This is an archive of past discussions with User:NinjaRobotPirate. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. You have new messages at LaceyUF's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
avoiding bias
"I believe the best way to avoid bias is to edit articles about which one is apathetic (thus, 1980s death metal)." :D
Melinda1984 and AnimaniacsMan are clear ducks, along with IPs 67.8.217.215 and 2603:9001:4C0C:5925:0:0:0:0/64. AnimaniacsMan was created after I blocked the other three in May, but I didn't make the connection till I blocked AnimaniacsMan for the second time today. Looking for other sleepers or an older master before tagging up. -- ferret (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
They're confirmed to each other, but the results are a little weird, which I guess is going to start up again now that people are leaving home and socializing. Joshuas origami Australia is pretty likely but could be a coworker, friend, or something like that. I have to say, I much preferred it when everyone just stayed at home on their on their own residential ISP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Blocked and tagged the two used. Will let the other lie for now since it's a month old and unused, likely won't be I think. -- ferret (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, probably not worth blocking. The weird thing is that both accounts use a variety of devices, like three different mobile devices. I can't even imagine doing that. I don't know what I'm going to do when I have to finally give up my keyboard and over-engineered gaming PCs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Blocked that one, too. Empty "history" sections are a giveaway. Also edits to adventure/travel topics, such as adventure films, visas, safaris, that sort of thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Dude, what's up the cross-posting? This is an evidence-free accusation, too. I don't see the connection between Kerala cuisine and Ryzen CPUs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
Technical news
IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Arbitration
The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
Hey there. (I wanted to message you on my talk page but you didn’t seem to notice it)
Was my block for all the countless warnings you gave me over the last few years? Oh, and I’ll have to give you credit for just popping up on some random page to revert an edit before blocking it, like did I trigger some edit filter or something?
I find it rather confusing that you're still adding unsourced content, as in this edit, right after being blocked for adding unsourced content. The next block will be indefinite, and I'll require you to explain how sourcing works on Wikipedia to be unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Harry here again. As I can't use my main account to say what i'm saying (as it's blocked), i'm having to use my IP address to say this. Even after my week block expires I'm still staying on the hiatus I previously announced on my talk page. This is mainly because, i'll be honest, being watched over every edit I do now by you (or so I can think) is not only unfair (as some people still get away from adding unsourced material, as well as you revert edits that already aren't sourced) but I really don't want my block to be indefnite. Yes, I was genuinely angry at both blocks but there's nothing I can do about it.
Just to be on the safe side, maybe block my IP so I can be honest on what I said (as I do have a tendency to forget about it as I am obsessed with the site and editing), but still. And on another note, do you seem to have some dislike to me considering you immediately blocked me after the 31-hour one expired. 81.104.97.124 (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Exceedingly ill-advised. NRP, since you're already handling this, I decided not to block the IP or extend the master's block. I've warned this editor a few times over the years myself. -- ferret (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Dude... I don't really understand how someone can have so much good-faith zeal to improve the encyclopedia and yet be so clueless about policy. All you need to do is include citations for the content you add. And not evade blocks. You're making this so much harder on yourself. There are things that I would add to Wikipedia but haven't because I can't find a citation. For example, I mostly rewrote The Elder Scrolls#Setting from scratch. It's quite detailed in many respects, it's still missing some basic stuff, such as H.P. Lovecraft's influence on the setting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
It's like warning someone about their COI: "read the policy and declare your COI", and you have to keep saying it. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, I’m unblocked now and ready for a fresh start. My anger left me, so I decided to return back today.
So basically, all I need to do is citatise more and that will prevent my indefinite block then. Oh, and about the Rescue Heroes page, I changed it two weeks ago because the end credits said “Canada-China”. Luigitehplumber (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
i dont know why i have been blocked i have done nothing bad i dont even know why i was blocked but i know i have not written anything bad i had just edited one page and added few sentences of character which was true but still i was blocked unblock me Witness0987654321 (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
59.153.232.0/21
Hello NinjaRobotPirate, I am a sysop of viwiki. I detect that this IP range tries to vandal articles related to "National football team" topic. Once you banned this range, please offer me more ranges if you know that I can consider setting a block on viwiki. Thank you! Alphama (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure how much information I can release. But the following IP ranges are related to that one:
Thank you and I will have some investigations on these ranges. PS: I detected some usernames, such as "Bjnrop05", "Bjnrop06", etc are related to this vandalism. Alphama (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Bjnrop06 is probably unrelated. The global and local CheckUser policies make it difficult for me to say as much as I'd like. I could probably create a page on the CheckUser wiki with lots more information, but access would be restricted to CheckUsers and Stewards. This makes it a bit limited in its usefulness, but once IP addresses become masked, it could potentially make a lot of this easier to discuss on-wiki. On the other hand, I don't understand why the WMF is doing this when they could just disable IP editing altogether. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
WMF may want to hide the IP addresses as the only way to protect users from any threat, supposed from the government or stakeholders. But sadly, this mechanism can not work well to counter against the "clever" sockpuppets. In some cases, we probably conclude the strong relationship between a user and an IP range but to prove this at CU is another story. Depend on the editing culture of every language edition, we can conclude that IP editing should be blocked or not. Well, actually in our project, the rate between good faith and bad faith coming IP editing may be 50/50. Since we currently lack administration staff, I feel it is better to see there is no IP editing here. Alphama (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Really strange. The editing overlap really seemed to be there on top of the name and timing. The first Uploading though did drop a retiring banner. PlayerSacha? Guess it doesn't matter overly since already blocked indef. -- ferret (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, there's also some evidence that UPA2 is Bigshowandkane64. It's so hard to tell all these people apart when there's zillions of edits across every IP range. My first thought for #1 was PlayerSascha, too, but as far as I can tell PlayerSascha is on yet another different continent than everyone else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I have reason to suspect that the newly-created account above is a continuation of the blocked account, hitting the same types of articles (railroads, trains, stations, etc.) and making similar comments like this one. Was hoping you could perform a quick check to confirm suspicions, and then if you prefer, I can open a new SPI. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
It's just so odd there are so many overlapping article contributions, and 16C launched within days of the other account getting blocked. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
When it comes to international distributors for Pre-2007 Paramount/Universal movies, do we use United International Pictures as a whole or just Paramount Pictures/Universal Pictures (through United International Pictures)? I’m asking in terms of international movies and such.
Oh, and as for Columbia movies, does it have to be Sony Pictures Releasing or whatever the source says? I’m just nervous that everything is gonna go wrong and I’ll suffer from an indefinite block. Luigitehplumber (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I find most aspects of the film industry to be boring, so I'm sorry, but I don't really know what you're talking about as far as the content issues go. I know nothing about Sony or Paramount beyond what any random person on the street could tell you. Whatever the sources say, that's what Wikipedia says. So, for example, if Box Office Mojo says that Columbia Pictures distributed a film, that's what Wikipedia says. I couldn't care less whether Sony is listed as a production company, distributor, or anything else – as long as it's cited to a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi NinjaRobotPirate, I know you've asked me before not to ping you in SPi cases, so I hope you don't mind me asking you to please kindly check out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rishabisajakepauler again, there's currently three reports there. I just fear this sock will continue abusing those IPs the longer those reports remain open. Thank you. AshMusique (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I haven't looked at the SPI backlog in a little while. I've been busy with some other stuff. I'll try to look at it, but Wikipedia has something like 50 CheckUsers now. I personally think having this many CheckUsers on a single project is absurd, but one nice thing about it is that I don't really feel compelled to deal with every backlog any more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I realize that was a mistake on my part. Chiade85 added a whole list of features in the lead [26] and I reverted it because (WP:TOOMUCH) [27], I did restore it back but I only added half of the features list [28]. Chiade85 reverted the whole list back in the lead, which is already in the lead [29], I reverted that edit because the editor didn't see the edits that I made before [30], the editor add it back in the lead again [31] and that's what happened. Sorry I handled that issue poorly. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: I made changes to the Holiday, Pharrell Williams and Shoot for the stars pages as I was adding information. I admit the edits I have made on shoot for the stars were spam and has started an edit war between me and Peanuts however the edits to Holiday and Pharrell Williams discography are very minor edits. On the Holiday page I stated that Holiday is from the Platinum edition of the album which is confirmed already on that page as it previously stated in the main body of information which has now been changed for some odd reason despite this single being stated by KSI himself that it was the Platinum edition only. I didn't realise that it had been changed. On the Pharrell Williams page I re added one of the guest appearances exactly how it was originally through copy and paste so that the font matched the font of all other guest appearances as it was spaced into the middle of the box. I added a few spaces in between the lines which did nothing aside from fulfil my goal. If anything is "unsourced" or incorrect then that is not me as I said I copy and pasted the information already provided on the page just adding spaces. Amazing Peanuts is digging up information and random edits to make me look bad to you so that I get reported or banned. As I said I understand the edits to Shoot for the Stars is spam so I have added it to the talk page to see what other users think and who they believe to be correct. Me or peanuts. Chiade85 (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2021 (GMT+1)
You two should probably have this discussion on the article's talk page and try to come to a consensus before some hardass sees all the edit warring that's going on. I understand how frustrating it is to get reverted by someone who you're sure is wrong, but sometimes you have to just ignore it and try to deal. And if someone says your edits are unsourced, add a citation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
All of this editor's edits today are sketchy.[34] I noticed because of the Julianne Moore edits, but I suspect they're all subtle vandalism. Grandpallama (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I hate trying to figure out if someone is clueless, using reliable sources that I don't know about, or a hoaxer. From earlier edits, this editor may be using Google Knowledge Graph as a source, which is madness. Nobody even knows where Google is scraping that data from, but some of it comes from Wikimedia projects. I blocked the editor for 31 hours and left a note about sourcing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I checked out the other names, and all the edits look like they introduced errors. Even if they are using the Google Knowledge Graph, seven edits of that nature within six minutes for such widely disparate people is odd; like you say, though, trying to figure out if someone is doing it deliberately or just out of complete incompetence probably doesn't matter, since all roads lead to Rome. Thanks for taking a look! Grandpallama (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I moved it back to the original title. I also ran some key phrases through Google, and it looks like the text was copy-pasted. It should be all cleaned up now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please block ForestFireStarter ASAP? Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Filipz123. This is a self-admitted sockpuppet, so really a no-brainer. Unfortunately, the sock still continues to send me silly messages, and, more importantly, edit war in articles. I always find this extremely frustrating when I report these socks at SPI and nothing happens, nobody reads it, while the sock keeps restoring his edits in articles, and nobody can stop him (besides, good editors risk being unfairly blocked for 3RR violation by admins unfamiliar with the case) because the SPI have been half-abandoned for at least the last year or two.
I think there should be a direct shortcut, some "red button" for editors reporting at least these most toxic sockpuppets on Wikipedia, the worst long-term abusers like Filipz123, when the SPI page doesn't really work anymore. Is it OK to mass-ping all admins involved in the archives? I know it's not a nice thing to do, but what else can a desperate editor do? Is it OK to contact the admins directly? As a person who has been dealing with vandals, socks and spammers for 16 years on Wikipedia, I can tell you this is a long-standing, deep problem that only keeps getting worse. I think Wikipedia really needs systemic reforms not only to protect itself from chronic sockpuppets, vandals and spammers, but also to help good editors who, at the moment, especially with the desperately understaffed administrative areas like SPI, are pretty much helpless.
Ugh, please don't ping admins from SPI cases. Most of those admins are already overworked. There really aren't all that many admins who handle backlogs. My solution would be minimum activity requirements to keep one's admin rights, but the community has rejected that. Frequently, that means the only way to get anything done is to pass an RFA yourself and skip over the bureaucracy. But if something is particularly easy to resolve, like an admitted sock, you could post that here on my talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
AIV might handle a report of "obvious sock, self-admit" as well. Though it can back up also. I also will respond usually to clear cut cases if asked. -- ferret (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
You earlier blocked this user who is now socking as Mealiyta and is a confirmed match to Nimesh Pathora on a sister wikipedia site (Wikidata) after a report I made there. But blocking process is very slow there, and as such it will take ages to get them globally locked. Can you check and block Mealiyta + Nimesh Pathora and check for more socks? Then we shall find them globally locked faster. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I suggest you file a case at WP:SPI. I don't remember anything about this case, and your request here is incredibly vague. It doesn't even mention the suspected sock master, Showbiz826. I tried poking around, but it's pointless because I don't even know what I'm supposed to be looking for. There are thousands of user accounts on this ISP who all have the same user agent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure where this should be filed on Wikipedia that's why I avoid filing here in the first place. Showbiz can't be him because Showbiz is interested in Indian social groups and professional wrestling, none of them are edited by Pseudo Nihilist. You can read results on Wikidata. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey NRP. Your 'block evasion' comment here hints that this might be a person you know from previous experience. Can you provide me any details, by email if necessary? I also asked Number 57 but he does not remember how that person first came to his attention. Number 57 believes that GiofaniRahman and Dustyveil are the same person. My own interest comes from a remark by someone at WP:AN3 as to someone being a sock of Dustyveil. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@Number 57 and EdJohnston: Dustyveil, Peilin22, GiofaniRahman, and anyone else who goes on massive blanking sprees in association football articles is User:Albertpda. Use extended confirmed protection on any article they edit, please, especially if it's hit with multiple socks. I don't know how much I can say here in the open, but this sock puppeteer actually believes that his blanking sprees cause the teams to win more games. He will send multiple sock puppets to blank out entire sections of the articles, often removing 20KB or more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
They are good faith edits. They are corrections of references, page numbers, additional citations from better sources and distinguish between the Vokkaligas and Lingayat communities.
I appeal to your better conscience and sincerely request you to reconsider that reversal.
Remember, Wikipedia is about consensus and making an encyclopedia; it's not about winning. Occasionally we all lose sight of that, but there are more important things in life than debates on Wikipedia. We're all here to make a better encyclopedia, and there is room for everyone. -NinjaRobotPirate
An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
Technical news
Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
I can't believe this is really a thing: "Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions." It's like a parody from a third-rate clone of The Onion that's dedicated to obscure geek culture. Other headlines: "Bored IT worker admits to years of trolling in comment sections of tech websites." and "Middle-aged nerd still plays Civilization II obsessively and listens to Rush albums on repeat." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
There are a couple obscure exceptions, such as when writing credits on the IMDb are signed off by the WGA and when the MPAA signs off on the MPAA rating. Encyclopedia.com says the site aggregates content from various sources, so I guess it would depend on the original source. WP:DOB says birth dates should be "widely published by reliable sources". When I want to find information on American celebrities, I usually go to TV Guide, Entertainment Weekly, or People. People, for example, is known for working with celebrities. It's not what I would consider a rock solid source for controversial facts, but it's not a gossipy tabloid, either. If information is in People, that probably means that a celebrity wants it out there. EW is more into entertainment news than celebrity culture, but the two are pretty strongly related. TV Guide has a trove of information from before the internet. WP:RSP might be useful as a quick reference. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Confirmed (and also tried to create an account named "Bhtrlprshnt", which a filter disallowed). People like this don't usually give up after three accounts, sadly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. The emergency ambulance I have called for a neighbour is still to turn up but you are quick! Fancy a new job? - Sitush (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Yep, 7 hours and waiting - he collapsed in front of me having only been out of hospital for a week after heart valve replacement. Banged his head & is on blood thinners, so am reluctant to move him even though he is conscious (he is sleeping on floor right now). Meanwhile, WP distracts me and Bhalal1978 (talk·contribs) may be the latest Anshsaini sock. - Sitush (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Could still be him, but it looks different in the CU tool. I have very little understanding of this topic, though. The worst part of having family members who are paramedics is that they tell stories during dinner. There's probably a totally screwed up story behind that ambulance, and you probably don't want to know about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, one of mine is in the police and stuff happens. In this case, we were told around 1000 that there was a 400-call queue & we should risk moving him to hospital because he was talking. So we did.
There is a bit of a tell in that editor's last talk page post - he uses the same sort of construct to say we should be seeking a solution (that suits him) rather than leaving the article as it is. All of the accounts you have blocked used much the same phrasing. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Just looking for some advice here (not asking for any action to be taken at this point). Would you suggest waiting until this gets to a ridiculous number before raising the issue at ANI, and is it possible to block an IP range from editing a particular article only? Also, you may notice diff3 is different than the other edits, but it matches the same disruption to the plot summary we're seeing from other IPs over time. The phrasing "impaled on a Triceratops skull" or "fell on a skull of a Triceratops" has been discussed at great length and opposed on the article's talk page. Thanks in advance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's possible to do a partial block on an IP range, which can stop people from editing up to 10 specific articles. At one point, the WMF also talked about possibly implementing some other features, such as per-page edit filters, but they abandoned all that complicated stuff in favor of pinging people from edit summaries. Well, anyway, if someone pops up once every few months to do something mildly disruptive, I personally would probably just revert it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, the thought had occurred to me, too, but only after I'd already tagged them. And it had been a while since I blocked TAWT, so I wasn't 100% sure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Persistent editor (14)
Our old friend is back! At first, I issued warnings like I usually do until it dawned on me this was the range that was blocked for 6 months:
And there's more where that came from. Like before, there's probably 3 or 4 decent edits for every 1 or 2 that are disruptive. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that's got to be the same person as before. I blocked for a year this time. Should be safe. I've seen these Comcast IP addresses stay allocated to the same person for longer than that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello @NinjaRobotPirate, Supermann has accused me of persecuting him when I warned him about his edit here. He promptly initiated a discussion saying that it was persecution and I was acting in bad faith. Further in the discussion he mentions he is trying to state I am labelling him as guilty before innocent. Regardless of the actual discussion, I am somewhat taken aback by his methods and behaviour in handling a response to his contributions. I was curious about making a post on the admin noticeboard but then I noticed your comment here. This is definitely not his first time and most likely won't be his last...he has clearly violated his final warning, and I worry that his behaviour will hurt other users trying to help. Is there anything that could be done about this? Thanks in advance. Sleptlapps (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate, the problem isn't the severity of his behaviour, but the fact that this has been going on for a long time now and nothing has happened about it. @Supermann constantly edits something violating the rules and then harasses other users for trying to help him. Doesn't Wikipedia only allow for so many cases of harassment before measures are taken place to prevent this kind of behaviour. I hope you reconsider, thanks. Sleptlapps (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Appreciate the comraderies. Thank you so much for the leniency. I will watch my tone and stop editing for some time. Happy to be just a reader instead of a writer for a while. Hope you stay well. Supermann (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
It looks like you're not the first to notice this sock, and there are some range blocks already. If more show up, I can try to plug the holes. There are some I can do now, and I'm kind of wavering on one of them because it looks like it'll have some collateral. I can give it a try, see what happens, and unblock it if there are too many complaints. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Could you check at 2409:4071:2303:E902:7429:858:B4EE:A0CB being an anonymous user he's engaging in an edit war,he is definitely a sock puppet, and over that on Mayura Verma's page he's accusing me of giving a POV push for Jainism despite giving proper backing documents, and on Alupa dynasty page he is accusing me of vandalism because I'm removing unsourced Jainism POV push. Serpentine67 (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
On Mayura Verma/Sharma page there's absolutely no proper citations to prove his brahmin origin, all the links or citations are dead, yet to maintain the neutrality i have not removed the brahmin POV push. Serpentine67 (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I would never call you such a thing. I've noticed a tendency among us to become increasingly intolerant, sometimes hostile, and abrupt. All signs of burnout. We are all tired of being combination cop, and trash hauler. The need is more admins. Can't get it to happen. No answers, merely despair and disengagement. --Deepfriedokra(talk)10:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there's definitely some burnout. I'm good for another few years, though. Honestly, I'm not really sure I buy into the whole "we need more admins" thing. We've already got more than 1000. If half of them quit tomorrow, I doubt we'd even notice it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
That’s not me, dumbass. People are adding what they see on the credits. You seem to think it’s the North Koreans or something. I’m reporting you for disruptive editing by deleting sourced material without double checking the source and looking for credits. I am also reporting you for false claims regarding multiple accounts and for multiple attempts at fabricating claims, including the claim that multiple users are the same without verifying how different the IP addresses are. Dhgthereaper (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
My man my name’s not even “Mack” what the hell. I added in sourced content a while back but after you kept taking it off I gave up. Don’t try to come at me when you see other people trying to add the same content with similar sources and you get mad because you were wrong to take mine off. And FYI, I’m editing to keep stuff up to date, not to convince some random mf on the internet called “TheAmazingPeanuts.” Only thing that’s “Amazing” is how stubborn you are and how baseless your claim is especially considering the fact that a simple IP address check would confirm that it isn’t the same user but you are too lazy to do this. I would recommend you either do your job to the fullest, verify sources and added content, or simply get off the platform to keep it a healthy and accurate community—but you can’t fail to do any of the three. Dhgthereaper (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Could you please have a look at this SPI (regarding a self-confessed block evading sock)? Since concepts like consensus and RfC mean nothing to them, the only thing that is preventing them now from creating another havoc is the fact that the article was protected for LTA (following their latest attempt); but knowing their modus operandi, they will in most likelihood resume their disruption as soon as they are autoconfirmed. Many thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi. You were involved in the blocking of User:Cwf97 and some of their sockpuppets about a year ago. I came across a new editor with some similar editing patterns. Do you think User:Flowersnf could be another sock? Editor interaction]. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me16:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.
Technical news
The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.
Arbitration
A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.
I don't think your short description is supported by the content of article. Since you are correct about the size a short description should be I have proposed a new description. "Social group with unusual beliefs". Editor2020 (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Sure, that's fine. It doesn't really matter that much, though; this is just a "short description", not "one-line summary of all the text in the article". This is why it's only supposed to be 40 characters, which means that you're going to write something that isn't a summary. It's just a few words to tell people if they're reading the correct article or not. If someone is looking for "exterminator", and they end up on "the terminator" because of autocorrect or something, all they need to know is that "exterminator" is pest control and "terminator" is a Hollywood film. They don't need to know that "terminator" is a "1984 science fiction action-horror film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello again. Could you please block CanadaResident777 and HrvatWhoLovesIceCream? Both are sockpuppets of Filipz123 again (please see the SPI page again). Behaviourally, they're WP:DUCK, and checkuser says the former is "very likely" him, and the latter is "technically indistinguishable" from his previous blocked account. So, a straighforward case again, the only thing that's missing again is an admin who finally does it, five weeks after I reported it.
Generally—and I've been talking about it for about a year—Wikipedia is in the deepest crisis since I started editing in 2005. Administrators don't do their job anymore. Their apathy towards urgent issues and downright laziness is at an all-time high. Many requests at many places are ignored or archived for inactivity, even if they're unambiguously clear. Critically important areas like WP:SPI are abandoned and dysfunctional. This has disastrous consequences. Some of the most persistent and harmful sockupppets in the history of the project now know Wikipedia is currently defenceless, come back and create dozens of accounts. Because even if editors can see them and report them, admins don't care anymore.
How come? Filipz123 is perhaps the most toxic user of all time on Wikipedia. The "success ratio" of the reports on his SPI page is very high, because people who report him are experienced editors who know him very well. They're not clueless newbies who are just guessing. Admins who used to visit the case in the past knew that and blocked newly reported socks quickly. How come they don't do that anymore? How come they don't have that page on their watchlist when it's one of the most prolific and harmful sockmasters of all time and when he's still active? This used to be automatic in the past. All admins who work on SPI should have the most prominent cases like Filipz123 on their watchlist. At least the admins who used to deal with the cases in the past. There even used to be admins who specialised in this case. They don't visit the page anymore. When I report another sock today, I'm lucky if I get a reply after 3 weeks, confirming that it's indeed him—and that's it! Nothing happens. Yep, you're right, it's him, checkuser-confirmed. So, let's keep doing nothing and let him freely disrupt Wikipedia. How come the checkuser who confirms the accounts refuses to reply? How come the admin who requested the checkuser doesn't have the decency to respond? An admin who replies to an SPI request, requests a checkuser and gets a confirmation that the reported account is indeed a sockpuppet should automatically come back (and quickly, not after two months) and either block the user or at least explain why they don't do it. It's their job, that' s why they're an admin.
In my opinion, admins who blatantly refuse to do their job should be desysopped, because they're becoming as harmful as the socks themselves (it doesn't matter that they're volunteers—it's a job they agreed to do, and if they don't do it, they shouldn't be admins). The fact that they're not held accountable for their inactivity in my opinion supports the crisis Wikipedia is in. It's not that the admins have a wikibreak or don't have time—this is not about desysopping inactive accounts. They're still here, still editing, but simply decide to ignore urgent, serious and unambiguously clear cases, even the ones they're involved in—yes, the SPI is a tricky area, it needs some investigative work, so ignoring it is more comfortable. Again, this was unthinkable several years ago. The project used to work. It doesn't work anymore, and it keeps getting worse. If this goes on, I think Wikipedia should follow Google Knol's example and shut down the whole project completely, before vandals and socks destroy the articles.
(P.S. In the meantime, Filipz123 is now probably creating and using other accounts and keeps doing the same disruptive things over and over. See the topic on my talk page for an example. Should I even bother reporting it? Should I even bother doing anything anymore on Wikipedia? Reporting or requesting anything these days is an exercise in infinite futility.)—J. M. (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
J. M., I would like to take exception to your comment that admins who blatantly refuse to do their job should be desysopped...speaking as the SPI clerk whom you are obliquely referring to when you say How come the admin who requested the checkuser doesn't have the decency to respond? (The answer, by the way, is that clerks generally do not "own" cases, I generally do not watchlist cases unless I am quite familiar with them, and nobody has pinged me since I endorsed the case, so it makes no sense to accuse me of "not responding"). Wikipedia is not compulsory and demanding that we act is not going to move things any faster. I, for one, am of the opinion that administrators do not have a "duty to act" (that is, you cannot request some kind of discipline for an admin not using their tools, whether or not the inaction is intentional), though I'm not sure exactly that aligns with the community's feelings. Regardless. If you start demanding admins work in areas they're not comfortable, we'll just tend to get lower-quality work (God forbid I start doing discussion closures...). If you start demanding admins work in areas they're already working (but are apparently not working enough), you're just going to burn them out. I consider myself quite good at SPI work, but maintaining my "professional paranoia" at just the right level to work at SPI and digging through complex cases for too long runs me very close to wikiburnout, which is why I might spend time doing (heaven forbid!) other things or even just working on simple cases. Do you want to clear the SPI backlog? Become an SPI clerk. Go through RfA or get good candidates to RfA. But don't yell at a bunch of volunteers because they're spending their time on things other than the specific task you want done. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello. It notified me that you mentioned me here. It is news to me that I have been associated with this person. I don't know what to say other than that I am indeed not that person. (Is it because of my original name?) I'm sure you can check my edit history to confirm that I'm not a vandal. I guess it is the internet so there is no way for me to definitively prove this. I'm not a very active user anyways. CanadaResident777 (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, J. M., if you think something needs to be done on English Wikipedia, it's easiest if you do it yourself. I feel like I'm repeating myself, though. I'm pretty sure I've told you this before. There are 1000+ administrators on English Wikipedia. I agree that many of them are pretty much useless – basically just hat collectors. But if you push too hard, it will just end up causing the people are getting things done to burn out and leave. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
It's not a commercial genealogy website, it's the database of the Mormons. They believe it is part of their duty to God to unite families [1]. I think they should be given some credibility as they are doing it with a great deal of integrity. 82.39.220.87 (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your time, I am sorry to have caused a problem, I will not edit anything else.
Please stop
I have two devices, only on one do I have an account. On my other device you have blocked me twice for absolutely no reason. Do you just block people for fun? Seriously, stop abusing your power. Lystrolaspis (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Geez. How many accounts do you have, anyway? So far, I see:
Could you please check Tkcmgl12 and Kissingyou12? Both edit with similar tags and have the hallmarks of the Korean IP who has been disruptively editing Jun Matsumoto. Both show confirmed gaming, with Tkcmgl12 gaming to autoconfirmed to edit past protection, while Kissingyou12 went to 500 edits before repeating a similar edit at Jun. They may also geolocate to Nepal, there were two editors involved at Jun last month. -- ferret (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Blocked and tagged. I noted the earliest apparent master, Tkcmgl12, is already sockblocked on Commons a couple years ago. -- ferret (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
You mean Sponsorshippp? That was created on a web host. I blocked it. There are several bots that go around blocking open proxies and VPNs, so I don't go out of my way to find them any more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that you said that when you plugged in your USB Headset you heard a voice saying "Mic On", that sounds a lot like what happens when I plug in my headset. Would the headset you're referring to happen to be a Corsair VOID headset? Just asking out of curiosity! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi NRP. Would you be willing to address the personal attack in this edit? I get that they're frustrated with me for reverting their initial edits to this article, but between this and their weird vandalism of my talkpage [39][40], they're crossing a line. The vast majority of their initial edit was plot bloat and interpretation, and even their initial pared-down version was adding unnecessary wordiness and their own interpretive language for the final scene. I probably could've handled the initial interaction better (no, I'm sure I could have), but the unrelenting snark and combativeness make me suspect we'd have ended up at the same place, anyway. They're showing a rather precocious knowledge of policies and essays, too, although the fact that they didn't know how to sign their username suggests they are really new. Grandpallama (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, I left a comment... but I just wanted to learn if QLED is worthwhile technology or not. And I still don't know anything about QLED except that it's "commonly used to improve LED backlighting". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Per the comment, I think it makes sense for me and my "obnoxiously large ego" to walk away from the article for a while. Thank you for weighing in. Grandpallama (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Can you have a look at what is going on here? [48] It seems like in the last 24 hours there were three new accounts made to revert against four different users. There was also an IP on the 19th of September reverting back to the same revision as the other sock accounts. I'm not sure which sock it is but could you ban them and put the page under protection? It would really help alot, thank you! Ayaltimo (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Can you please check this out? [49] Two accounts were made just today with both sharing similar grammar, both have digits at the end of their name and editing at a two-hour range difference. Ayaltimo (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems like this person is not listening to your warnings because the person decided to make another account yet again. Made the same exact changes too. [50]Ayaltimo (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
He created this article and came back on here to make some edits. [54] He's also restored articles that were previously deleted by his socks. Ayaltimo (talk) 00:15, 01 October 2021 (UTC)
It seems like he's back again. He just undo my revision against his previous sock. [55]Ayaltimo (talk) 16:58, 06 October
2021 (UTC)
Hey Ninja, could you please check this out? [56] It seems like he's back and just restored the battle of Luuq article you've previously deleted. [57]Ayaltimo (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
This sock puppet undid all my revisions when I was reverting his previous sock edits [60] Delete his made article too. His other sock made that. [61]Ayaltimo (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's one of Walkerdude47 socks. I undid one of its revisions until I realized the whole page was made by the same person. The article seems made up too. If you look here [62]. I just undid Roculator's revision and brought back the original version which states Ottoman's victory. If you look at his revision [63] The user intently made it seem like it was a victory for Abyssinians against the Ottomans when, in fact, the Ottomans actually established a province in modern-day Eritrea. This user is an etho-nationalist pushing propaganda. Could you also please re-name the article Ottoman-Solomonic war to its original name? It was previously called Ottoman conquest of Habesh before the sock vandalism. Ayaltimo (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
This is not the same other two socks I usually report but I recognize this sock. This sock master usually switches to a new sock every week to conduct block evasion. You can see from the timeline: [65][66][67] Makes clan articles on his first sock [68][69] and third sock [70]. The interest is also the same. Ayaltimo (talk) 01:56, 05 November 2021 (UTC)
Can you have a look at this SPI, please? Walkerdude47 is back. [72] and PaullyMatthews is back too. His new sock puppet just undid one of your revisions. [73]Ayaltimo (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
unprotect article
Hello sir,
my english is not the best as my main language is swedish and serbian, and small russian but i recently came across a project called 'verdis'. its a micronation europe. (https://verdisgov.org/)
it looks as the past of these admin protected articles were heavily messed with by supporters and non-supporters of that movement, but it looks like they gained a lot of media attention (how i heard of them) and i was wondering if it could be unprotected incase they reach even larger media? pages: Verdis and Free Republic of Verdis. i was told by another admin on wikipedia that you were the one that blocked page.
i saw verdis on sputnik, a russian owned news station.
The correct path is going to be to create a draft and have it reviewed by AFC. If AFC accepts it, they will handle requesting unsalt. There's little point in unprotecting without suitable content to review in this particular case. If you're not interested in doing that work, I wouldn't worry over the protection. -- ferret (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks like the same person. Meta has stricter standards than English Wikipedia, so you might be able to get that IP blocked if it continues to bother you, but you'd have to contact a Meta administrator. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey NinjaRobotPirate, I’m here to explain myself that I’ve done none of those false clams he’s saying about me. He’s the one that started this situation, I was only following the policy and adding sources of Jess Harnell’s birth date and place in the infobox. Plus, he’s the one that harassed me in the edit summaries telling me to stop were I’ve done nothing wrong. He’s also the one that started the edit war, not me. I have physical evidence to prove it. He’s just blaming me for everything over the problems he caused in the first place. I swear, that’s the entire truth. I’ve done none of those things. But I did confess that I did curse at him by mistake on the Meta Wiki on his talk page, but that’s because he’s refusing to listen to me because I asked him politely to stop with his abrasive editing, that’s all. Please don’t listen to a single word he says about me, because that’s all 100% not true. 50.79.183.249 (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
Miscellaneous
Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Just out of curiosity, how did you determine that Aquinasthomes1 was a sock of JohnGotten? As a patroller, I'd like to be on the lookout for certain tells, especially considering Aquinas was an editor who I'd worked with regularly and I didn't even notice the connection. Curbon7 (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@MetaWiz4331 and RockWolf4432: The latter started after Bbb23's block of the former. Similar topic space, both have created a category for a video game composer, similar name composition, editing tags. Worth a sweep or just duck block? -- ferret (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain to me why you are removing my edits ? I’m simply listing one of dc comics most popular characters. It’s not like I’m listing every single character. JRobinson99 (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
You have an entire talk page full of warnings and explanations. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a database of miscellaneous facts. Wikia is what you're looking for if you want to a comprehensive database of fictional characters. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
There have been several reverted edits without discussion on the page that I mentioned above but the latest came with the summary "not your country - KEEP OUT".
The user in question is most likely the following IP addresses:
I need your assistance with a persistent block evader. Could you please issue a block on 2603:8000:401:0:0:0:0:0/48? The editor is a sock puppet of Cool a123, and they have been creating new accounts and IP hopping over the last 10 months. I've had little success in resolving this issue because the editor keeps returning with new accounts, and I haven't gotten much help from other admins that I have reported the editor to. I've either been ignored, or the editor is handed blocks that are only 1 or 2 weeks long. The IP that is mentioned above needs to be /48 range blocked, otherwise the editor will return with different variants of 2603:8000:401. I'm only going to report this IP for now, as it is the one that I've noticed that is being used more frequently. If I see any other IP's coming from their location, I'll give you a heads up. Thank you. Yowashi (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
It's a partial block on an IP range that stops people from editing certain pages. It's not supposed to stop everyone on the ISP from editing every page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 20:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi. I was wondering whether there is anything that can done to stop a blocked editor from IP socking. I did ask a similar question here, but it was archived before anyone had a chance to answer it. Rayooni has been IP socking long before their block, which hasn't prevented them from continuing just like before (as if nothing happened). They have been using the following ranges: 88.201.76.189/16, 89.148.46.199/16 and to a lesser extent 109.161.192.239/16. Their connection to the first two has already been covered in the SPI. For the last range, when the edits of 109.161.192.205 were reverted by myself, the sock master complained about it on my talk page (thus admitting that it's their IP). Their edits with their usual edit summaries ("Added" and "Fixed") tend to be related to Morocco and sometimes Algeria. Reporting every single IP (such as this, which has restored the last sock's edit) is not really an option, as they'd be using another IP by the time someone looks at the SPI, so I'm not really sure what else to do. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, if it's just a few articles that they're habitually editing, a partial block would work. Or page protection. Otherwise, it's basically limited to very wide range blocks, assuming they're actually on multiple /16s instead of smaller IP ranges on the /16. Why do you think it's a /16? None of the edits on Special:Contributions/88.201.128.0/17 look like they follow that pattern. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
The /16 was just to highlight the wide ranges they are using. A partial block would work: a /17 on the first two (88.201.81.189/17 & 89.148.46.199/17) and maybe a /20 or even a /23 on the third (109.161.192.239/20) should in theory be enough to slow them down. Ultimately, whatever you can do to hinder their ability to sock would be very much appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I'll take a look at those ranges later. If we're lucky, it'll be easy to identify collateral damage via the CU tool, but sometimes the stars simply don't align. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I did some blocks, but some of them are anon-only with account creation enabled. I'm not sure how much that will help, but it will keep the collateral damage down. I guess we can revisit this if it doesn't help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I see your name a couple of times in this block.
A number of pages I watch (a different subject area to the pages covered by this block) are being disruptively edited by addresses within that range, and I'm wondering if it is possible (and how should I go about requesting) to block based on a category of articles? I've made a number or reports at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vallabharebel, but temporarily blocking IP addresses does not prevent future disruptive editing. I've also logged at WP:ANI but not had a reply there yet. Many thanks. Spike 'em (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Partial blocks can only affect up to 10 articles. There are ways around it, but it's tedious. I did a hard block, which prevents logged-in editors from editing those articles, so adding a bunch of articles is not necessarily a good thing. Every time an article is added to that partial block, it causes more collateral damage. It would be better to do a different, anon-only block on smaller IP ranges. If you tell me what articles you want partially blocked and why, that would help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Participation in a signpost interview
Hi NinjaRobotPirate, hope that you're well. I was wondering if you'd be able to participate in a Signpost interview in your capacity as a contributor to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers? I am enthusiastic about these interviews because they help remind other Wikipedians about the passionate and diverse group of volunteers that edit Wikipedia, and into the many discussions and editors that inhabit our space, nooks and crannies. If you had time to even answer a few questions here (User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject actors and filmmakers interview draft) I'd be very grateful :). Tom (LT) (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't know about the Signpost. It strikes me as Wikipedia's version of the Daily Mail. I stopped reading it a while ago, though, back when it was publishing hit pieces and unfunny "humor" articles that seemed more like trolling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Where it had previously been imported from Enwiki, improperly sourced to a unreliable source. Wikidata's sourcing guidelines are much looser than Enwikis. That content is on Wikidata does not make it suitable for inclusion here. -- ferret (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
That block shouldn't really shouldn't affect most people. It's only when people mess with it that it should cause noticeable collateral damage. I'd be surprised if people had a reason to appeal it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a little visually impaired, and I sometimes miss new posts in old threads. If you want me to be sure to see something, it's often better to just make a new post at the bottom. It's easier for me to keep track of posts like that. I have trouble finding new posts when they're buried in the middle of lots of text. Or you could just keep poking me until I see it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Here this one ☝️. That (Blocked user is back seems so) is old messages. Sorry so much about bothering you 😔 but that sock is pretty active... Nubia86 (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Suspicious account
Compare [75] to the edit by an account you recently CU-blocked [76]. These articles are constantly being targeted by disruptive editors, so this edit may well just be reinserting the correct date rather than socking, but it might be worth a CU check on the new account. I'd file this at SPI but I don't know who the master is. Thanks for your trouble, ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)18:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I blocked the two main IP addresses used for 3 months. I doubt we'll ever get any kind of communication from this person. Some leeway has to be granted for IP editors given Mediawiki's quirks and limitations, but communication and collaboration are required on an open wiki. Unfortunately, some people have decided that they're going to help us whether we want it or not, and they're not going to waste their time debating the merits of their edits. My sister is like that – if you make your tea the wrong way, she will take the tea away from you and make it the right way. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I understand... making tea properly is an important part of Ninja tradition. It is a pity, if the Anon Bulgarian was only doing some work to expand the articles he might have a reasonable excuse to add those headings. Also I think people need to be a little crazy/obsessive compulsive to do this, and there are all different kinds of crazy. Some editors can be encouraged to color within the lines, others not so much. Thanks. -- 109.77.193.38 (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
My sister would probably make as good a CheckUser as me. The problem is that she would ban every single person from English Wikipedia within a week. I might survive the purge because she likes me, but I don't see much hope the rest of you. But, yeah, there's probably a necessary quotient of crazy or obsessive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Vietnamese IP returns
I would like to apologize for not contacting you earlier but I didn't think he was the same guy who was causing an edit conflict in the UAE national team until he started making the same edits over and starting another unnecessary editing conflict, this IP Special:Contributions/42.112.7.78 has been disrupting edits in UAE football articles and had an editing conflict in certain football clubs most notably the Shabab Al Ahli, would you mind looking into him further? Badass Flare (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I semi-protected some articles, which might help. At some point, I'll probably have to do some harsh range blocks, though. It looks like there are a stream of IPs edit warring to blank articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
You dealt with some sockpuppetry at this page earlier this year. I was hoping you could take a look at the latest. Thanks, Srnec (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain what the situation is? Are you saying that User1978199 is sock puppet of someone? I'm sorry, but I don't keep an eye on these articles, so I'm kind of clueless about what's going on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
By blocking 88.201.0.0/17 you basically blocked like half of Bahrain. I have to reset my internet connection like 4-5 times each time I get a 88.201.xxx.xxx IP from my ISP which is very annoying, please remove that block. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Would you consider what the user on this IP range has been doing on their User talk page abuse while blocked? I noticed they seem to add the banned and blocked templates on their own Talk pages without parameters, even reverting AnomieBOT's substitutions in doing so. Perhaps it might be best to revoke Talk page access as well? Jalen Folf(talk)05:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for fighting the good fight against the block evaders and sock puppets. I see your thorough work so often on my watchlist. It's probably a thankless task so I thought I'd say Thanks! Kerry (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
How to find unsuccessful login attempts by user (using the CU tool)
Hello NRP. On my talk page a user has been complaining about multiple unsuccessful attempts to log in to his account (by other people who seem to be trying to harass him). Per T253802 I understand that data about unsuccessful logins is now kept in the logs. In fact, I sometimes see those failed attempts going by when I'm checking something else. If you use this capability, can you tell me how to search by the name of the targeted user? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)EdJohnston, I don't believe there's a way to check by targeted user, only by IP (since it's logged as a failed login attempt for that IP, but there isn't a corresponding log entry attached to the account). Makes some sense to me; after all, they'd have to create pseudo-"accounts" to attach a login to if someone tried to log into a nonexistent account. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. In the case mentioned on my talk page, the users in question suspect a particular guy (who they are in dispute with) of making the failed login attempts. But there is no on-wiki evidence that I can see which would point to him being the culprit. So it's a question of a failed login from a totally unknown IP. This doesn't add up to success unless I'm missing something. I wonder if any other CUs have used this capability successfully. Of course a CU might spot a failed login entry totally by chance (while checking something else) and that might be useful info for some sock case. But in terms of tracing harassment of a named editor from an unknown source, I don't see how it is supposed to work. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there's a way to track that harassment back to a specific person unless you're already suspicious of someone. You could run a check on the suspicious person, get their IP, and check the activity on that IP. It's weird that MediaWiki doesn't tell you what IP address is trying to log in to your account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
phab:T174388 appears to be the relevant request, open for several years but currently no progress. Aklapper notes there is no box full of coders with too much time who could fix all and any incoming bug reports (clearly, WMF needs to put more coders into boxes!) GeneralNotability (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, you're not going to rope me into writing code. I know how this stuff goes. You get talked into being an administrator, then you get talked into being a checkuser, then you get talked into writing a few regular expressions, and then one day and you're fixing bugs in MediaWiki without even knowing how it got that point. I'm not going to live through "Once in a Lifetime". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi. The article Jamia Mosque, Harar may have been created by a sock, but I believe that the topic is a notable topic, and the article needs work. Is there a policy that requires deletion of sock created articles? By the way, I am not a sock puppet, I have edited Wikipedia since 2005. Would there be a problem if I created a new article at Jamia Mosque, Harar, using some of what I have already written, and without the copyright violation of the sock? --Bejnar (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
It would probably be best if you rewrote the article in your own words without using what the sock created if there are potential copyright issues. You can take ownership of what the sock wrote, but then you become responsible for any policy violations, such as copyright or NPOV. And this sock tends to have problems with NPOV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a bunch of them every day. This is a pretty persistent POV pusher. I hope I don't have to go scrubbing copyright violations now, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, was wondering if you could check out JuanRomero2008 (talk·contribs)? That user and some IPs have (re)created a lot of similar, obvious hoax drafts - see my CSD log#November 2021. I wasn't sure if they are like a unfamiliar editor trying to craft their own fictional world on Wikipedia, or maybe one of the regulars, so I just left a warning past the 20+ CSD notices. Thank you! Best, Bridget(talk)03:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Younger editors often decide to add their fanfiction to Wikipedia. It doesn't look particularly familiar to me. If there are more accounts doing it, I could run a CU, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you want to make a soft block, just block two /33s. There is no reason to modify that block, which is why I keep telling people to stop doing it. It looks like nobody is ever going to listen to me, so I should probably just wash my hands of it and stop trying to fix the problems when people screw it up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Dealing with persistent sockpuppeters
Hi, I've recently encountered the account GermanConquest [79] who strongly appears to be a sockpuppet of user ItalianConquest, who has been banned for sockpuppetry already and has created at least three other sockpuppets - the previous sockpuppet investigations can be viewed here [80]. I have made a SPI report for the sockpuppet GermanConquest, but I was wondering what the appropriate avenue is to take when dealing with the user in this instance, as it seems like they intend to just keep making sockpuppets and getting banned in order to perpetuate their edit warring on pages such as Milan and Italiotes. Thanks. Tamptonato (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I can semi-protect the articles. Out of curiosity, does this person ever rant about feminism or the differences between the suicide rates of men and women? Or make maps and try to edit war to keep them in articles? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
No, not really, it seems that they are more focused on their very specific content dispute struggle on the Milan article, that has something to do with boosting the status of the city? I cannot honestly tell their intentions as I do not really have much knowledge of context surrounding the city, but I would guess it has something to with the user's strong sense of regionalism or something like that. Tamptonato (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
YGM
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.
This user is currently active vandalising and I had to revert them on a good few pages. I don't know the IP too well but I saw you reverting them multiple times for block evasion, hence I notify you as you will know where to file the range in case of a block. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 14:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi NinjaRobotPirate,
I have now added a referecne to MsChif's date of birth. It's from this site [[87]]. Sorry about not ediitng without a referecne. Her date of birth was on here a few months ago and soemhow got deleted. It's there now and if you have a chance take a look please. Kingzwest (talk)
So, I hear you were the one who semi-protected the Malignant page until January 9, 2022, if hardly a re-adding date does not get removed. There has been an official day where the film gets re-added to HBO Max, and that is January 27. Somehow, it got removed even if it was real. Can you change the protection settings to indefinite? It would be cool. Also, can you do the same to untitled Mario film due to vandalism? That page has been protected 4 times, and I need it changed to indefinite, if you can do that for me. AVeganKid (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're talking about. Malignant redirects to Malignancy, and neither of those pages seem to be protected, nor do I seem to have semi-protected them previously. I'm also not sure what you're talking about with the rest of this post. Maybe you should make your request via WP:RFPP using templates so that it's more clear what you want done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
The draft is in a foreign language. Prose is full of external links. The images are claiming to be a professional Basketball player, you can tell that's not Michael Jordan and I don't know much about Basketball, but I think the article subject is white, anyway they're both photoshopped. I tried to XFD it but kept getting errors. Any input? - FlightTime (open channel)02:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, NinjaRobotPirate. Could indefinite with no day selected be a good idea for Malignant (2021 film) and The Many Saints of Newark? Malignant had persistent sockpuppets editing the page, while the other page has been semi-protected too many times for a year and it still is, so... I need someone to indefinitely semi-protect both of these before 2022, and you are the one I trust. Even under semi-protection, unconfirmed accounts can suggest edits on the talk page using the appropriate template. Is there something that has been proved? Could you please let me know when you have indefinitely protected the two pages? AVeganKid (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, NinjaRobotPirate. I was also thinking that Untitled Mario film needs to be extended-confirmed protected. There has been persistent disruptive editing from unconfirmed users, and it has been protected a lot. I also changed my thoughts. Since I don't have the access yet, can you please extended-confirmed protect the Untitled Mario film page, after you indefinitely semi-protect both Malignant (2021 film) and The Many Saints of Newark. For the untitled Mario film page, it should only be edited by users who have at least 500 edits. That's what can now stop the disruptive editing. Be sure to let me know when it has been done. Thank you. AVeganKid (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't see why these pages need stronger protection. ECP, for example, is for pages that continue to be disrupted after semi-protection. It's not done just to lock down pages that might eventually get disrupted by someone in the future. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you were having problems with me putting true facts with Lance Robertson and his true DOB. The first time when I was unable to even submit it with FamousBirthdays as a source I mentioned that it was the source in my editing description (which in my opinion helps) and then when I find another source that was accepted you still weren't pleased with it. What sources do you recommend to find factual information about celebrities birthdays?Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
All the best wishes to you, your family and friends !!! Theonewithreason (talk) 31.December 2021 (UTC)
Merchandise giveaway nomination
A token of thanks
Hi NinjaRobotPirate! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
