User talk:NinjaRobotPirate: Difference between revisions

• 74.85.109.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

They're back again, as can be seen in this edit. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a little collateral on that IP address, but I blocked it for a month. Hopefully, it won't cause problems. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to check RyanSonic2002, who is on their second block for using Grammarly disruptively, against OpenDesignsInOfficial? While the second is already blocked on promotional username grounds, which would be an odd twist, all of their edits appear to be the same pattern as Ryan, against a scattershot of topics. -- ferret (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Different continents, though OpenDesignsInOfficial has a couple other accounts (OpenDesignsIn, Opendesignsindai). The OpenDesigns stuff is probably paid editing, for what it's worth. I don't see how these accounts could benefit them, but they tried to create an official "SEO" account or something on the same IP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least more paid editing sock/meat was found. It felt weird he'd block evade as a clear promotional account, but the timing was oddly lined up as well. -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check to see if The Assent (film) is a recreation of the deleted The Assent? Seems fishy to me... BOVINEBOY2008 14:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it does seem fishy. It's inescapably similar, but it's not a copy-paste. The original was created by RandomHaiz, a sock puppet of FilmLover2016. FilmLover2016 is usually not too difficult to spot. There's usually a heavy burst of article creations about non-notable films, actors, etc. Most of the citations go to random user-generated websites, self-published blogs, social media, stuff like that. A one-off wouldn't be FilmLover2016. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for looking into it! BOVINEBOY2008 15:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Administrator changes Hammersoft Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac Oversight changes Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not possible that users like this could be using VPNs or proxies? I still find the coincidences, right down to the usernames, mobile editing, repeated edit summaries of "Unnecessary", the same targets, and image uploads for artists like Taylor Swift very telling. Thank you for checking, anyway, and I'd just like to clarify that I know the correct place to report socks. However, I usually try to avoid SPI unless it's a last resort as when I have posted there in the past, it had taken a week to get an answer from anybody. I guess I'm just used to more immediate answers as from when Ad Orientem was still active here. Ss112 15:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can't avoid the proper noticeboard simply because it's backlogged. And, for what it's worth, people generally don't use proxies. Most editors can't even figure out how to make a ping work properly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand a lot of users are inexperienced, but Billiekhalidfan was caught out using another account after their main account was blocked, so I don't think they are so inexperienced. Anyway, I suppose you already would have seen if they were using a proxy or VPN when you checked. Ss112 16:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I was wrong about who they were, but still a sock and now blocked: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joveal George Joshua. Ss112 13:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can take a look at the contributions made by the user, a certain Octoprey that, just registered at the end of December 2020. He has been adding much of the opening sentences of the US voice actors without indicating references that say that one of them appeared in television series and movies in real life, since some of which have a minimum of at least 4 o 5 guest roles. You should also compare the IPs that use which they used their operandis mode to add a term for example actor and voice actor in same sentence and the infobox as if they have one or two occupations if they are to be separated and put together, that for example my recent edition here. In addition, I noted that Octoprey rarely updated or corrected the information tables of the voice roles, live action series and movies, also added the term singer to the actress Ashley Johnson without somewhat news sources (see also here and here).

I think it has the same pattern of IPs of unknown origin or I'm wrong. 179.52.201.223 (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should have recognized Octoprey earlier, but that's TyMega (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I go back and forth with thinking they're paid or just the subject (their poor spelling doesn't make it any clearer) but Tunedly.com was created by one of the socks you mentioned on their talk, which was part of the Bullaiytro farm. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It could be coincidence, I guess, but my guess is a paid editing ring or something similar. Tunedly was one of the things that made me suspicious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, maybe you can help me? I feel like being hounded here, there and elsewhere on Wikipedia by a group of users. Since you have experience with this user, perhaps you can give me an advice? Thank you,--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this question was also asked on WP:TEA and answered in detail.[1] Now User:Chip-chip-2020, apparently dissatisfied with the answer, appears to be using the strategy of WP:OTHERPARENT. The edits in question occurred today on Waltzes Op. 70 (Chopin) and its talk page. User:Chip-chip-2020 has subsequently disagreed with the title "scherzos" on Frédéric Chopin. A fortnight or two I created Scherzos (Chopin), where the Library of Congress spelling is used. Smerus[2] has also described User:Chip-chip-2020 as One-track, single-issue, repetitive, editor who objects to other editors disagreeing with him/her. And failing to convince them seeks to present self as victim in the hope that this may advance his/her cause. aka WP:SPA Mathsci (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand how I fit in. But WP:ANI would probably be the best place to go if someone feels that there's hounding or other disruption going on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 24.170.255.67 insists on putting the singing occupation back to the voice actors without indicating exactly the necessary references to demonstrate that they will release their first musical theme (eg Travis Willingham and Laura Bailey) obviously the work of a sockpuppet of a certain TyMega. 148.101.45.208 (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the IP just got off a block for the same thing. Reblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP returns to the attack by repeatedly trying to add the occupation of some voice actors without indicating any type of source as if they had ever sung in animations and accompanying some IPs that appear in different editions, evading the original blocking of the mentioned IP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/97.33.64.181

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1000:B05D:F2AB:3007:587C:1A8E:3730

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/97.33.106.17

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/97.33.65.27

Those are the ones indicated for now and is there a way to revert all the edits that the IPs made or ask for protection. 148.101.45.208 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geolocation is a bit off from the other IP, but that's not unusual for a mobile network. The obsession with identifying people as singers looks pretty similar. I range blocked the 97.33 IPs for a week, which should help. I can semi-protect pages if they come back with other IPs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanna clear my name on all this, that ip user 97.33.64.181 isn't me. I wasn't invading any sort of block on who ever was using the previous IP's, you got the wrong user. 2600:1000:B043:2CFC:1C0B:E6FF:6689:A913 (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you've edited Jeepers Creepers (2001 film) and have also warned this editor. What is up with their edit summaries? Like at this edit summary. They're hiding links within their edit summaries. Seems like this could be a possible opportunity to hide malicious code on WP, etc. I can't think of a good Wiki-reason to do this. They've received notices/warnings about their edit summaries in the past, such as here. They're doing it all over Avengers Infinity War: here & here. I just don't get it. Shearonink (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just weird edit summaries, I think. I haven't any idea why anyone would use edit summaries like that, either. The editor doesn't seem to be a native English speaker, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like how they don't answer the question when it is asked... I guess I just don't understand why they do this sometimes-misleading piping within edit summaries. Shearonink (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2601:248:4b01:3920:2d6c:e1ae:3561:5b27 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Yep, still going unfortunately, as seen in this edit. Despite it seeming pointless, I think we've disrupted them enough to force a lot of effort on their part. Plus, I can go several days (sometimes a whole week) without cleaning up any mess. To me, that makes it totally worth the effort on our part! Thanks again! --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked six months this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid MasonKim has popped up again as 2601:5C4:4301:56D0:656D:2A98:A003:79CB (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as seen with this edit [3].—JlACEer (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely odd, but I doubt it's the same IP editor as above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in the continuing story of adventure and history in Brisbane, Special:Contributions/121.214.230.66 could use at least a 3-month block I'd think. I tried to come up with a snappy covid metaphor, but I'm a little tired (of it all). Anyway, thanks, and happy new year... --IamNotU (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. And I was just editing a Yahoo Serious article, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. So is this: https://www.thebharatexpressnews.com/rarely-seen-yahoo-serious-in-sydneys-palm-beach-with-her-dog/ --IamNotU (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you block Special:Contributions/139.130.218.134? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... today he's back on 101.178.108.103, you blocked it in July 2019. Looks like there were some edits October 2019 to October 2020 that weren't his, and it geolocates to Victoria rather than Brisbane, but as before the edits are obvious, he's done the same thing a dozen times in Natural landscape. PS, I've had some more e-mail contact with the support worker, who's forwarded it to his manager. Don't know if it will lead to anything, but maybe... --IamNotU (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what's going on with 101.178.108.103, but it looks to have had multiple sock puppets on it over its long history. Could be more evidence for your theory about public IPs. I blocked it for a year since it doesn't seem like anything useful is going to come from it. It would be nice if we made some progress on stopping this, but I wouldn't hold my breath. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right. Haven't heard anything back, and he's still at it every day. Please block Special:Contributions/220.101.78.90 and (again) Special:Contributions/110.145.244.238, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... A couple more longer-term ones: Special:Contributions/49.176.223.194, Special:Contributions/2001:8003:7C30:4B00::/64. --IamNotU (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talonjay (talk · contribs) Heybruhham (talk · contribs) GrizzlyGarcia (talk · contribs)

I think there is an editor who is using different accounts for adding unsourced or poorly sourced genres in articles [4] [5] [6]. In the article Astroworld, you can tell that these edits are very similar [7] [8] [9]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that it looks like just a few random people, but I ran a check to make sure. Turns out that you're right: Heybruhham, GrizzlyGarcia, and Sweet6Teens are  Confirmed to Talonjay. I blocked Talonjay for a week for sock puppetry, and the others are indeffed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BenJen10 (talk · contribs) Possible block evasion by Talonjay [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah,  Confirmed and blocked. How many accounts does this guy need to genre war? Indeffed the master, too, since he doesn't seem to have any intention of stopping. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping my eye out for any more sleeper accounts. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big Question???? Why is there no Wikipedia Page for Joseph Carrillo???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.227.210 (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, would you be so kind to reconsider your block of User:Frutti xperiment. As I explained on their talk page, we don't know each other personally, but I am familiar with their work because I encountered them at NPP. The kind of article they edit is fairly specific and in an area that I happen to know pretty well. Since 2017, they have created 38 articles [15], mostly about artists and writers, some queer. Some of those subject's notability is a bit borderline, and I have on occasion worked on improving those articles. Some of their recent contributions made me think I needed to talk to them about our notability guidelines, but the block came as a surprise to me. It strikes me as unlikely that the editor would, after years of contributing constructively, all of a sudden become part of a spam ring with Smalltownsquirrel, who registered on 21 November 2020, and Sillyspice, who registered on 7 January 2021 to go edit a page on a fitness club and a TikTok "celebrity". The explanation they provided (that they share a router) seems plausible. How about I vouch for Frutti xperiment? They need help, not a block. Thanks for listening. Vexations (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's an open unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TestingSwype (talk · contribs)'s contributions seem to shout WP:PGAME. Or, looking at some edits, a novel violation of WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there's an active SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karagory. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so there is. Thanks. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another PlayerSacha, The Famous Unknown User. Behaviors all match, including the little tells. -- ferret (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, did some range blocks last month, but I guess they either timed out or weren't wide enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Verablanc01 based on similarity to TotalTruthTeller and a sock. Is a CU reasonable? --Izno (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Same city, same ISP.  Confirmed to a few other accounts, including InfinityTrainer, Cassandra872, HollyBearfoot, and WorldRelish. It looks like they're all blocked already, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTHING4FREE (talk · contribs)

The editor has made another account recently and just like before going back to the same articles [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

65.36.59.228 (talk · contribs) The editor also using this account as well [22] [23] [24] [25]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that ain’t my account now. NOTHING4FREE (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTHING4FREE is  Confirmed to Aptesttt (talk · contribs).  No comment with respect to IP address(es). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

68.192.11.231 (talk · contribs) Another possible block evasion by Rishabisajakepauler [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rapper0212 (talk · contribs) Yet another possible block evasion by Rishabisajakepauler [32] [33] [34] [35]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed to NOTHING4FREE. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

65.36.59.228 (talk · contribs) Block evasion again [36] [37] [38] [39]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked for 3 months this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

194.5.215.250 (talk · contribs) Possible block evasion by Rishabisajakepauler. There's currently a report on this IP. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ToniKukoc123 (talk · contribs) Possible block evasion by Rishabisajakepauler and just like before, have a bad habit of coming back to the same articles [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

This IP [46] which you gave a CheckUser block to in the past based on my ANI report [47] has reactivated and is engaging in the same sort of WP:CIR editing, which I and others discussed here [48] for example. Can you block again? Crossroads ^-talk- 05:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, probably the same person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for God's sake, can't you read edits properly?? I was referring to DARK FATE when I put mixed reviews and box office bomb, hence the edit in the "James Cameron's return" section!!! I KNOW that Genisys got bad reviews but made a profit!! Jienum (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't know what you're talking about. Did you include a citation to a reliable source when you made your edit? That's what most of my blocks are about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know that another solution to good faith edits is to put the source from another page or put the "citation needed" label, not just block the user, so stop abusing your power and stop pretending you don't know what I'm talking about when you know perfectly well. Jienum (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sir. Today, I noticed that you are protected Nima Owji from creation. I wanted to ask you to check for his notability! He is a tech journalist! I found these data from Flipboard and this: https://muckrack.com/nima-owji/ https://g.co/kgs/wL9uBo. His articles are published on some famous sites. I don't know about his notability! Rezadeli (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Create a profile for yourself on a social networking website and stop pestering Wikipedia administrators. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So about this where you indicated Noidaabc might be a sock as well...I share those concerns and am doubly concerned they managed to fly under the radar and not only get AFC but also are now autopatrolled. Nearly every one of their last dozen + creations are literally word for word copied machine translations from itwiki and their last AFC accept is blatant spam. CUPIDICAE💕 14:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaociaomilano, Rbwld, Holyhermits, Iamsunshine789, IamKhandelwal, Noidaabc, Ten sempal, Exploreandwrite, MPphotography, Drbasharbizrah and Cswaru are all basically indistinguishable. I blocked them all. There's enough crossover to make it pretty suspicious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fejkxk (talk · contribs)

I think this account is related to block editor Kee1992, due to the fact that the editor has edited articles related to J. Cole, such as Revenge of the Dreamers III [49] [50]. After being blocked on August 9, 2020, it seems like the editor returns back to the article with these edits [51] [52], that look pretty suspicious to me. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created this account in Feb 2018, my first edits can be seen here [53]. I dont have any relation to the user that was named. Sorry for that last edit on 2014 Forest Hills Drive, I just wasn't aware why some of the content was removed. Best wishes. Fejkxk (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Kee1992 and Fejkxk live in different countries. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay just making sure.

@Fejkxk: Sorry for thinking you were the block editor. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for patrolling Wikipedia and making difficult decisions about sock puppets and vandals. I appreciate how difficult it is for admins like you to issue blocks, when vandals who get caught doing awful behavior quickly come up with the loudest and craziest excuses for why they are innocent. I have seen you make correct calls and have seen you have good practice for your moderation. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You previously blocked this IP for a month and they brought this edit regarding a reality contestant's charge of murder to the article for Worst Cooks in America; I've given them a quick strong final warning, but I have a feeling they won't take it to heart, thus this is a heads-up on them. Nate • (chatter) 07:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, blocked for six months this time. Even if that doesn't stop the disruption, it'll give us a lengthy break from it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick action here. Nate • (chatter) 23:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is some editor who is changing track lengths for unexplained reasons [54] [55] [56] [57]. It turns out that the editor is using this range. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week. I can do a longer block if they keep doing it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2601:244:507F:F710:48EB:8E3F:8BF5:BE7D (talk · contribs) The editor is back and changing track lengths for unexplained reasons [58] [59] [60] [61], using this range again. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Range blocked, but you might want to look at Special:Contributions/2601:244:507F:F710:0:0:0:0/64 to see if any of that is vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is back again, and just like before changing track lengths and dates for unexplained reasons [62] [63]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 96.79.28.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Not sure if you want to wait for more activity before you block this new IP range, but this is clearly the same editor. They posted this source clipped by masonkim in this edit. They also hit the usual articles all in one day: Mr. Freeze, Batman & Robin: The Chiller, Volcano: The Blast Coaster, etc. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP, but I think it'd be best to wait to see if he pops up again before doing a range block. There doesn't seem to be any collateral damage, but the IP range here could potentially be pretty wide. There was this one sock who went to internet cafes, computer stores, and restaurants just to troll and vandalize. Luckily, most people don't go to that much trouble. You have to wonder what kind of sad life a person like that leads. Can someone literally have nothing better to do than to drive to a cafe and vandalize Wikipedia? Yikes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously! Sad for sure. As for blocking the IP range, exactly what I was thinking as well. Best to wait and see, or even consider the alternative of protecting the pages for 3-6 months. Thanks for all your help with this nuisance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, am I nuts or does this account look fishy? User was mostly dormant for 2 years, then after a few edits here and there, exploded today and is heavily active in AFC work. They approved Draft:Dr. Bezbarua 2 and moved it to main space despite it being very poorly sourced, they approved Tomas Jantzon, despite it containing interviews and blogs as sources. White Bus Services was another with a lot of primary sources. And, the user has about 6k edits. Am I paranoid here? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit sketchy to me. Have you tried checking Google? If it's SEO or spam, they have to advertise their services somewhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a scan. My first thought was that it might have been a compromised account, and someone was playing around with their scripts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The account was accepting/declining drafts earlier, so it's not out of character. Someone who returns after two years might also be a bit rusty, and I've got nothing fresh to compare the recent edits to, anyway. I'm not really sure there's enough evidence to run a check for sock puppetry yet, either. Are there any accounts that you suspect are socks of this person? I've seen people submit an article through AFC, then accept it with a sock. It gives their article a veneer of respectability (a third party already checked it), but it also tends to look pretty suspicious once people notice you're routinely accepting spam. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes Hog Farm Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi

CheckUser changes Berean Hunter • Xeno Oversight changes Someguy1221 • Xeno

Arbitration

• The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

Hi, please see my talk page history, dont you think the continuous reposting is disruptive? Atlantic306 (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Maybe I should have explicitly said to stop doing that, but I think my message should be clear enough from reading between the lines. I'll block them if they continue being a pain, but it seems kind of silly to block someone who's said "I'll get angry if you continue reverting me". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible if I could ask you to look at Nagadlin (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? The user's first successful edit is an attempt to spam a page with the user's self-named spam site hidden in a fake citation, and the edit-filter supports the idea that this is either a spammer or a spambot.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it looks, well, fishy. I was waiting to see if they add more spam links, but I suppose it could be a poorly-written spambot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Never done this so not sure if it is one good way, but I noticed something. Two users, Firenice10 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Lukas Kaufmann (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Seems as they has similar interests and also similar ways how to write their edit summary. So or they are the same person, or they have some conflict of interests or they work together or maybe I am totally wrong. But let's say, better to say if something looked strange to me,to keep integrity of this place than stay silent. One addition also KasperEriksen9 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) who looks similar to Lodovico Bellini (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). And in general all 4 of them seems has similar interests, articles, stuff like that. And that Ludovico is blocked. I hope I am wrong. And sorry for taking your time. Thanks. 178.220.209.133 (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be editing from different countries. From looking at this comparison, it seems like there's crossover in their interests. On one article, they've used similar formatting: "on [European date format], [organization] said X", followed by a citation that uses "cite_web" instead of the normal {{cite web}} (Special:Diff/967631068, Special:Diff/991326757, Special:Diff/982317081). If you can find more evidence like that to show me, I could probably block them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

24h+ = 2 days in this context? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that the IP is stale, not that it's stale by an exact number of hours. If I'm wrong, and the IP stays allocated to a vandal for longer than I expected, I can block it for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see what you meant now by "Vodafone IPs can stay allocated for a while, but it's already been more than a week since the first vandalism. It could be reallocated by now", quite prophetic: [64]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks like my estimation is about right. Blocked that one for two weeks. Virgin Media is usually a month, Vodafone and TalkTalk are usually two weeks, and BT can last months to years. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to know where the experts are! ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a CheckUser. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzwriter1 seems to exclusively add references to articles, which has a vaguely COI/UPE vibe to it. The great bulk of the references are for Peter Tieryas. I'm not sure if in and of itself it's a problem. The oddity is that they ceased editing on January 31, and seem to have reappeared as Retroscribe1. Still adding just references, often Tieryas, and hitting some of the same articles. Thoughts? May not be worth action, on the fence. -- ferret (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. In the past, I've had decent luck with a polite message on someone's talk page that explains Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Citing yourself and Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. I guess I'd give that a try. If that's actually a journalist instead of a spammer, you'd probably get a useful response. Plus, if they deny everything, it might make a stronger case for avoiding scrutiny. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling nice tonight, so I left the COI notice and a hand written inquiry. -- ferret (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a CheckUser on it.wiki. I'd like to flag you that yesterday I discovered a sockpuppetry cluster aimed at promotional edits. I have blocked them indefinitely on it.wiki. The same cluster is active also on en.wiki on this article Daniele Compatangelo: they operate through edit wars, improper removal of warnings and delete requests and so on. If you look at the article's history, the users belonging to the cluster are User:Robrob7578, User:Lollolollo7891 and you will easily find a match also on some further anonymous edits and likely some further silent sockpuppets. Since this is a cross-wiki spam and I already have plain evidence via CU of such sock-puppetries, I'm kindly asking you to perform a Check User also on en.wiki and take whatever action you deem as appropriate. Thanks and regards. --L736E (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC) P.S. This cross-wiki action was tracked also on the global CU mailing list.[reply]

Andrewikilover (talk · contribs) was making the same kinds of edits back in 2018, so I block them as suspected socks of him. But these accounts are all confirmed to Robrob7578. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you pop onto User talk:Beyond My Ken when you’ve got a mo? I’ve put forward an unblock proposal. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't expect people would wait around for my opinion after I told them to just do whatever they saw fit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Informed analysis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Katharine Hepburn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello NRP. Please see WP:ANI#Informed analysis. It is said that this person is also editing from IP addresses. Back in November you blocked Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:0:0:0:0/64 for a month, which is mentioned in the ANI as one of his ranges. I think Katharine Hepburn is an example of an article where he is using both an account and an IP. Does this add up to any admin action? EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to log in a couple times. If any objective full analysis were done by several knowledgeable people, the info I added or deleted would be found to be correct changes. In music for example, it is improper for so many people to only want to have info on the US and sometimes the UK given. How big any artist is worldwide is important. Many American bands hardly chart at all in Europe; if certain ones do, it should be mentioned. People want to read about a band's biggest 6 or 7 songs, not just about a list of albums, and they want to have any idea of how truly successful they were. In many cases, only 1 person objects to changes because they are peeved the version they mostly drafted is being changed.Informed analysis (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple times? You should probably post this to WP:ANI rather than my talk page. If that's you making those IP edits, you're edit warring from an account and an IP, which is against policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2A02:C7F:8C47:7D00:* has been trolling since 25 December in various places, with distinctive, odd patterns of capitalisation, garbled English, a fondness for pasting templates, and frequent mentions of blocked editors, e.g. on my talk page. Whilst I was trying to choose the right noticeboard yesterday, GorillaWarfare blocked them for 31 hours. The block expired, and they immediately returned to their earlier behaviour (see the history of Alan B. Miller as an example). It would be nice if they found another hobby and stopped wasting our time, but it seems unlikely. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd IP editor. Looks like the same person as Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:8C03:7900::/64, who was blocked for 3 months. I blocked a month, so I guess we'll be right back here soon enough, unfortunately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, that's the same strange person. They know the place well. I wonder if it's an alternate 'personality' of a banned user or LTA who decided to be odd in a particular, consistent way in order not to be recognised. They've triggered an edit filter tagged 'LTA edit summary or editing pattern hit (Oshwah)' several times. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah's edit filter doesn't necessarily prove anything by itself, but it's useful for tracking suspicious behavior. That said, this does look like a repeat customer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Storieblu (talk · contribs)

This editor is edit warring in the article "Blinding Lights" by keep adding reviews after other editors remove the reviews due to weight [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partially blocked for 24 hours. Lots of edit warring in the article recently. Might need full protection if this keeps up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I keep an eye on the article if the editor keep restoring the content after the block has expired. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still edit warring at "Blinding Lights" [70] [71] [72]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a major problem with those edits. I'm trying to get issues with a new PC sorted out, so I might not have a lot of time to look into/investigate stuff. Well, I probably will later when I'm waiting for software to download, but I can't even get that to work right now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

68.198.90.8 (talk · contribs) Saucenoappetizer (talk · contribs) 2601:1C2:1900:1FA0:B1D4:5E58:502B:CCF7 (talk · contribs) Applehead17 (talk · contribs) This editor is possibly using multiple accounts after I reverted their edits [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]. Keep in mind that another editor Ss112 has reported Storieblu recently for adding incorrect information in articles. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if I am not wrong, you are the only checkuser active at this moment.

This is about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korvex. I consider it a done deal. Have you seen the e-mails for the checkusers team? Could you formally close the SPI? Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. That's really long. What emails? If it went through OTRS, no, I wouldn't have seen it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I e-mailed 'checkuser-en-wp at wikipedia.org'. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that goes to an OTRS queue. It requires an OTRS account to read, and I'm not really interested in jumping through their hoops to get an account. They have bizarre requirements, like sending them personal information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You got mail. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just send me an e-mail if you want the PDFs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You realize the email + the SPI is something like 7000 words, right? That's as much as an entire Arbcom case. Volunteers tend to shy away from stuff like that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the alternative is allowing a banned user edit freely and call several editors names. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask Doug Weller if you don't want to do it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I produced a concise summary for my TL;DR e-mail. Do you want to get it? Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can user: Matt sensei please be blocked ASAP for vandalism. See the filter too. CLCStudent (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, per your previous action against User:113.190.107.73. CMD (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, probably the same person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello admin, I noticed that this SPI was undeleted and new socks were added and tagged. My apologies for making a hasty and poor judgement yesterday and tagging it for speedy G7 since the account that I reported got indeffed. I'm sorry for any inconvenience that was caused in this regard and would like to thank you for taking care of it. --Ashleyyoursmile! 05:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it. That's the nice thing about a wiki – it's virtually impossible to break anything. Almost every action can be easily undone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NRP. I wrote to you about an idea for combining two sock cases. EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deluded communist (talk · contribs)

I think MariaJaydHicky is back yet again with another account [78] [79] [80] [81]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just coincidence. Wrong country. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the editor is adding unsourced genres. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a little early for a block. I left another message on the editor's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I actually needed some help. Skydance Media and its subsidiaries (most probably in honor of their 10th anniversary) recently changed their logos. I need to add the logos but I don't know if the images are freely-licensed. Please help me in this matter.

FloorMadeOuttaFloor (talk) 15:21, 17th February 2021 (UTC)

Logos usually aren't freely licensed. Unless it explicitly says that it is, you're pretty much required by American law to assume that it's non-free. The policy around that is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (see also Wikipedia:Logos#Uploading non-free logos). You can't upload non-free content to Wikimedia Commons, but you can upload it here, locally (subject to the aforementioned policy, of course). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I've seen this person take down too many of my own edits, and I believe that it is my duty to recognize every last mistake that he corrects. Also that username is amazing but there's no barnstars for creative names, unfortunately. | Ram P. (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This user Squared.Circle.Boxing you just recently blocked for disruptive editing and trolling has been doing both of those for a long time (he was also blocked for edit warring before too). He was warned about the same trolling and disruptive behaviour by multiple admins before in these diffs: warning 1, warning 2, warning 3, warning 4, warning 5. But still he argued against them just like he argued against you: argue.

He did the same thing against another editor recently here in this diff: lol. And eventually it was again redacted by another admin here: redacted by an admin

Not only he was trolling them in their talk pages, he also reverts a few of their old and legit edits back in the articles they mostly or recently active, either by completely deleting the content or reinstating false information back only to troll them even more. He doesn't care if he reinstates unsourced or unreliably sourced information according to various rfcs at rsn, against WP:CON to disrupt Wikipedia even more. He gives the WP:BLOCK or WP:EVADE excuse against WP:IGNORE for his disruptive behaviour and reversion of old legit edits -which were made days or weeks ago- and continues to degrade of the quality of Wikipedia content for his personal amusement. He tries to protect himself against admin action and possible blocks by wrting 'feel free to revert if the information is sound' in those edit summaries. Here are very recent examples of such behaviour where he purposefully deletes information or reverts back to unsourced information just to troll blocked users: deletion of internally sourced content 1, deletion of reliably sourced content 2, reinstating the retconned information that was reverted by the blocked editor, deletion of a reliable source and reinstating the unsourced/unreliably sourced content back 4 according to this rfc, struck a talk section 1, struck a talk section 2, later deleting the struck talk section entirely, another deletion.

After Squared.Circle.Boxing was blocked and his trolling comment was reverted by you in here User_talk:78.190.171.50, Kent Bargo who was blocked indefinetely, came immediately to replicate the same kind of trolling behaviour at the banned IP's talk page. Even before this, Kent Bargo usually and immediately came to the defense of Squared.Circle.Boxing and NEDOCHAN who's also involved in the articles where Kent Bargo and Squared.Circle.Boxzing are active, in various incidents before. Like here at this ANI which was only declined because it was too long. Kent Bargo came to same argument NEDOCHAN had against an admin before too (1, 2) so I'm pretty certain one or two of them are probably sock accounts of other or they know eachother somehow and talk outside of Wikipedia to come into their defenses at various incidents.88.241.82.246 (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. Range blocked for block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Break given. There, did you enjoy it? Good, welcome back! (Admin-style break, that) Anyway, if you're around, this is probably a fair question. Cheers, ——Serial 11:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tempt me. I might disappear for a month. It was probably related to an autoblock, which seems to have cleared up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think an indef ban is harsh re the user above. It appears to have been for WP:GRAVEDANCING. I don't know that. Kent Bargo came to my defence when under attack from a very disruptive user who's now banned. The disruptive user retaliated with silly ANI/ SPI etc and it's fair to say they took a lot of stick. Retaliation, though silly, doesn't seem reason for an indef in my opinion.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to unblock him, they can. However, Kent Bargo sent me a notification via "thanks" after he posted that troll comment so that I'd be sure to see it. He looks like a common troll to me. Maybe one that has taken your side in a content dispute, but a troll nonetheless. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, I find some IPs that have been repeatedly reverting the edits that I updated myself to the articles I edited a few hours ago, trying to add occupations back to the initial parts of celebrity articles (eg Carlos Alazraqui, Ryan Drummond, Brendan O'Brien) being already of whom they are singers and have not indicated or have not endorsed the news references and have continued trying to add the initial sentences again for example: actor and voice actor as if they are the same profession as them and they do not go there, but they continue to insist that the other paragraphs go there and still continue to leave insults in the summary of editions, I mean these two actors for example12, is there a way to identify the user who was using IPs only to harass those who who They try to edit any article they have update. 148.101.34.28 (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IPs from the range 2600:1000:b000::/40 tried repeatedly to remove the above message, so I've blocked them for two weeks. It has a fairly long block log, so longer sanctions may be called for. Favonian (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The highly dynamic Massachusetts (and sometimes also Delaware or New Hampshire) IP's that edit voice-actor articles belong to User:Bigshowandkane64. Lately there's been some overlap with TyMega socks but these are two different sockfarms. Sro23 (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that New England IP addresses on Verizon are sometimes difficult to pin down. To the IP above: unless it's quick and easy to deal with, admin requests should probably go to some noticeboard, like SPI or ANI. I'm kind of busy right now with trying to set up a new PC, and it could take a while before I stop swearing at it and get all my software installed properly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

148.101.34.28 here is literally making threats, he’s literally threatening about finding someone identify all because his edits were removed. Because according to the Wikipedia policy, users are not suppose to make threats towards a user, he’s literally violating the Wikipedia policy. Threatening a user is against the rules, all I told him was to stop making unnecessary changes without explaining himself, I told him politely. 148.101.34.28 is the one that’s in the wrong, he made this report all because he was angry that his edits were rejected and it didn’t go his way. Like I said before, he was the one that was violating the policy. 2600:1000:B061:374D:A1A4:BD09:3558:E655 (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC) 2600:1000:B061:374D:A1A4:BD09:3558:E655 (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NRP, I've added protection to your talkpage for a short period due to a few IP's edit warring. SQL^{Query me!} 18:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap. It took me 24+ hours to do it, but I finally made some progress. If I experience any more weird crashes or driver problems, I'm going to seriously consider taking a sledgehammer to this PC. OK, maybe this time, it might have been my fault. I had some stuff plugged into a USB hub, and I had the USB hub plugged into my monitor, and I had the monitor plugged into my keyboard, and I had the keyboard plugged into a USB slot in my PC. I know, I know, but it worked in my old PC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. If there's anything I can help with - feel free to reach out via email, or here! SQL^{Query me!} 05:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, unplugging my USB Daisy Chain of Doom seems to have fixed all of the weirdest problems. From here, it looks like it's mostly a matter of unchecking "yes, please send my private information to all your partners" for every single program and finding out what option turns off uploading all my personal documents to The Cloud. But I should at least be back to 100% for Wikipedia's purposes, at least. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would suggest that the user, EthiopiaFactCheck be at least blocked from editing for a period of time as they had vandalised the Maryam Ts'iyon massacre article quite egregiously over the course of three edits which make it clear that they really do not want to act in good faith.The Peoples Front of Judea (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE. I also semi-protected the article for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TokoChihiro began editing 4 days after Verablanc01 was blocked, on the same articles and topic areas, in particular Danganronpa character articles, Marvel, manga/anime, various fictional character articles. -- ferret (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah,  Confirmed. It looks like there's some proxies involved, but there's no doubt. It looks like some of my blocks are working. I usually feel a bit good when I see people fleeing to proxies, internet cafes, etc. It means that I'm on to the right track. It's going to take me a few minutes to run through all the IP ranges and find any sleepers, but it looks like AvaMorrison is an obvious sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NRP. There's a user who has been logging in periodically over the past few months to do some sealioning at Talk:Comicsgate about how the criticisms should be removed, it's not actually alt-right, etc., despite what multiple editors have told them. The last time around, I took a look at their talkpage where I saw this casual admission. I then asked about it when I responded at the article talkpage, and they have now denied the claim. I don't know if this is something for SPI, because I have no idea at all what the other account might be; I also have no evidence anything malicious is going on (it may be as innocent as not having disclosed an otherwise valid alt account), and the odd breaks from this account may be because there's no editing of WP going on at all. What's the right next step? Thanks. Grandpallama (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, having multiple accounts by itself doesn't necessarily violate policy. The conflicting accounts of "I have another account" and "this is my only account" are a bit concerning, but a charitable interpretation would be that the person is just a bit confused. I saw some crossover with a sockmaster, so I took a look via CU, and I didn't see anything. If comicsgate is based mostly around American politics and/or gender-related disputes, you can alert people to discretionary sanctions via {{alert}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice and for taking a look. Grandpallama (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

• When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
• When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
• There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:26, 2 March 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- ferret (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:30, 2 March 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--and it's related to User talk:Caretaker John. Exciting! Drmies (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ye lookin' fer a fight, friend? -- ferret (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please, can you check? One blocked user (seems as him) who does mostly vandalism and who is blocked as a sock is back. User is: ShkoHazhar (talk · contribs) and sock case is this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ShkoDevAct/Archive. Similar user names, the same articles that are vandalized (I didn't found any useful contribution as it is just vandalism) and I am afraid to look deeper at the pages that are edited. Thank you. Nubia86 (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems obvious enough to just block outright. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Nubia86 (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. He is back again. Shko0Dev (talk · contribs). Nubia86 (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, same editor. Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well, again. Shko-Zero (talk · contribs). Nubia86 (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not much a spoiler to report that the account is  Confirmed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Unfortunately again. Maybe? ShukaIQ (talk · contribs). Nubia86 (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed and blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

🌹! Nubia86 (talk) 03:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from their editing history, it's quite obvious that Clownshking is vastly more interested in going on a political soapboxing crusade than building an encyclopaedia with at least half of their edits being simply them accusing other users of sockpuppetry and seems to used ethnic slurs two times against the user, Midre bahri — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Peoples Front of Judea (talk • contribs) 23:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting pretty far outside my realm of competence, really. It looks like Clownshking was alerted to discretionary sanctions, so if Clownshking continues being disruptive in this topic area, you might try Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Green Lantern (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superman Lives. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

69.62.170.66 (talk · contribs) 2600:1010:B158:609:ED8C:DAC3:63E8:84EF (talk · contribs) 66.60.183.99 (talk · contribs)

An editor possibly using multiple accounts for unconstructive edits in articles [82] [83] [84]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the two main IPs for 6 months because one of them was previously blocked for 3 months. I also semi-protected the article. If more IPs show up, I can just block them for block evasion, but it looks like it will be kind of complicated to figure out range blocks (if they're even possible). I'm honestly feeling a bit too lazy to look into that right now. I have to admit, you're getting pretty good at finding this stuff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

67.149.51.210 (talk · contribs)

Possible block evasion by blocked editor MakaveliReed, who have a history using multiple accounts to change date ranges for unexplained reasons [85] [86] [87] [88]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the same as Special:Contributions/2600:1702:3310:6C30::/64. Hard to say, but a week should do it. I don't really know that ISP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would report this to Ad Orientem since he know about this editor but he now retired. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

67.149.51.210 (talk · contribs) The editor is back again and changing date ranges for unexplained reasons [89] [90] [91] [92]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss my report? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I sometimes miss new messages that get added to old sections. Blocked for a month this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. Considering you get a lot of reports from other editors, I figure you might miss it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I just wanted to note for you a talk page post I just made at User talk:Dreamy Jazz/Archive 7#User:Inspiralens sock. I see you too were involved in socks related to Inspiralens. Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yo. Sorry to drag you back into more Michael Jackson garbage, but if you have a few minutes spare, I'd like your opinion on the discussion at Talk:Michael_Jackson#RfC:_Should_this_sentence_be_removed_from_the_lead?.

You probably recall that MJ-related articles have a history of meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing, and so they're under sanctions. Maybe I'm being paranoid - I don’t have a lot of experience in sniffing stuff out - but this looks a little fishy to me.

First: where has this RfC sprung from? Usually editors make RfCs after some sort of disagreement, like "OK let’s put it to a vote". This appears to have appeared fully formed out of nowhere (but maybe I’ve missed something).

Second: I would have expected this question to be more controversial. But instead, within a day or so, it received a string of unanimous "yes" votes. Some of these come from editors who otherwise aren't very active: MaJic hadn't edited in two months, Factlibrary1 has barely edited since July 2020, PinkSlippers has made only a handful of edits (most of them on MJ articles) since September 2020, and Deboleena.ghy has barely edited since the Cultural impact of Michael Jackson AFD in March 2020.

Third: the second question - should we remove "Leaving Neverland" from the section heading? - is odd to me in this context. I think it’s a sensible idea, but the arguments for removing it seem to be along the lines of "We shouldn’t give this film more credibility, prominence or advertising space” rather than the (IMO) more obvious "It makes the heading long and we don’t need it". The fact that the editors involved seem to have an ax to grind against the film makes me say "hmm". Popcornfud (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It looks suspicious when several dormant accounts suddenly come alive to vote in the same discussion, especially given the history of meat puppetry in Michael Jackson articles, but it's difficult to prove anything. If they all make the same arguments, like they're copy-pasting the suggested wording from some Reddit post, that would be stronger evidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. Popcornfud (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Where can I find more information on this block evasion range block? I didn't see the original case linked from the log or talk pages. czar 18:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, most of my blocks are not documented anywhere. I generally don't like to label my blocks unless necessary. It makes my life a lot easier and helps to avoid accidental violations of the privacy policy. Based on the behavioral evidence, that's probably Niemti/SNAAAAKE!!. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Lauri Hendler, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)"

Since when is one personal info change, that should have been included in by the page creator but was too lazy to, it seems, "persistant editing and which you seem to claim people do a lot? Also, since when is adding the personal info, taken from the IMDB, a reliable enough site from which most articles cite for such info? Also, correcting the false information on Wikipedia is not a bad thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenh37 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite your source when you edit a Wikipedia article, especially when it's a biograprahy of a living person. And the IMDb is not a reliable source. It's user-generated, so you should not be copying its content into Wikipedia articles. It's not very easy to find a source that satisfies our rules on birth dates and reliable sources. This excludes self-published fan pages, celebrity gossip websites, tabloids, user-generated databases, and government records. Frequently, we have to leave this blank until the person gains a high profile. External links are not subject to the same stringent requirements, which is why we often link to the IMDb. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

73.137.23.72 (talk · contribs)

The editor has been adding unsourced content and edit warring in the article Huncho Jack, Jack Huncho since December [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, probably on a static IP. I blocked for a month. It'll probably just start up again in a month, but I guess we can deal with it then. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, in a continuation from this post from November 2020, it's clear that KittyDawes68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another sock. They've been editing since January of this year, and continued the same type of edits on List of Twin Peaks episodes and have even edited User:Whovian99/sandbox. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed, actually. I didn't expect it to be that easy, but it's quite conclusive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NRP, you recently blocked I Use Dial and a number of related meat accounts. I think this user should be considered [[100]]. Amandyke has a 15 year old account but only 12 edits. They went for the same Tim Pool related topic as a number of the other accounts. Thanks Springee (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was feeling rather irritable when I did that, but I think maybe it's still the best way to deal with this. Otherwise, we'll get a never-ending stream of canvassed meat puppets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They added an objectively false unsourced statement to Thomas Tull. I'm guessing they added the same incorrect statement to Legendary Entertainment, though I didn't feel like digging through the page history to check. In either case, when I removed the statement, they added it back with no source. Looking at their talk page, it seems they've made similar problematic edits before. I'm not entirely sure what I'm supposed to do here, but I saw that you'd blocked them previously, so I'm hoping you can help. Thanks! Aerin17 (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I indefinitely blocked him. The socking and disruptive editing need to addressed before he can edit again, I think. I'd like to know whether he's just making stuff up as he goes along. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you see if you can implement any range blocks for Ricardojoseph20052010? I've had to duck block 72.138.63.58 and Joseph187, Mrfrankman123 and Leo8901 in the last 24-36 hours. -- ferret (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin1932, Ricardo10012, Mrlarry89, Marioluigi187, Cowman98 and Mariomario90 are all confirmed and blocked. There could be more, but that seems like it for now. If you see more, it might be help plug leaks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've caught lately. The sleepers you found match the patterns but most haven't edited yet. I've watchlisted the one draft two of them worked on, which is also clearly within their usual topic. He almost always returns to the same articles, some of which are topics I normally watch anyways, so he's easily caught. -- ferret (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I believe somebody may be impersonating you on another wiki [101] sco:Uiser:NinjaRobotPirate_III. Sorry if this is the wrong place to report this. I've blocked the account pending actual evidence as to the account's owner CiphriusKane (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's probably PoliceOfficer124. He's not very subtle. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon was blocked in September for personal attacks. However, based on the activity of an IP range, I can only conclude that he is evading his block by using a static IP address. I am not familiar with how IP addresses work, so this could all be a bunch of baloney. Nonetheless, I felt the need to tell someone without starting an SPI.

Based on this edit right here, it is clear that he was evading his block after he was first indeffed. He even made an edit in October after he was indeffed for the second time.

The moment he was blocked for the second time, an IP began editing articles on High Schools. this is just one of many edits this person made from a static IP address that changes every day. this edit likely came from the same person. However, unlike the last edit, this person came from Southwest Idaho, or John from Idegon's home area. Could they be using some kind of tool to make them change their location? this edit right here was only made 10 days ago, but from Kansas instead. If you look at AFD, you can see the same IP address editing.

See this IP range for more evidence.

I really don't know how all this works, but I felt that I needed to tell someone. Sorry if I am wasting your time. I am not sure if the fact that the IP numbers are different means anything. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see they have different ISPs. Maybe it isn't him after all. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right and blocked the more recent IP range. By the way, your links don't work. I don't think you can use pipes with external links. I have no idea why Wikipedia's markup is so complicated and idiosyncratic, but WP:CDLG makes some sense out of it. I've been a CheckUser more than three years now, and there are still some things that I find confusing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can't believe that it was actually him (if that is what you are saying). What is up with the changes in location and ISP though? Those are the only things that do not make sense to me, because I do not know how he could have accomplished that. Also, I tried doing something with the links. However, I haven't clicked on them yet. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It actually works. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior matches, and that's the important part. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, based on the contribution history and block log, 107.77.165.1 seems to be a textbook target for a long-duration {{anonblock}}? I've chosen 72 hours, but you may like to reconsider and extend. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When cellular technology first appeared, I mostly ignored it. When I became a CheckUser, I figured I should at least try to understand it. However, I have trouble keeping my eyes open for very long while reading about cellular networks. So, anything I say usually comes from experience as a CheckUser rather than an understanding of the technology. But long blocks on individual IPs allocated to a mobile network operator are generally not a good idea. They're more likely to cause collateral damage than fix any long-standing problems. You'd need a range block if you really wanted to stop someone from vandalizing via a cellular network. I've seen some things that challenged my understanding of how cellular networks operate, but these IP addresses shouldn't stay allocated to anyone for very long – 24 or 72 hours should work fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. The block has expired, disruption has not yet resumed, so the short block did its job just fine for now. I guess if a mobile network operator's IP address is misused frequently enough to seem to justify a long-duration anonblock, the block just catches a portion of the range's disruptive edits, more or less randomly, per your description. Looking at Special:Contributions/107.77.165.0/24, I'm afraid that's exactly the situation. For me personally, that wouldn't preclude a block: The number of blocked disruptive edits is likely much larger than the number of blocked constructive edits, so it would have been a net positive in my mind and simply done without much thinking. For this reason, I personally find the blocks at [102] and [103] somehow justifiable. At the same time, I see your point, the collateral damage, the ineffectiveness when trying to stop one certain individual from editing. I agree/believe that blocking 107.77.165.1 now would not have a noticeably positive effect. The "net negative" reasoning can furthermore be dangerous, as it could (one day?) be applied to logged-out editing in general. I'm not sure how to deal with long-term disruptive mobile IPs in the future; there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer. Thanks for the detailed reasoning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

107.77.0.0/16 used to be even more disruptive, but it calmed down. I think most of AT&T's traffic used to be routed through there. I usually work on the assumption that AT&T customers are on a /24, but I think some may be on slightly wider networks. I should write all this stuff down some day. The problem is that I'm not really sure of my data because of how anecdotal it is. One day, I'll try to contact some of these companies and see if they can answer some of my questions about their networks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CoffeeCupCandle fairly duck, another fairly-obvious UPE at Randy Pitchford after making exactly ten edits to get past my protection. @Drmies: as info. -- ferret (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Ferret. I blocked as obvious sockducking. Pruned the article a bit--you'd think that these paid editors would, you know, practice decent article writing. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably a meat puppet, but who knows. One of the IPs used triggered some alerts from spam blacklists. Odd how the account went straight to people like Garry Kitchen. That's a name I haven't heard since the 1980s. Are these obsessed fanboys instead of spammers? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my talk page; another related one just popped up. It's in the section "Fruit loops". Drmies (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I quoted you in that same section and forgot to ping you. (Apparently I'm having a problem with that this week.) *Ping!* BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I no longer remember why I said those things, but I sounded pretty sure of myself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was two months ago; that's over a year in covidtime (similar to dog years). BlackcurrantTea (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ninja, I noticed that not long ago you blocked the user mentioned above. Can I ask why? I tried to look for a block log but could not find one. I am currently trying to defend one of his/ her article drafts, 26 personas para salvar al mundo during a deletion discussion. What's up?? A loose necktie (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. The block log is in the normal place: Blocklog for "190.195.107.55" . NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, I had extended 106.202.0.0/16's block, but a valid concern has been voiced on my user talk page that it should probably now be anon-only. May I set that flag? Alternatively, I could restore your partial block or create two anon-only /17s. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to modify my blocks is generally a bad idea because many of them are designed only to work in the conditions I set for them. In this case, changing the block will either cause massive collateral damage, or it will make the block kind of useless. You could do two /17 range blocks that overlap with it, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had misread the block log for a moment. I had added the Draft namespace to the block, but my block reason addition made no sense. I have now restored the original block, which is probably completely sufficient. If draft disruption resumes, I might actually use the /17 method to create anon-only blocks. Thank you very much for the quick and helpful advice ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, overlapping range blocks is pretty much the only way to get away with modifying a block like that. The WMF was initially receptive to implementing multiple blocks on the same account/IP, but they abruptly canceled that idea. It would apparently require rewriting special:block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redsky00 (talk · contribs)

This editor has been blocked in February. It appears the editor has made a new account and going back to the articles as before [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109]. The edits are not too bad but I think an editor should not evade their block. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed and blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OnlyThenDidI (talk · contribs)

This editor is using multiple accounts for disruptive editing and edit warring [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

• When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
• Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

• A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate -- Please allow me just a very gentle explanation regarding my denied IPBE extension request -- that the IP Block itself was simply a consequence of a lapse in my memory, that I simply forgot to login. I spotted a typo error in the article about the Great Wall of China -- and I impulsively went and tried just that one minor edit. My fault! I was blocked within seconds. I felt both shocked and a little scared! Moving forward, I have no further motivation to edit any article whatsoever about anything involving China. What a shame, really, I just wanted to improve an article they have; I now really feel very sad about this. Peace and Love, Buszmail (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buszmail: you weren't blocked; you were just prevented from editing while logged out, just like everyone else on that IP range. And you still wouldn't be able to edit while logged out even with IPBE. The only change that IPBE makes is that it allows you to edit while you're logged into your account. Since you can already do that, IPBE is useless to you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I believe your closing statement of the "Mass reverting spree" section was made in haste. In the statement, you quoted WP:BANREVERT, but it is not applicable to the situation at hand. The policy says that Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, but Archives908 was reverting the edits that CuriousGolden has made before they were banned, using their primary account. Thus, Archives908 was indeed WP:GRAVEDANCING and taking advantage of the opponent's ban, rather than enforcing policy. Silver seren's last comment is particularly pertinent. I'd ask you that you reopen the discussion; even if no action ultimately gets taken, IMO such close creates a dangerous precedent; Archives908 has no leg to stand on here. No such user (talk) 07:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You may remember me from previous conversations, and this time I need urgent help from you. Three IPs (possibly more; 197.251.240.202, 41.215.171.43 and 212.77.152.93 so far), all related to each other, have been reverting hundreds of my edits, and when I try to revert them, they keep getting reverted to the version by the IP. Two of the IPs have also sent me messages (possibly threats) on my talk page, and also cursing in the messages. I don't know how to block IPs or users yet, so I need some help with this situation. Thank you in advance. FloorMadeOuttaFloor (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) See also User talk:ToBeFree#IP Block (perma). Best, Blablubbs|talk 15:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Blocked. -- ferret (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like Nate Speed. You can report him to WP:AIV if you want. They should be familiar with him. Or you could report it anywhere that I might see it, such as my talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check CejeroC and Manero6? CejeroC is currently at ANI as they do not respond to any communication efforts and continue to make disruptive edits. Efforts to force their engagement resulted in Manero6 responding on their talk page. Manero6's few edits over the years overlap with CejeroC, so seems like open shut case. Recommend blocking and tagging Manero6 but leaving the master for ANI to finish handling... -- ferret (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: as info. I'm basically willing to block CejeroC for disruption, but as you're taking the time and effort already to try to break through to them, will refrain. -- ferret (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt they're the same person. Friends, maybe? Talk a look at Commons:User talk:CejeroC. I doubt you'll get any response. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I held off because I saw Yngvadottir make an attempt to communicate at another draft. I don't have time to do anything now but will in a few hours if no one else has taken it up. Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate,

You blocked User:Charmkey for sockpuppetry but didn't identify an SPI case. I came across Globydust who has removed tags from Anna Esaki-Smith which is an article that Charmkey worked on. I'd post this at SPI but I don't believe there is a formal case so I thought I'd just run this by you as you dealt with this sockpuppet incident. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah,  Confirmed to that sock farm. I don't think there's an SPI case. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking, NRP! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NRP! I'm an active contributor on Phineas and Ferb as well as Milo Murphy's Law fandom wikis.

Regarding to User:2601:44:4380:C370:B8CE:14B6:719A:FF78, I think you should give them indefinite ban, regarding on both wikis he has been persistent on his "Sesame Street" misinformation, and yet keep vandalizing on both wikis I've mentioned earlier for almost three years, and recently he has been vandalizing over PnF movie and MML wikipedias and consistently removing Doofenshmirtz links. I think if they got light bans I'd think they'd come back and vandalizing again. Thank you. AdysonnS (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't indefinitely block IP addresses, but I can block the IP for a longer period if the vandalism starts up again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry to bother you. Kindly block IP 120.156.103.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for repeated instances of harassment and personal attack towards other users. Please see their talk page history. --Ashleyyoursmile! 03:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Ashleyyoursmile! 03:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey NRP, this looks pretty duck-vious, but can you scan AlexZade? Obvious user page gaming to gain autoconfirm then upload a an Xbox image, similar to past Nakita Kelley uploads. Typing style is the same as well. -- ferret (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. I could do a range block, but it would have some collateral damage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure I blocked their IPv6 /64 today. And it was the third long term block on it. Could be someone else but immediately adding another Xbox upload by AlexZade from commons to an article is awfully ducky. -- ferret (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you perhaps expand the pBlock/rangelblock seen here to include Kutni Island Resort? Two other IPS from the same range are also making bad edits there, removing deletion tags etc. Lots of funny business going on. --- Possibly (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to just semi-protect that article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly.--- Possibly (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does DisneyRocks5606 reveal anything of use in regards to User:Ferret/Sockdrawer#Cancelled_platforms_vandal? I've blocked this as a very obvious duck, hitting several of the IP's normal targets in the usual fashion. The LTA operates almost entirely on IP though, and this is one of only 3 accounts I've possibly caught them on, and this is the most obvious of the three. -- ferret (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if those are hoaxes, I guess it's not all that important if it's this specific hoaxer or just some random hoaxer. It seems like kind of niche vandalism target, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please block Gardo Versace 16? aeschyIus (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plainfellagon (talk · contribs)

Keep adding unsourced content in articles after been warned several times already [116] [117] [118] [119]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music artist infoboxes are kind of a Wild West. I blocked for 24 hours, though, because there's a user talk page full of warnings. I think some of these templates should just be edited to remove unverifiable fields, like "associated artists", "major works", etc. I suspect that other people would disagree with me, but it seems like the only purpose these parameters serve is to attract unsourced speculation and opinion from random editors. I don't think they add any value to the article itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think the template "associated artists" is unnecessary and don't add anything to the article. The reason why I made this report because the editor is being disruptive and restore some of the edits that been reverted by Binksternet. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was wondering if you would like to put some more streaming movies on the List of American films of 2021, such as Arlo the Alligator Boy, Earwig and the Witch, Bigfoot Family, etc. I don't know how to add movies to that list, so can you?

71.46.222.93 (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never even heard of them. I guess I spend most of my time these days trying to figure out what the difference is between "10 bit pixel depth" and "10 bit color depth". "Enables 10 bit pixel depth" – yeah, thanks for that great tool tip, AMD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good day my friend NinjaRobotPirate! At the risk of sounding like a broken record I seriously would like to have you guys look into the activities of Albe23413 and his sockpuppets. As I discussed exhaustively in my unblock request, their editing pattern is eerily similar and the fact that Ajhenson21 maintains so many sockpuppet accounts as Albe23413 has been documented to do, gives me more reason to believe that they are one and the same person and that Ajhenson21 is not a puppetmaster but is actually a sockpuppet of Albe23413. The ultimate point I want to shed the spotlight on, is that while I did not report Ajhenson21's sockpuppets, which I have been doing against Albe23413 and his sockpuppets, I became the subject of his troll account Gardo Versace 16. If he is not connected to Albe23413, why then would an account suspected of being a sockpuppet of Ajhenson21 choose me as the target of a troll account considering I have not had any interaction with Ajhenson21 and have not reported him for sock puppetry because of my inactivity. I believe all these taken together clearly make out the case for Ajhenson21 being a sockpuppet of Albe23413. Hoping that swift action be made on this request. Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the SPI clerks will clean up the SPI case. Is there something else that needs to be done? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Hey, sorry if I appear to be pushing the issue, but take a look at [[120]]. In that diff, the user that did that to me was Jricaplaza. What's so suspect about it was that the said user was eager to implicate me as a sockpuppet of Ajhenson21. Then, lo and behold, he turns out to be an actual sockpuppet of Ajhenson21. Again, that despite the fact that I have not had any interaction with these accounts. I was targeted for no other reason but to get back at me. Honestly, what happened creeps me out. I mean I fear the next thing he might do is try to track my location and inflict harm on me and those close to me. I am hoping for a more permanent solution to this problem considering that I have been inactive and yet am still a target of attacks. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't really see how I can help you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine my friend, I understand. Can we at least run a CU between Albe23413 and Ajhenson 21? Let's narrow it down to that, thanks in advance man. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Albe23413 is stale. Wikipedia only keeps this data for three months. If I spent enough time looking through old log files, I could perhaps make an educated guess, but even that's not always possible. I can try looking at the logs later when I'm more bored. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blob20A is blocked regardless, but their editing suggests they relate to PEMNCX in some way. -- ferret (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same IP range as PEMNCX. It makes more sense to me if this is meat puppetry, but Xavier Rannel is confirmed to Blob20A regardless. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP 216.117.54.174 insists on putting the term actor in real life in the opening sentence of the Vic Mignogna article, as you can read in the discussion page here, these users reversed my edit by trying to remove this term that was not going and apparently two users says in the summary of editions that the voice actor contained news references that he has participated in some series and movies of him in the Live-action section in his filmography and no one else has been able to create it here, only I see web series for fans like Star Trek Continues article, but if you help me identify this obsessive IP with voice actors who in the past were involved in same live action series and movies, I would appreciate it anyway. 148.101.32.31 (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably fall under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#First sentence. I don't think opening sentences should be so cluttered; "actor" should be good enough for any actor, whether they're stage actors, film actors, voice actors, or whatever else kind of actor. From MOS:FIRST: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject." I've been tempted to get this whole stupid "actor"/"voice actor"/"actor and voice actor" thing explicitly put into a guideline somewhere so that people have less room to argue incessantly about it ("he's not an actor, he's a voice actor" / "no, he's a voice actor and actor!"). That argument sounds totally absurd if you say it out loud. But this kind of low on my list of things to deal with. If you can't make any headway, maybe try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, How are you? I wanted to create Nima Owji's article draft but I realized that it's protected! I wanted to ask you the reason and provide you some information to reopen it again (If Possible). I won't publish the draft until you accept it.

About him, He is a software developer and journalist. He is from Iran. I saw his name many times under some web apps. When his web app "Image It" became the fifth app of the day by ProductHunt, I thought he may be eligible to have a Wikipedia page!

These are some references about him, please watch them, if he was eligible, I'll be happy to be the first contributor!

https://www.crunchbase.com/person/nima-owji https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/image-it https://muckrack.com/nima-owji/articles https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nima-Owji https://www.producthunt.com/@nima_owji https://infofamouspeople.com/famous/nima-owji.htm https://img-it.web.app/

His article on News Sources:

https://hackernoon.com/how-to-use-jquery-an-introduction-to-the-javascript-library-0j903159 https://hackernoon.com/how-to-create-a-night-mode-for-your-website-7x2p317i https://hackernoon.com/how-to-put-a-send-us-a-private-message-button-in-a-tweet-e91b34qq https://hackernoon.com/how-to-put-a-div-in-the-center-using-flexbox-ua1h31ng

Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zokoris (talk • contribs) 13:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC) Zokoris (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NinjaRobotPirate Im Phantom Digital I Was Just Wondering If We Can Chat about helping me learn more about Wikipedia

Sincerly, PD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom Digital (talk • contribs) 02:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NyeYoo (talk · contribs)

Possible block evasion by blocked editor Talonjay, who have a history of adding poorly sourced content in articles [121] [122] [123] [124]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed and blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NPR. Dreamsheld was blocked on 25 February and then one of their socks un-draftified an article on 6 March (before this sock was blocked by you the next day). In this circumstance, do you think it is ok to apply CSD G5 or perhaps re-draftify it? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What article did they move? If the article was created by someone else, or it's got substantial edits by non-socks, it might not qualify for speedy deletion under G5. In that case, I guess you could move it back, but making articles in draft-space is optional. See Wikipedia:Drafts#Objections. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went looking for this earlier; I think it's Anna Esaki-Smith. Sir Sputnik refused G5 (twice) because they weren't blocked when they created it, a sock objected to PROD, and they moved it back to mainspace three times when editors tried to draftify it. Someone should write WP:RASPUTIN about articles like this. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That article would have to go to WP:AFD. G5 requires the page to have been created after the master account was blocked. Charmkey already moved it out of draft space, so the move was objected to. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So even though the moves back to mainspace were all made by socks (two of the three were after you'd blocked the master), it can't be re-draftified? Huh. Ok, thanks. I'll let someone else AfD it if they'd like; I've not looked at the subject's notability or lack thereof. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

131.196.253.116 (talk · contribs) 2603:8001:401:ACAB:F05B:E3F3:A6D2:36AC (talk · contribs)

There's is an editor who I think is using multiple accounts, the reason why because these IPs edit the same articles not too long from each other [125] [126] [127] [128] [129], and the edits look similar [130] [131]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using different IP addresses is not against policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just wondering if these IP addresses are from an blocked editor. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. I'd need a reason to check for socks besides "I'm curious". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you blocked a user called 2603:8000:F201:6AC3:E522:E1DA:BC7E:1332. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:c7:c201:c640:8900:57a0:ddc3:fa5d (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Norway RX 1700 - A sock and vandalized editor was indef blocked by you- see [132] and change his blocked to unblocked - see here -1 and -2. Might want to considered to revolt talk page editing right. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but the account is soon to be globally locked, anyway. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am messaging you too let you know that I received a message regarding block evasion and I don’t know why I received this to begin with because I think I am and uninvolved editor who is using a shared IP address. I have seldom made any edits to Wikipedia articles for a long time so I don’t know why I’m being linked to block evasion, because I have no reason to do anything that I know is against the rules. I think this might be the doing of someone else and it’s being linked to me for some reason. 8.48.249.189 (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is why you would create an account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NinjaRobotPirate, I hope you're doing well. I remember you blocking this sock puppet who I have been dealing with for a while now. [133] This user in the past created several articles in different sock accounts and they've all been deleted due to original research and I would be grateful if you could get rid of these made-up articles. [134] [135] [136] [137][138] Ayaltimo (talk) 12:29, 04 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]