "non-subjective" to me.

Also - back to industrial bands - I've been told that in order to have a wikipedia page, bands and artists/singers should have a certain level of "stature" to be included on wikipedia, and I completely understand that - but generally speaking, bands in the industrial scene don't get major label deals, major awards, or reviews in Rolling Stone. That's actually quite rare, in the industrial scene itself. That said though, bands in the industrial scene who currently DO have wikipedia pages up, right now, including: Combichrist, 9Electric, Panzer AG, The Bubblemen, Acumen Nation, Jarboe, 16 Volt, Die Form, Poptone, Pigface, The Clay People, Bleak (band), and the list goes on, are all bands that I personally like, but certainly have never appeared in Rolling Stone, Spin, or anything similar, or won a major award. But Lacey Sculls has been on two major tv shows on a major tv network, and played/sung at many of sold-out shows on tours in most of the major cities in the country multiple times, singing for bands that ARE very popular in the industrial scene. Plus, her music appeared in a major motion picture film starring three A-list actors, she won a Clearchannel radio station "local" award more than once, and she is currently credited on several other existing wikipedia pages (under her maiden name Lacey Conner) for contributions to music and/or television, she also appeared in a documentary that was filmed by an award-winning director (having to do with animal welfare) along with other A-list entertainers (and I'm saying "A-list" in the literal sense...not just because I "like" those actors), plus Lacey Sculls also spoke at a press conference at the State Capitol of California with a state senator by her side, discussing a piece of legislation to help shelter animals - which was filmed and is currently on youtube. In my humble opinion, there is so much evidence of "notability" for Lacey Sculls, certainly more than (without trying to sound like a jerk) the bands that I mentioned previously, above. But all those industrial bands have wikipedia pages, even though they have all done far less than Lacey Sculls, according to wikipedia rules. (One of the bands I mentioned above even lists only one single source, and their "external link" is myspace.) So, that's allowed to exist on wikipedia? And Lacey Sculls is not? It just seems unfair, and that there is some kind of double standard going on. (not meaning to get "conspiracy theory" on you). The bottom line: I feel that, either, (A) ALL of those bands that I mentioned, and others like them, would have to have their wikipedia pages deleted too, (which of course, I wouldn't want), or (B) Lacey Sculls' page would have to be included on wikipedia too, if those other bands' pages are to remain included. If the rules are going to be SO strict, then they should be strict for EVERYONE, but right now that's not what's happening. I feel like these very high standards that Lacey Sculls' page is being held to, are set much lower in regards to the other bands, musicians, and tv personalities that currently DO have wikipedia pages. (I hope my tone is remaining friendly. I don't mean to speak disrespectfully, and my apologies, if I am.) Lastly, in regards to the sources that I included on the Lacey Sculls page, I'll admit that I may have gone a little overboard in including every single thing I could find that had Lacey Scull's name in it, regarding articles, etc, however, that doesn't mean that there AREN'T also a ton of legitimate sources that I included in there too, (for instance, in the sources for Lacey Sculls, I included the TV network Vh1 - which she was on for over two seasons, also The Dallas Observer, Cleveland Pride, The Herald of Sharon, PA, Chicago Music Guide, and many others, which are 100% definitely "legitimate" publications, newspapers, etc. - i.e., they're definitely not "bloggers" or anything even close to that) - and these are also sources where the entire article is written only about Lacey Sculls, (and are not just "mentions", like some of the other sources that I ignorantly included). So my question is: Should I simply go back and just DELETE all of the sources that I listed on her page - the ones that are considered "not credible" - so that the ones that I included that ARE credible, can stand out? Is that the solution? If so, then I am more than willing to do that - no problem. I just wanted to ask an experienced editor first, (such as yourself), before I start deleting a bunch of sources or do some other thing in an attempt to "fix" her page, that in turn may end up biting me in the butt even harder. ;-) So in an effort for me to learn and improve, (because I also do love wikipedia), I would be INCREDIBLY appreciative and grateful for your help. :-) That would be awesome! If you were to take a peak at her Draft page and make some changes, and if I could then just SEE the difference between what I original did with the page, and what a more experienced editor (like yourself )does with the page, then I can see and compare the differences, and then I can learn from that. (if that makes any sense). Anyway, with all that said - Thanks again! I truly appreciate you taking the time to talk to me, and to walk me through this process. That's very, very kind of you, as I know it takes up your time. Just to save you the trouble of having to go back and look again, here is the link to the Lacey Sculls draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lacey_Sculls Feel free (obviously, you don't need my permission) to make any changes to the Lacey Sculls page that you see fit. That would be so helpful, and I will make a huge effort to learn and improve, based on that. (And just to avoid confusion, Lacey Sculls is going by "Lacey Sculls" now, and has been for several years. However, on wikipedia, she is currently mentioned and credited on multiple other wiki pages as "Lacey Conner" which was her maiden name, but is still the same person. Thanks again, Jen Sanders JSSanders (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC) JSSanders (talk)

@JSSanders: Yeah, I like industrial metal and electro-industrial, especially stuff from the late 1980s and early 1990s. That was probably the period when industrial was most popular, and, sadly, when most of the coverage existed, too. That means a lot of bands get "grandfathered", you might say, since they made headlines back then. I did some minor fixes to the draft, but I didn't change anything major. Some of the sources probably should be removed, and others could probably be replaced with better ones. I'd be careful about mass-deleting stuff, though, because, like you said, it could come back to haunt you. The teahouse is a good place to ask for assistance and advice on drafts. I could do another pass and try to replace some of the sources if you want. It might take a little while to read through them all, though. One final thing to keep in mind is that sources don't need to be available online or freely accessible. Of course, those tend to be a lot more difficult to find. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

One of your blocks[edit]

Greetings, NinjaRobotPirate. Looking through Cat:unblock, I found a request for this user. I am not able to see the reason for a six-month block. Their edits don't appear to be unambiguous vandalism, and we wouldn't give out 6 months for a first block anyhow. Am I missing something? Or was this just a wrong click? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it was a rangeblock, never mind. Since I'm clearly clueless about such technicalities, perhaps I can leave you with the problem of unblocking a single IP within that range. Vanamonde (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I've added userlinks for the blocked range, above. One of the affected people asked for unblock in August, stating that "this UP is a cellular data hotspot, which is heavily shared among lots of people". The unblock request was declined by User:Yamla, correctly in my opinion. I remember some time ago blocking a static IP hosted at the New York Public Library, because there was a very persistent vandal who used that as their main access to Wikipedia. In this case, if the vandal has given up their activities generally then an unblock might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
There was a stream of vandalism from an LTA on that range. I don't think unblocking would be wise. There isn't really an easy way to deal with this situation, unfortunately. Semi-protection works to some extent, but dozens of articles would need to be protected, and it wouldn't stop new ones from being targeted. Range blocks are one of the few ways to keep this under control. I'd tell the IP editors to create an account. I can change the block rationale to point to {{rangeblock}}, which might be more helpful in giving them advice about their options. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Page Protection Issue[edit]

Dear NinjaRobotPirate - writing with respect to your page protection on the following page: Ravi_Shankar_(poet) I was attempting to add details of Mr. Shankar’s upcoming stint as the Georgia Poetry Circuit Poet, a very prestigious distinction. The details are here and I wonder if you could add it to his page?

http://www.berry.edu/gpc/

My larger question has to do with the actual page itself. I have followed the ongoing edit battle with some unrest because I am new to Wikipedia and curious how your process works. I was always told that you strive to be neutral and objective. However in this case I am very confused as someone with clear bias continues to remove notable, sourced references and yet unreliable sources are preserved.

For example, links to Mr. Shankar’s work on National Public Radio, PBS, the BBC, The Best American Poetry Blog etc. are being removed (I guess because added by a sock puppet?) yet links from unreliable sources like a student newspaper (Central Recorder) and right wing newspaper (Connecticut Sun) are kept as reliable news sources?

How is a grant from the Rhode Island State Council of the Arts (very prestigious) able to be included but not the exact same agency in Connecticut (CT Comission in Arts and Tourism — also very prestigious). I can tell you both awards are highly competitive and notable.

My larger concern has to do with what appears to be a racialized form of selective editing by Wiki Editors. I followed Mr. Shankar’s story closely and also have read the policies on the BLP noticeboard about biographies of living persons. It states very clearly that information HAS to be verifiable. Therefore I cannot understand when continual reference to theft of school funds is being added to the page with the justification that a Senator on FOX news erroneously said that to be the case. There is no proof or evidence of this and I believe it should be removed. Far as I can tell this is an out-and-out lie. Most of the other criminal charges referenced on the page were dismissed and the legislation brought by Senator Witkos was a failed bill that didn’t even leave the floor of the state house of reps. I wonder about the appropriateness of listing those on the page?

Whatever the case, I always thought that Wikipedia tried to be objective and to get it right. But looking at he history of the page, I see a concerted effort to besmirch the reputation of a private citizen and to suppress important content, including awards won, books published, media appeared on and performances given. The addition of this material is being dismissed as sock puppetry but isn’t the most important thing to get it right?

Largely I just want to add the Georgia Poetry Circuit to his page as that’s important.

Thanks for your help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.254.40 (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

You need to stop creating sock puppets and evading your block. Post an unblock request from User:Ruralpuritan, disclose what other accounts you've created on Wikipedia, and you may be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Until then, any edits you make will be reverted, and the accounts will be blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
You might be interested in this post by one of the socks in the initial investigation. No matter how you slice it, the human being behind all of the socks should not be permitted to edit the page at all. This issue has been goes back years. And the SiphoB account you CU blocked today goes back even further. It frustrates me the this individual accuses me of racism, when all I am trying to do is maintain some integrity to the article and its sources, and follow our policies on COI and sockpuppets. Anyway - I do hope you are having a good day! ScrpIronIV 21:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Ugh, I didn't see that. What a pain. I guess I should add the page to my watchlist, then. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there - I suggest you have a look at the false claim that Shankar was guilty of theft of school funds which is simply not true and should be removed from the page according to BLP guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.17.29.163 (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

If there are untrue, defamatory statements in the article, you're right that they should be removed. You can suggest this be done through {{Edit semi-protected}} on Talk:Ravi Shankar (poet). You can also raise the issue at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I can help you with this if you would like. However, I don't know anything about the article or the person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

213.129.33.80[edit]

{{help me}} Block 213.129.33.80 please in block evasion time 31 hours. 79.111.80.221 (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

If that's block evasion, it's not obvious enough for me to see who it is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Complaint[edit]

I just lodged a complaint against you for abuse of admin authority. Vincent (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added LonghairMegalibrarygirlTonyBallioniVanamonde93
removed Allen3Eluchil404Arthur RubinBencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gary the Goat[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gary the Goat. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yo Gabba Gabba![edit]

Hi, just a thought, really; the IP has reverted four times on this article, whilst the editor (User:BeywheelzLetItRip) has reverted five times, but the IP is the only one blocked. I'm not convinced this is particularly fair, especially as the IPs edits were not blatant vandalism, but deleting unsourced material (which I also suspect may be a copyvio, but that's a bit complex as it came through Wikia). Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. It looked like disruptive blanking to me, but maybe I was wrong to block. I can unblock the IP and ask both to go to the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks :) Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:T-Mobile Arena[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:T-Mobile Arena. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Lnblock10[edit]

Hi NRP, recently learned you were a CU. Thanks for making the supreme sacrifice. :D May I please trouble you to confirm that Lnblock10 is a sock of Padmalakshmisx and to look for any undiscovered accounts? I usually run these past Ponyo, but she works so hard, y'know? The standard indicators are there for Padma including familiarity with editing and the perfunctory user page creation to throw off detection. Thanks mate, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Arbcom seems like it would be the supreme sacrifice, but, yeah, it does seem like every added permission makes Wikipedia a little more stressful and less fun.  Confirmed:
I don't see anything else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, I meant sacrifice in the sense of 1) having to divulge your identity to Wikipedia, and 2) more work. For me, neither is acceptable. Face-smile.svg Thanks for the sleuting, mate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I've been kind of lazy and trying to stick to the easy stuff, honestly. I think the CU tool would be more fun if it had a minigame where you block waves of vandals who attack Wikipedia, kind of like Space Invaders. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thanks for your help with the my table. The original list is sorted by first name so I was going to keep it like that, but have decided to go with your sorting suggestion. --dashiellx (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Need a WP:REFUND for a COMMONS file to place only locally on EN-wiki[edit]

Hey NRP, I need a WP:REFUND of the just-deleted File:GoodbyeMrChipsTrailer8.jpg as an infobox image for Terry Kilburn (child actor from 1938–1946). I don't know who uploaded it or why it was posted on Commons rather than locally (it's fair-use locally because the image needs to be from his child acting days and finding a replacement would be difficult because he's now 90 years old). I'm asking you because you're an admin who sometimes edits film articles. If you don't know how to do this or don't have the expertise around the policies thereof, perhaps you can help me find an admin who does or a noticeboard for this request. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: it looks like it was deleted on Commons, which means I can't really do anything (I have no permissions on Commons). You'd have to make a request at Commons:Commons:Undeletion requests, or I guess ask someone from Category:Wikimedia Commons administrators. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:University of Notre Dame[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:University of Notre Dame. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Cineplex[edit]

Did you get my responses to your October 2017 and November 2017 complaints? Cineplex (talk) 5:30 PM, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, just add inline citations when you change or add content to Wikipedia. You'll be fine if you do that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gillian Keegan[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gillian Keegan. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

How do we know when consensus has been reached-=[edit]

I'm having trouble figuring out how long I should leave my RFC up, before I just count the votes and add/not add the production wording to the manual of style. I was thinking about a week should be good enough. Too long? too short? --Deathawk (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:RFCEND has some advice about that. Typically, RFCs run for 30 days, after which a bot removes the RFC tag. Someone then lists it at WP:ANRFC, and a closer determines the consensus. RFCs can be closed early or by an involved editor, but that tends to invite drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

CartoonboyG[edit]

Hi NRP, so this brand new account left an "Amazing Job on all your hard work. I Love You." message on the talk page of a user I blocked for persistent unsourced contributions, who was also using another (declared) account to submit unsourced content. Needless to say, I suspect that RabbitGirlWendy is a sock of the blocked user. Think I should create an SPI? I don't mind doing it, because I'm curious. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks obvious enough to block, so I did. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Searching sandboxes[edit]

Greetings! Is there a way to dig for particular terms in sandboxes via WP's search function or some other method? It'd be a great way to check whenever this persistent sock creates a new account, since he always pastes his stupid sandbox into it straight away. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mac Dreamstate: you could limit a search to only find pages that start with "User:". For example, this search turns up my own sandbox, and this one turns up the blocked user's sandbox. I've heard that Wikipedia may soon get new and better tools to find sock puppets. I'll certainly be very happy if that's true. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Nice, cheers—that's just the ticket. No doubt he'll make another account in a few days, so at least if he's dumb or brazen enough to paste the sandbox again, the quacking will end quicker. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If you would please follow through the chain of events.[edit]

If you did you would see that my contribution to the facts was labelled as nothing more than "shit..." Which is both uncouth and unnecessary. If you would like to read this little dialogue on the fact that IPs are human also you might see a running theme on Wikipedia as to why I've never bothered to register an account as its a self fulfilling prophecy. Anyway even if I filed a request for deletion I'd run into the usual being roadblocked by "consensus" of whoever bothered to turn up on the day.

I'll put it to you like this. The article in question is quote "shit" unquote. As a person of fairly sound academic ability with some post-nominals and honors on top... I'd be reasonably certain I'd know at least where to go looking for relevant content on the matter... The notability of the article in question beyond pub talk in Australia is questionable at best. I'm not going to waste my time on a straw poll of whoever turns up on the day to determine relevance. That system is flawed from the beginning particularly in cases such as these.

I took it on myself to expedite the process. I'm sorry I wasted both your and my time. --2001:8003:645C:9200:297E:9524:2142:D6D (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rihanna[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rihanna. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Folkloristics[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Folkloristics. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Andy Samberg[edit]

Why would you change Andy Samberg's birthday citing it as unreliable it had literally been there ever since his wikipedia page has been around and that date has not changed in almost 5 years. There is not a single source anywhere that states his birthday being any date other than August 18. Why the sudden motivation of having a random spur of the moment to remove his birthdate citing unsourced, when almost every birthdate for most BLPs are unsourced. Just look at biography.com which is 100% reliable and not a bloody user generated website, which states Andy Sambergs birthday as August 18, 1978. Stuv3 (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Stuv3: content that is unsourced or poorly-sourced in a BLP should be removed immediately. If there's a reliable source for the content, it can be restored. Sites like the IMDb, despite your belief to the contrary, are not reliable. The burden to show proof is on the person who wants to add content; I do not have to go searching the internet to find evidence of his birth date. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly-sourced content to biographies of living people, you may be blocked from editing. This is important to get right, and we can't just copy whatever some random website says. This has repercussions for real people. If you don't understand this, you shouldn't be editing biographical articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: Ok well tell me right now is biography.com reliable if so then i will change it. Cos if i change it without warning you you'll probably straight away block me. Stuv3 (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@Stuv3: According to this article, biography.com is now operated by SAY Media, rather than A&E Networks, who made the Biography TV series and channel. It's very difficult to find any information on who writes the content at biography.com, but it's probably OK. It's still branded by A&E, which I expect means that there's some kind of editorial oversight. This search turns up a few discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard, each of which express at least some degree of confidence that it's reliable. The IMDb is unusable because its content is submitted by readers, just like Wikipedia. This is also why we don't allow blogs; they are generally self-published and have no editorial control. In a BLP, we can generally only cite sources that are written by professional journalists or academics who are under editorial control. You can't just cite random websites, or, worse yet, add unsourced content. If you have questions about a source, I suggest you ask at the aforementioned noticeboard. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This guy[edit]

Hey NRP, this guy is questionable to me. He popped up on Nov 4th, went right to user page creation (to throw off redlink scrutiny, perhaps?), then boom, is familiar with obscure infobox parameters, citing, then a week later creates Nagmati etc. Has the aroma of socking, but I don't have an obvious suspect. He's been blowing up Padmavati (film). The last sock to edit there was NineTimes, who was CUd by Bbb23 as a sock of Barthateslisa, but Almeda has been flagging all his edits as minor, which NineTimes did not do. So, not sure what to do. I could very well be super-paranoid and my suspicions might be baseless. Face-smile.svg Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I see interactions with Xxanna94xx, although, no obvious disruption is being committed as far as I know. Xxanna94xx has lots of incorrectly-labeled minor edits as well, and also created this sandbox. The "Hello!" message is the same as Almeda's user page, but that could just be a coincidence. I don't think it is, though. Their edit summaries are also very similar. See here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: have you seen this tool? It shows all the editors that have edited a list of articles. It can sometimes root out a possible master when you give a few obscure articles. It looks to me like Kayla994, Almeda64, and Xxanna94xx may be related (see EIA report). This is starting to get a little complicated, so maybe you could write up a short SPI case with a few diffs. Shouldn't be too hard to find them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Whoa, I wonder when that tool was written. I pitched an idea for that at the village pump a few years ago.[9] Twice. Nobody seemed interested. Face-smile.svg I'll work on the SPI a little later. Thanks mate, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
It's pretty new – less than a month. I was pretty excited to see it, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
SPI created: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kayla994. Curious who this is going to turn out to be. This is one of those weird ones where we don't know if there's been any obvious policy violation yet. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Reposted request[edit]

is this the appropriate place to put a request for. Review of a block on my account?I surmise that it stems from my attempts to copy 17th Century king Charles female names for a friend who just bought one yesterday. I have no idea what I may have done wrong, but I use Wikipedia for research on my history publications. I'm far too unsophisticated to have any ability to commit evil deeds...just Civil War research. Can you assist me in removing this block? If you can advise me about what you think I did, I'd be pleased to have a chance to clear this up. Wikipedia is a far too valuable tool to me to have problems like this with my account. Thanks for your consideration. Charles W Harris. I forgot to say in clear: HELP NINJA ROBERT PIRATE!

(talk page stalker) * I have reposted this under WP:AGF. Previous placement had broken the archive linking. ScrpIronIV 14:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ScrapIronIV. @Charles W Harris: I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Were you blocked under a different user name? You're obviously not blocked under this username. If you tell me what account is blocked, I might be able to do something. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. Legobot (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Interaction Timeline alpha demo is ready for testing[edit]

Hello,

The Interaction Timeline alpha version is ready for testing. The Anti-Harassment Tools team appreciates you spending a few minutes to try out the tool and let us know if there is value in displaying the interactions in a vertical timeline instead of the approach used with the existing interaction analysis tools.

Also we interested in learning about which additional functionality or information we should prioritize developing.

Comments can be left on the discussion page here or on meta. Or you can share your ideas by email.

Thank you,

For the Anti-Harassment Tools Team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:His Dark Materials[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:His Dark Materials. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Please check out this user called Moon-Shot![edit]

I think this account is another sockpuppet of User:Escapement. The reason I believe this is because I get this guy persistently following me now at Wikipedia, Wikia, YouTube, and IMDb.com, who always edits pages to do with movies I'm in. Note that he edited Night Closes and Redcon-1 right away after registering, as both are listed in my filmography. Why would a random user find and edit an article less than 3 days old? He also left a comment at a page on the FANDOM (Wikia) related 'Acting Wiki' named Peter Anderson (concerning me) and had links in a malicious comment - including one that lead to my Wikipedia contributions. He is a stalker from New Jersey who has abused me for months. I'm going to talk to somebody soon about seeing what I can do about him, as he has vandalized pages, uploaded my work to torrent sites, degraded and pestered me for quite a while.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moon-Shot

PeterMan844 (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

 Confirmed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for banning the account. Although now I'm starting to think he's not in New Jersey...but in New Zealand, because a lot of his suspended accounts have edits on Kiwi related articles (I know that Frankie Stevens is a New Zealand entertainer and Jon Steven's brother) and he posted under an IP address linked to the company Xtra once. I reported him, but nobody responded. I doubt this is a proxy, as it's very hard to find working proxies in New Zealand. I should know, because I bought tracks on 7digital ages ago, and had to use a proxy to do so, and I have never gotten easy access to my purchase history to download the tracks again with the new version of Hola. Of course, it could just be a funny coincidence that he edits on New Zealand related articles, but I doubt it. I'm not sure where he's from, exactly, as I think he has a habit of using proxies on the other websites he has abused me on, which would make him impossible to trace. It's hard to find working proxies for Wikipedia, though, which is probably why he has to sign up and edit with his own IP address. I'm not exactly computer literate, but I've grown wise to their tricks.

His abuse of me stems from old interactions we had on Resident Evil message boards, and those forums have a lot of nasty users. I'll probably have to stop using this ID and use another name, as he knows what articles I like to edit. Usually, it is ones about Sylvester Stallone, WWE, Resident Evil and music. It's a pain having to report him when he just comes back again.

At first, I thought he was this guy in New Jersey, because he put a name of a guy I know from there in a post once and then that person who had his name exposed, acted odd afterwards, which means it's either him or somebody he is in cahoots with. Whoever it really is, I've had nothing but hassle from him for months. I don't suppose you are allowed to give away his IP address. I'd really like to file an abuse report with his ISP, because he has stalked me to Wikia, GetSatisfaction, here, YouTube, IMDb.com and various forums. I don't wanna play detective with him. I'd rather just be left alone, but I don't think he's going anywhere.

I also had him adding my films to a database, subscribing to IMDb.com for when videos I'm in update their release dates, and the videos that were already on my channels, somehow ended up on torrent sites. I may be able to a take out a restraining order, as to get one of those in the UK, you need to have been harassed by a person at least three times, and he has did it for most of this year, so that should qualify for having one granted. I'm not sure what the rules are overseas about Internet abuse, but I know he has committed a lot of criminal acts. So anyway, I hope this summary helped you to identify him better in the future.

Regards, Peter.PeterMan844 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: I meant to say that it's hard to get New Zealand specific proxies. Elsewhere, it is a breeze for a person in (example) the US to get a US proxy. Yet Wikipedia has most proxies blocked, so anybody in New Zealand is screwed, as it's not that simple.PeterMan844 (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the site's privacy policy strictly forbids me from revealing any private information, such as locations or IP addresses. Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't that good at handling harassment and cyberbullying. You can always report problems or issues here, though (or at WP:ANI if you want wider input from other administrators). You might consider consulting a lawyer if you want to know what your options are for dealing with online harassment. There may also be useful online resources, but I'm not familiar with them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. I just wish I had kept a note of that IP address, in case I needed to write to Xtra again.PeterMan844 (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: I found it. Cheers!PeterMan844 (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with Personal Attacks Positivally[edit]

You're really great at dealing with Personal Attacks on a positive attitude. That's never easy for me. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

When I was younger, it was a lot harder for me to avoid making personal attacks online. Then, I read that a good way to communicate more politely was to write two drafts. In the first one, you say whatever you want, then delete it. In the second draft, now that you've got all the angry words out of your system, you can be more polite. It works pretty well. You can usually tell when I don't do that – my messages start to become more curt and irritable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I may try that. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:British Jews[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:British Jews. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Benito Mussolini[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Benito Mussolini. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

BPM (Beats per Minute)[edit]

Can you deal with this article's editor who keeps on restoring synthesis like he did here and here? I kept reminding him to support the claim that it's a critically acclaimed production with a reliable third party source but refuses to do so, saying that RT and Metacritic already support it. Maybe gently remind another editor involved in this revision. Slightlymad 04:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: if I do anything, it's likely to explode into drama. I just got into an argument with him over a similar issue at Peter Rabbit (film), where he edit warred to restore synthesis (Talk:Peter Rabbit (film)#Country). Best solution, I think, would be to raise the issue at WP:ANI and request attention from a less involved administrator. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)