User talk:NinjaRobotPirate

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

Help Please...[edit]

Hello NRP, Normally I wouldn't be doing this, but a user has been trying to SLANDER my name by claiming that I'm doing meat puppetry. This user has been making some very rude and UNDUE accusations about me in the past and I've been able to explain myself. However this time they've gotten other people involved with this sort of thing. I would NEVER do any pf the things that the user is accusing me of, and if I did do it I didn't know that I did. Again I'm soo sorry to try to put you in this sort of situation since the last time I pointed out something like this to another user they haven't spoken to me since. I just don't know what else to do about this...--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: I'm sorry you're having trouble; where is the conflict taking place? Can you link a diff? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Talk Page WatcherThe problem is that this is pretty blatant meatpuppetry. Paleface Jack went to an off-wiki site and explicitly solicited cryptozoology interested people to come to Wikipedia, even going so far as to warn them to Beware of that one user I mentioned, he has a habit of reverting a lot of edits and the like. I sill need to find a way to deal with him. - I would suspect talking about either myself or Bloodofox. Asking people at another site to come and help you with an extant conflict, even providing directions about specific editors to respond antagonistically toward, is the dictionary definition of meat puppetry. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Off-wiki posts like that can be tricky. One has to phrase them carefully to avoid accusations of canvassing and meat puppetry. It seems OK to recruit people who are interested in the topic to help improve articles. But, yeah, it's a bad idea to bring up content disputes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I was not soliciting off site. That was NEVER my intention. My intentions were merely to try and get more help expanding those articles in a legitimate way. The way I wrote it might have sounded bad but that was merely by accident. I'm not that kind of guy to cause problems. BloodofFox has been trying to slander my name for a while. Everytime I voice in my thoughts on things when it comes to cryptozoology, he ALWAYS brings this up as a way of degrading the validity of my thought on the issue, claiming that I'm just another "Cryptozoologist fanatic". He has been trying multiple times to degrade the Cryptozoologist WikiProjects, namely getting them merged with Mythology/Folklore for several years now. All attempts had failed and he was secretly mass removing crypto categories from articles without any consensus/discussion whatsoever. I had previously had enlisted the help of Darkknight since I've never dealt with this situation before and I didn't know if it was bad or not. It lead to the unfortunate feud that has been happening ever since. I have really been trying to have patience with this user for a while now but when he goes about slandering my name, bringing up stuff like what has been shown as being proof that I'm some sort of canvasser/meat puppeteer than that's taking it way too far. I never ever intended for that off site post to be a point of influence merely a recruiting post to help get people involved with legitimately expanding those articles in accordance to Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards. and that was only because there were no users that were active or interested in working on those articles. Again I'm SOOOO sorry for bringing you into this mess.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Be that as it may, going off-wiki and then making statements that, at the very least, are visibly identical to soliciting people to help you in the content dispute with Bloodofox is enough like canvassing to warrant the warnings you received from me and others. I would suggest you'd be best advised to avoid asking people off-wiki to help you deal with Bloodofox. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) I am inclined to view this as an unfortunate lapse in judgement, but one that was very probably made in good faith. @Paleface Jack Please don't do that again. Other aspects of this dispute may need to be resolved either through mediation or at WP:DRN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks man. I don't plan on doing that again. As for the other issues, what do you think the best recourse would be for a situation like this?--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, if everyone tried to assume more good faith of each other, that would probably help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Tis true. Thanks for the help/advice.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, NinjaRobotPirate![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Vanessa Kirby[edit] There you go. Now you make the change if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the IMDb is not a reliable source. It's user-generated, much like Wikipedia, which means that we can't accept it for citations on Wikipedia. Thank you for taking the time to discuss the matter, though. I'll give it a look myself to see if I can find a better source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The CheckUser's Barnstar, A barnstar for you! :))[edit]

Checkuser Barnstar Hires.png The Checkuser's Barnstar
I, the IP, hereby give and notify you of your immense Contributions to clear Wikipedia from disruptive/lusty/single-motive socks. Your data for socks' record and status of each one is just ultra-mind-blowing. Pure facts no bullshit. To summarise you're plain awesome!!! (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for saying so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.



  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Username block[edit]

Hi NinjaRobotPirate. In case you missed it, this was a soft block, so they were basically asked by the blocking admin to create a new account. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, actually, I did misread that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


In November you blocked:

for block evasion.

You also did a range block on

I am seeing what appears to be further block evasion by:

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Reblocked. Wow, I remember PETSCII. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
It's actually coming back.[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Ha, I'll have to check that out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This again[edit]

DarkKnight2149 01:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like they're already blocked. DarkKnight2149 01:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't had the time to edit much lately, but I just checked on Leatherface (2017 film), and it does look like the vandal is spamming that article again. Yesterday, I noticed the account listed above in my notifications when it started going on a frivolous "Thank" spree like some of the previous socks. DarkKnight2149 04:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I can semi-protect the article if more show up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[edit]

I have modified your block on to allow account creation. Parts of this range have been blocked over the past year and it's caused quite a backlog from the range at WP:ACC. Could I suggest maybe looking at a smaller range like -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Can't hurt to try a narrower one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[edit]

You blocked this IP a little over a month ago for block evasion. Today, the user is changing birthdates from sourced versions and adding unsourced exact dates where only the year has previously been provided. Dunno if this is consistent with prior misbehavior; I'm about to have to get on a phone call and haven't been able to get all the damage reverted yet but thought I'd bring to your attention that if this is a static IP, the user's back up to shenanigans. Happy 2019! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, same person – disruption is the same. Re-blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt. I'm sorry that I was so irritable the last time we interacted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
No problem, my memory is bad ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 14:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

IP sock returns[edit]

NinjaRobertPirate, on 7 January you blocked as a sock after they nominated University of London to be a GA. They returned this morning and repeated the attempted GAN. Perhaps a significantly longer block is in order? BlueMoonset (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Kiera Chaplin[edit]

Hi there, I've been trying to update Kiera Chaplin's page by adding a few things since the page is out of date. I wanted to put her current bio as well fix one or two other things that are not totally correct. I'm new to this so how can I get it to stay on? Many thanks, Walter Smith Jackson (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Smith Jackson: the text that you added to Kiera Chaplin was not only promotional ("This young lady is genuine 'Hollywood Royalty,' with a grade 'A' artistic DNA heritage") but also copy-pasted from other websites. You can't just copy-paste what other people have written and use it here – there are international laws against that. Text that you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. It further must be neutrally written. I don't know why anyone would describe some random actor as "Hollywood royalty" unless they were paid to do so, so you should also read WP:PAID. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for unblock[edit]

Hi NinjaRobotPirate. It seems like you are reviewing unblock requests so I am asking if you can check my unblock request at here. Thank you. (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you absolve me from this allegation of "block evasion"? I think as a checkuser, you can check if I ever edited under any other account. I am not sure how Ivanvector[2] came to this conclusion when I have never used any account on Wikipedia ever. (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't prove that you never edited as a registered editor; that's beyond the ability of the checkuser tool. Have you tried to email the checkusers in question? I think that would be the best first step. If you can't, you could try emailing the functionary mailing list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Do you think you could help?[edit]

I want to put an infobox on my user page, but it's quite difficult. I've been looking at infoboxes of articles in edit mode, and I do believe I 'might be able to work it out', but some assistance would be nice for me. If you are unable to help, then that's fine with me. As I said, I believe I would be able to work it out, but... Damn I'm gonna repeat myself here, aren't I? But yea. I'll continue working on it until you reply. Thanks🙌 GOLDIEM J (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

(I actually forgot to sign it but it did it automatically) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GOLDIEM J (talkcontribs) 10:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@GOLDIEM J: what infobox are you trying to use? Some of them can be tricky if you're unfamiliar with them, but you can usually just copy-paste them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok then. Thank you. I'll continue on it😀 GOLDIEM J (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Back again[edit]

The Malaysian vandal/stalker just surfaced at ANI. DarkKnight2149 15:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm stuck[edit]

Remember I talked about infoboxes? I don't know what's going on here. I'm trying to add a residence section, but it won't show up. Would you happen to know why? Did I do something wrong, or is it some kind of bug? GOLDIEM J (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You might try asking at the help desk. There are some people there who are very skilled at templates and infoboxes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Untitled message from ReverendBhindu[edit]

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, thank you for your message. I read Mr. Rourke's book and I am researching his career as an admirer of his work. This is a fun project for me. I am not being paid. I am compiling data which I am documenting carefully. Based on the guidelines you shared I do not believe I have a conflict. I welcome feedback to ensure compliance. Thank you again. --ReverendBhindu (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReverendBhindu (talkcontribs)

Second adminly opinion[edit]

Hey NRP, happy new year. I need a second adminly opinion on something.

This guy, Juanfranciscoposse, shows up to drop a lot of demands on talk pages. "Fix this, this, this, make this a featured article!" "I'm not asking politely to do this. This HAS TO BE DONE." OK, assuming the best of faith, maybe there is some value to someone pointing out what needs to be fixed at One Piece? He also claims to have a previous account that doesn't seem to exist.

A few hours later, he creates a second account to do the same thing. "The article has to be considered a featured article. I'm not asking politely to do this, this HAS TO BE DONE."

And, he refuses to sign any of his posts. I have big questions about their competency, and I kind of feel this might be trolling. What do you think? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this is Samsungx635 (talk · contribs). Compare: Samsungx635 vs Juanfranciscoposse, Samsungx635 vs Juanfranciscoposse. Also, both go to Talk:Main Page to make edit requests. I blocked both accounts mentioned above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, amigo. This is the problem with always assuming good faith. Face-wink.svg Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019[edit]

(Personal attack removed)

You're going to have to help me remember who you are and why you're mad at me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, sorry (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC on administrative reverts of good edits (based on behavior)[edit]

You may be interested in this RfC. Or you may be not. (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


I'm not sure whether to add this to the sockpuppet report, but I just spotted Contributor91 making an edit of the same type as the Planethunter91 socks had made. The coincidence in name and type of edit makes me suspect another sock. And he's requesting a change of the name of his account as his first edits. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: yeah, that looks suspicious, but it probably can't hurt to let it go a couple days to see what happens. The rename seems to have gone through, and the user is now Dickens75. Let me know if you see this editor engage in edit warring or any other Planethunter91-related edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
He is back at it with same IP User talk: at Wow signal ([3]) and promoting again the YouTube Exoplanet Channel. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I did a week-long block this time, which should help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Eagle song pages[edit]

I just wanted to thank you for the PP of these pages. I just wish it could be longer. Thank you for what you do :) - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 19:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm getting tired of this genre warring sock puppeteer. He's turning these articles into a huge time sink. The way policy is written makes dealing with this difficult, but we've reached the point where I think limited use of ECP is warranted. I can always reduce the protection level or time once things cool down. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to know, too[edit]

What is it about ImmortalWizard that makes you distrust him? Could you please help me to understand what I am missing? Risker (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Risker: I discussed it a bit in this edit. Basically, I think this is a pattern of behavior, not a one-off thing. For example, I agree with Cullen328 that ImmortalWizard twice added "negative innuendo" to User:Jimbo Wales. When Cullen328 told him to "go do something useful", ImmortalWizard's response was "LOL". And yet, ImmortalWizard just complained at WP:ANI that admins let disruptive editors laugh at them while continuing their disruptive behavior unabated. Ugh. And, apparently, ImmortalWizard's idea of doing something useful is to stir up drama at WT:CRIC and then go on a vandalism spree. OK, well, if you think this is just a one-off thing that won't be repeated, I personally don't have any problem with you unblocking. I'll just try to ignore whatever else this editor gets up to. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
He's lodged an appeal on UTRS regarding this. I must admit, I have concerns regarding this editor, the edits to Jimbo's user page do come across as trolling almost with the edit summaries. I'm also concerned that he appears to have taken his temper out on Wikipedia. That said, he has made some useful contributions to the encyclopedia so the account is not a vandalism-only account etc, however I do think he could do with some time out because his edits were disruptive at the end. NinjaRobotPirate, would you and Risker be OK if I lessen the block to say two weeks and make it absolutely clear that if he repeats this type of behaviour again then there will be no further chances? WP:ROPE springs to mind with this user.-- 5 albert square (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Seems fair to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
It also seems reasonable to me, 5 albert square. I agree he would probably benefit from a period away from the project, to gain perspective if nothing else, and it seems appropriate to reinforce that the recent behaviour was not appropriate and fell well below his usual standard. As I mentioned on his talk page, I make it a practice of separating the "block review" admin practice from the "checkuser" practice wherever possible, and I appreciate that both you and NinjaRobotPirate have stepped up to review this situation.

It's unfortunate that one of the more unpleasant ways we have of losing normally productive editors is through what appears to be classic burnout syndrome; it's far more harmful to both the project and the editor, and we've seen some pretty awful flame-outs over the years. Let's hope that in this case things can be turned around. Risker (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've reset the block to two weeks from today. I've also explained that I think he has burnt out so to take time to gain a little perspective and said that the edits fell way short of Wikipedia's standards. I've also said that if the behaviour is repeated then he may find that the next block is indefinite. I'll add his talk page to my watchlist so I'll be able to see if he gets any warnings etc once he's unblocked.-- 5 albert square (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added EnterpriseyJJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5Jenks24GraftR. Baley

Interface administrator changes


Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.


  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow! signal: possible socks[edit]

Hello NRP and thanks for your recent block of (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) on the Talk:Wow! signal and Wow! signal pages. I regret to inform you that they again appear to be still block evading, this time as (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and CptSparrot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The "contributions" all appear to follow the same pattern of lack of WP:RS info and in the case of the further IP from the same part of Spain, the name account I cannot tell, but all they are, is agreeing with the blocked IP(s). With best regards and thanks, David, David J Johnson (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Both blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for all your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Not to evading block[edit]

Dear NinjaRobotPirate, I'm FrenchPeople. Last year you block me for using additional accounts that violate WP:SOCK and WP:EVASION since 2 May 2018. I've made a lot of mistakes that breaches the Wikipedia policy without learning it and then taking action simultaneously. But today, I'm aware of these policies and never do it against them. Currently I've been banned for indefinite duration. I made many edits throughout Wikipedia pages up to creating article. My objective is not to disrupt and mischievous the community (though my past deeds was because of unawareness of these policies), not to bothering you. I started editing pages through unregistered account prior to my account. I've read many policies. From them, the first one is "Please do not bite the newcomers". This one of policy deals with newcomers and their everyday action against Wikipedia. A page called "Appealing a block" encourage me to write this message, which tells users to learn their block and convincing administrators in a good faith manner that might be politely or evidencial.

I've worried about this case, especially indefinite duration. The term also contains "infinite" and "forever". In addition to that, how the block is lifted after a ban has finished? I'm not deliberately offend any pages and these laws. So I am apologising for violating sock puppet and evasion. From this time, I won't evade my block. But I'm ready from doing a good edit and creating articles learned from another editors. I won't do this mistake again and I want to clean starting with a fresh account after the ban finished. "I'm deeply remorsed from my past event". (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I guess this newfound understanding of policy is better late than never. What you need to do is make an unblock request from your original account (User:FrenchPeople). I can restore your talk page access. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for help with potential sockpuppet[edit]

I am sorry to bother you, but I am a new editor and I am having trouble understanding the policy for sockpuppet investigations. I noticed you recently declined an unblock request by Fradio71. Given his reaction to the ban, I am concerned that he may now be editing under the account Rfadden, a newly made account that has only made two edits. Both edits were on the page that Fradio71 was banned for edit warring on, and they both reverted the article to the last edit by Fradio71 (with 29 intermediate revisions by 14 users undone): [4] [5]. Does this warrant a checkuser? I have not pinged either account in this post, as I wanted to be sure this was an appropriate request. If not, please delete it (and any advice or links to policy pages would be appreciated to see where I went wrong). Thank you. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: that's actually a troll named Architect 134. He likes to pretend to be other editors so that they get in trouble. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I guess I can feel honored that me and Fradio71 were targeted. Thanks for your assistance and for your work on Wikipedia. Take care. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, sorry to bother you again, but I just noticed similar strange activity by user Shiftyfinger as I had to Rfadden, including imitating the editing of Fradio71 after he has been banned [6] and then posting an unblock request on Fradio71's talk page [7]. I thought this may be another sock of Architect 134, and so I wanted to bring it to your attention. Take care. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

General sanctions[edit]

Hello, I saw that you notified User talk: Kingofcruiserweight of general sanctions on professional wrestling articles. The user has recently got themselves blocked for disruptive editing related to removing sourced content / adding unsourced content. The user has refused to use edit summaries to explain changes instead saying "better" or "I want to change it okay". I posted to this user on their talk page outside of just warning them, but they get removed instead of responded to. [8][9]. Also while typing this, I found it odd that he removed the warning and my message, but not the block notice. Like he knew he wasn't allowed to. Sorry if there is nothing to do here, I couldn't find a place to report this outside of going to ANI. STATic message me! 00:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

People can remove warnings (and even block notices), so I don't think there's really much to do right now. I'll try to remember to keep an eye on the situation, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I knew they can remove warnings, block notices I didn't, excuse me for that comment as I recently returned after a 4-5 year break. Thanks though. My main concern is I have tried to go out of my way to teach them to use edit summaries to explain changes, and my messages just get removed. StaticVapor message me! 05:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, happens to me sometimes, too. The standard line is that removing a message indicates that you've read it. So, I guess we wait to see what happens next. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Likely vandal[edit]

I just left this [10] and noticed you'd left an initial warning back in December, after the user's first edits, assuming good faith at the time. All the subsequent edits, however, seem to suggest this is a vandalism-only account. Could you take a quick look at their handful of diffs and see if a block is needed? I've been watching their edits in order to revert them, but these edits are subtle enough that eventually some will slip through and stick. Grandpallama (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I blocked indefinitely. Thanks for noticing that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Christian Moeller[edit]

Hey Ninja, long time no see. You blocked Boomslang for 2 weeks due to sock puppetry (for reference, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Boomslang/Archive). They started editing again today on Christian Moeller (adding unsourced additions like his birthday), clearly failing to learn. I am not sure what would be the best course of action here but I am tired of cleaning up after these obvious SPAs. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Vanjagenije did the actual block, and I declined an unblock request. It doesn't look like anyone ever warned Boomslang about edit warring, so I can do that. I don't know. Maybe he'll go to the talk page after that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply (and action taken) and I apologize for my mistake. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 Pulwama Attack[edit]

Instead of full-protect, maybe just implement AC/DS (1RR/EP?) so that non-contentious edits can still be made. The reason is primarily because 1) it is not in a good state right now 2) it's on the main page. Implementing AC/DS also makes the consequences clear for an offending editor. Again, this is just my personal opinion. --QEDK () 15:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. There were quite a few people reverting back and forth. I guess {{1RR consensus required DS}} is a possibility. That might make edit warring significantly harder. But that means someone has to babysit the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree, but I think a few edits are better than no edits. If it's possible for someone to keep watch, you can unprotect it or you can deal with the content yourself as well, that could work. --QEDK () 18:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


Can't believe I missed that obvious sock connection. Thanks for blocking. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I think Special:Contributions/Bloodybrilliantmusic is the same person. Edited at same time as Cpurcellartwork. Also, edit summary style matches WalterBlue222 (always periods at end, quote use around white). EvergreenFir (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, definitely. Nezi1111 was another sock puppeteer on whitewashing in film/color-blind casting/racial issues. Haven't seen him in a while, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Similar style on those edit summaries. Wonder if they're all the same person? ::shrug:: EvergreenFir (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
They're pretty similar, but each is missing some oddball quirks of the other. It's enough to make me suspicious of any new editors who start edit warring in these articles, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Block on[edit]

I am shocked that I had been warned by an IP. I have not done anything wrong right? Bromalayan (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

That was someone trolling you. Don't worry about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Shiftyfinger CU[edit]

I saw your CU block. Given that they placed an unblock request on another blocked user's talk page, does the technical data not support that Fradio71 is also related? Shifyfinger and Fradio71 both edited Christina Milian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Shifyfinger only started editing after Fradio71 was blocked. Also, they both created their accounts in November 2018[11][12]. Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Shiftyfinger is probably Architect 134. Architect 134 is a troll who likes to frame other people for sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

recreate ban topic articles[edit]

Hi NinjaRobertPirate, Greetings to you. Ricky123 has recreated 2 articles - see here 1 and 2 (mma fighters (subjects) have also yet to pass WP:NMMA notability requirements), after their indef ban lifted 2 days later. This came to my attention while I was doing reviewing npp work and from their talk page I noticed that they would considered banned topic - see Unblock request and discussion and ANI thread - AN unblock discussion outcome was " topic ban on article creation for six months. ". Since you are the admin who closed /unblocked user and I am not sure where is the right venue to report this for such I write to inform you here. Also CC involved admins on the unblocked discussion here @Dlohcierekim, Yamla, 331dot, TonyBallioni, Yunshui, Kuru, Swarm, and 5 albert square:. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


Based on this I think it was a test edit gone wrong, as opposed to anything malicious which merits an indef... GiantSnowman 14:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It's an LTA vandal, Nsmutte. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't fit the MO to me, but fair enough. GiantSnowman 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I asked Steward[edit]

Hello again, I already did it. Greetings. (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)