Jump to content

User talk:NinjaRobotPirate/Archive2024-1

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

What to do about editor who, IMHO, abuses privileges

Hi NinjaRobotPirate,

I hope this is the correct way to ask, as I’m really not quite sure about the best approach. This is the first time in literally 20 years of actively editing Wikipedia that I have felt the need to reach out to an admin about another user. I selected you specifically because I discovered, while checking the user’s talk page archive, that you had already warned them once before about their dismissive, overbearing behavior, under threat of revoking their advanced permissions. (See below in archive page 11.)

I had a good-faith edit (with edit summary) reverted by a user who patrols a large swath of pages. Many months later, I noticed he’d reverted it with a terse, undetailed edit summary. I took a guess at what he meant and edited again, and as a courtesy, posted a note to that user’s talk page explaining my reasoning in greater detail. He immediately reverted my new edit, and responded to me in a tone that I found entirely inappropriate. I replied again in even more detail, which is pending a response from him. (I have not attempted to edit again, pending his response.)

Looking at the user’s talk page archive, I discovered he has a history of snapping at people with unwarranted aggression and condescension after they ask for clarification (since his edit summaries are often terse and unhelpful), peppering replies with policy links and personal insults, and making a mockery of “assume good faith”. He has been admonished numerous times by other editors about his nasty attitude. This user has numerous elevated privileges, and I believe he uses this position to steamroller over other editors. He shows significant “ownership” of anything to do with South Korean entertainment, demanding prior “consensus” for minor changes he disagrees with, and then refusing to engage in the discussions to achieve said consensus after reverting their edits.

In summary, I do not believe this user has the temperament needed to enjoy any elevated privileges or responsibilities, since he shows a pattern of not respecting even the most basic rules of civility, never mind practicing the collaborative ethos that underpins Wikipedia.

Examples of IMHO totally inappropriate responses: (Sorry, I couldn’t figure how to link directly to individual subheadings on a talk page archive, so the bold titles are the verbatim heading titles.)

  • User talk:Paper9oll/Archive 14
    • Love Twist (TV Show) discussion: “Your reply clearly shows that you didn't bothered reading my reply fully and/or exhibiting I didn't heard that. In addition, don't come bs me that this is a norm thing in Wikipedia, I'm not dumb.”
    • South Korean series on OTT: “I tried that before, and I have been reverted before as some editors apparently tied "web series" with YouTube-style videos that are like 10–15 mins long, basically those indie drama-like videos, no point talking to them as you basically talking to a wall, they will tell you that web series stated so.” (Nb: “web series” being the thing I was editing on another page, I guess I’m one of those people there’s “no point talking to” since I disagree with him. IMHO this is a great example of his unwillingness to actually consider others’ concerns.)
  • User talk:Paper9oll/Archive 13
    • Regarding changes made in Lee Junho's page that you reverted: “Nice try btw! I'm not blind and certainly your comments above doesn't tally with your actions. It's your WP:BURDEN to provide reliable sources even if it's WP:TRUE and no they [doesn't] already exists within the page.”
    • Reverts without explanation: “your edits is not an improvement and is inconsistent.” (“Inconsistent” is another thing he accused me and others of, but without any explanation as to inconsistency with what.)
    • Infobox: “Already stated that clearly above twice in English, whether you understand them or not isn't my problem. And obvious, you have for the second time demonstrated in your reply that you don't know what you are even doing here and only copying others articles despite already explained clearly above, hence this means the end of our discussion as I don't see how further replies would get communicated through when you clearly demonstrated that you don't know what you are even doing and know how to say others articles exists hence you're only wasting my time. To end, you have no consensus to change and goodbye!” (Unwillingness to clarify when misunderstood, extraordinary rudeness. I also don’t think he really understands that consensus is built, not sought in advance of every edit.)
    • Nationality of Krystal Jung: “Your changes made zero sense and has incorrect understanding/interpretation.” (He later backed down, but the tone is inappropriate IMHO.)
  • User talk:Paper9oll/Archive 12
    • Re: BlackBerry Creative:
      • “Don't even try to fool me btw, all of your actions are recorded down in the Wikipedia software in case you're unaware of, and easily referred back by any editors.”
      • “OMG ... you have issues understanding English or what ... pretty sure I already answered your queries clearly. To repeat as stated in my initial reply (if you even bothered reading), your edit was reverted because you didn't include any reliable source for Sunye's departure.”
    • Draft:Bull Gamma 3: being very rude and condescending to an editor who was clearly making an effort to comply.
    • Queendom Puzzle: showing impatience with non-native speaker.
  • User talk:Paper9oll/Archive 11
    • Your edits: You threatened to revoke his advanced user permissions with the warning:
      • “Maybe you're willing to talk to me, then. I'm thinking about taking away your advanced user permissions. Can you reassure me that you actually do read the sources when you revert edits that purport to remove defamatory content? Or are you just blindly reverting IP editors because you don't trust them?”
      • “You need to be less dismissive of people's concerns when they come to your talk page. I sincerely hope that you're reading the sources when you revert an edit and not just reverting because the edit looks suspicious.”
(So by this point, 9 months ago, he’d already been getting a reputation of being dismissive.)

And so on and so forth, on every archive page there are more examples of this behavior. He is clearly angering and scaring off other editors (they’ve said so in the talk pages) with his uncooperative, impatient, condescending attitude, and I think it at least bears investigation by an admin.

Thank you for looking into this. I don’t want or intend to get into an edit war with him, but the fact that this seems to be a pattern of bully-like behavior compelled me to bring this to your attention.

Best regards and happy new year, — tooki (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I can take a look at it, but it'll probably have to wait until tomorrow. It's getting pretty late here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Of course, much appreciated! I’d much prefer you take your time to research as thoroughly as you feel is needed, rather than to rush to action.
FYI, he has since replied (without addressing my concerns in any way, stating that his mind will not change and that I should take it to the relevant wiki project talk page), to which I replied here.
Regards,
— tooki (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
He and I have since had one more round of replies, and we’ve at least reached a place to move forward on the contentious edit. I did take the liberty of giving some really calmly-worded feedback on his communication style, since I sincerely believe he comes across as harsher than intended. I do, however, stand by my opinion that admin review of his advanced permissions is warranted, just because it’s been such a pattern of inappropriate behavior. (Even if his wording were super-tactful, I still feel that he doesn’t automatically give other editors the patience and chance for actual collaboration that they deserve, e.g. by reverting without providing substantive explanations, and by reverting for “no consensus” before giving any chance for consensus to be formed.) Thanks again, — tooki (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, edit warring due to "no consensus" (in other words, "I just don't like it") is still edit warring. If someone edit wars using rollback, that's grounds for removing it. That's for using that specific user right, though, which leaves the tag "rollback" as in this edit. Notice how it says "tag: rollback". Now, an edit that uses a rollback-like feature, such as Twinkle doesn't count for this. Notice how this edit has a rollback-like edit summary, but it's using Twinkle (and thus, there's no "tag: rollback"). Refusing to communicate or engage in consensus-building is considered disruptive. It looks like you're making some progress, though, even if it's small steps. I can leave a message on User talk:Paper9oll again, and maybe that'll help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I am also pleased that some progress was made.
I leave it in your best judgment to review his talk history and edit history and determine what, if any, concrete actions need to be taken. (Please review my discussion with him first.) To be crystal clear, my “dream outcome” would be that he stays engaged and enthusiastic, but just bites his tongue a bit more often, and maybe chooses to hesitate a bit more before smashing the “revert” button, but also engages in productive discussions more readily, treating other editors as peers, not subjects, whose concerns are given earnest consideration, without instantly clobbering them with policy and threats to report them for violating it.
I also realized that my title for this talk thread, written as a draft and then forgot to refine, is not quite accurate: it’s not so much that he abused the permissions per se, but rather that I don’t think someone with his reactive temperament is necessarily the kind of user that should have those privileges. I think having these permissions confers a perceived seniority that can intimidate many users and make them hesitant to respond, and I think users with advanced privileges also have a certain “ambassador” role that begins with exhibiting exemplary behavior. (Years ago I was a moderator, later admin, of a forum with 60K active users, so this may color my expectations of what a user with special permissions should behave like.)
I also welcome any feedback you may have on how I handled the situation. I did my best but am always happy to improve.
Thanks again for your time, and I hope you have a great day. — tooki (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. This kind of petty harassment comes with the job, I guess. I already requested a global lock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Reporting disruptive editor

Do you remember back in April of last year that I reported this editor for making unexplained changes in articles and you blocked them for a year? It appears that the editor has evaded their block and is still making questionable edits to articles [1] [2] [3]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I did a 6 month soft block on Special:Contributions/2600:6C56:7600:0:0:0:0:0/40. I guess we'll see what happens after that. I can disable account creation or try longer, targeted range blocks, but it seems like the edits are happening on a wider range than I initially thought. Thank you for including a link to the previous discussion. This stuff is often difficult for me to remember. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral 3rd party needed on Roger Ver Biography article

Hi there NinjaRobotPirate. I have edited Wikipedia before but am not a professional. I don't know if my pinging you in another article would be seen so I decided to make this note in your talk page as well.
First of all, I know that my edits are not perfect and I welcome constructive criticism. I also respect differing viewpoints. However, there is another Wikipedia user, one who you have previously topic banned, who has reverted all of my 11,000 bytes of edits on the page for Roger Ver without, from what I can tell, even reading them. This is similar to why they were banned before. Worst of all, they appear to have a personal bias against Ver. I am not asking you take sides. I would be perfectly comfortable if someone who was neutral went through the page as I had edited it to and took away what they believed was not appropriate. But I am not comfortable with someone who is biased deleting everything whole cloth and refusing to restore anything, even despite considerable conversations about it in the Talk page. In general, they appear to have a lazy, flippant attitude the longer the discussion goes on. I'd appreciate if you had a look, not to take sides, but just to be neutral, please, and hopefully allow some of these edits to go through.

Talk page discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roger_Ver#Restore_possible_COI_issues

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you 58.97.215.166 (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about that. WP:3O, WP:BLPN, or WP:ANI might be a better place to look for assistance. By the way, your IP address seems to be part of a botnet. I assume that since you're editing about cryptocurrency stuff (and speaking fluent English from a Cambodian IP address) that you're using proxies to hide your true IP address. If this isn't the case, you should immediately run anti-malware programs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Your assumption was wrong. I've waited a month to respond to you. I am physically present in the country of Cambodia, and I speak fluent English. Here's a picture I personally took less than 24 hours ago in Siem Reap Cambodia. Note the handwritten IP address (mine) on Monday's Times of London printout:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240220032255/https://ibb.co/Rg0QCsw
There are millions of English speakers who live, work, and teach around the world. I had previously edited multiple pages unrelated to cryptocurrency in the months prior, including a page about election ink in Cambodia. And no, my computer is not infected with malware. 58.97.215.166 (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Your IP address is on multiple blacklists, including the XBL, SpamCop, and StopForumSpam. I really couldn't care less about some picture on the internet. You could post a picture of yourself shaking hands with the king of Cambodia while making an unblock request, and it still wouldn't change the fact that your IP address is on multiple blacklists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Edits to Matthew Jarvis

User:Hiiiii63562hrhd is making edits to this disambiguation about some guy of that name who was born in 2012 and is described in some variation of "the greatest). This is obviously a new account for banned User:535gstjb. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, seems kind of obvious. If more show up, I can start semi-protecting the pages or something. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The return of 45.8.146.82

Previously you blocked 45.8.146.82. I'm dropping a note to let you know that one IP blocked by another admin, 91.192.81.61, and a currently unblocked IPs 185.104.63.112 are editing the same topics in the same style. There has been a persistent problem with a user behind these IPs that I notice when they edit in questionable information about the use of herbs by ethnicities, particularly the Roma. I think you're well aware of this nonsense but for completeness here are three other previous IPs:

103.171.44.94
2A02:27AA:0:0:0:0:0:1571
2600:6C50:7EF0:4A70:8855:31B:12E7:5D7A

Please let me know if I should be putting this at a particular board when I see this block evader return again in the future, as they will almost undoubtedly return. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

And I was right about them returning quickly. Now editing as 86.107.179.231. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Could be using VPNs or something like that. There's a bot that automatically blocks them, but it doesn't get everything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Did just as you said

@NinjaRobotPirate Well, thanks for helping me, man. I removed the information from my user page and you're right. I should just shrug it off like it's no big deal. Cheers. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
I know it seems pretty weird to give a barnstar for such a simple problem, but since it's like you helped me get out of a pit I wasn't able to escape, I couldn't help but thank you for your mentorship. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
It's easier to see things clearly when you're uninvolved. Also, I've been on the internet since the early 1990s. I've had a lot of time to learn this stuff. My email account is older than a lot of Wikipedians, I think. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, the thing is that I was born in the 2000s, so I've just become an adult. I need to learn even more about how dangerous the internet is. I actually have been reading up on books talking about networking, internet, and hackers. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I wonder if Wikipedia has something like an internet survival guide. If not, maybe it'd be interesting to write something like that some day. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Probably I could do something like that (such as writing a book or story) when I'm in college and then publish it lol. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I do think there may be a "Wikipedia for Dummies" book in my local library, actually. I might check it out the next time I go there. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The Sockpuppeteer

When I typed all that stream-of-consciousness diatribe, I was unaware of that account. I didn't see there was a category with nearly 20; I only went from the banner of "Emmy Fan" or w/e to that user page, which showed me a "Keyblade420"; thus, I never saw that death threat. I can understand your aggravation.

As I said in my response, everything I said was as far as I knew him on the 96th Oscars page. I was not involved with a Law & Order forensic sockpuppetry investigation, which is impressive. And examining those other accounts....I just noticed Key Clue #1: He repeatedly blanked ALL of his talk pages there too! Quite an obvious pattern–circumstantial, but nonetheless compelling.

Well, he asked me to vouch for him, and I did as I knew of him then for all of 2 weeks. Can't blame me beyond that. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 16:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, my advice would be not to write passionate testimonials in defense of someone that you've only known for 2 weeks, especially if you're not going to make any effort to learn who you're defending. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. I ought not get involved at all, unless I'm certain it's some miscarriage of justice. When you posted the death threat, I was taken aback, because my statement about him was only about present-day him, not past him.
However, I just woke up at the time. I did make an effort to check. Just a minuscule one, not thorough. For future sockpuppetry, I'm more aware of how to ascertain more details now. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 23:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Reporting a disruptive editor - February 2024

Hello, I've noticed some edit-warring over on The Magic Roundabout (film) and I would like to report an editor who is adding in unnecessary detail. The same applies with The Wizard of Oz (1939 film). I have a feeling that his edits are a WP:FILMPLOT violation. TPercival (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, Bbc1984 has been warned about edit warring a couple times, so I did a short edit warring block. I don't know if it'll do much, but I also left a note. For what it's worth, Bbc19812 is  Confirmed, but there doesn't seem to be any illegitimate socking. The user page ("don't ban me") strikes me as a bit suspicious, but sometimes younger editors just blurt out stuff like that without realizing that it makes them sound suspicious. I've even seen a couple user pages that said stuff like "stop banning me". It boggles the mind. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

rationalwiki

A user with your username was registered over at rationalwiki.org https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NinjaRobotPirate a couple of days ago, is this you? if it ain't you I'm probs going to block it for a disruptive impersonation of a Wikipedia admin. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not mine. Probably just some random dude. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I didn't think so.. I've blocked for impersonating a Wikipedia admin. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

That one IP user doing bad warnings and reverts

Hi, I saw you blocked one of their /18 ranges (are these VPNs?). I just noticed <this> one though, which is on the /17. I guess they didn't do much with it, but I figured you might want to know.
– 2804:F14:8086:5501:5D65:401E:4412:A164 (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess it could be a VPN. There seem to be some unreverted edits on Chinese Wikipedia, though, so there may be legit editors here. I expanded the range block to the /17, which should help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense.
I asked if it was VPNs more because of the geolocation differences - the ones you blocked and the ones Zzuuzz blocked (1, 2) are close together, but the other single IPs doing the same thing recently weren't: 1, 2. Although, I was under the wrong impression that the ones Zzuuzz blocked were in a different location when I asked.
Thanks for expanding the block.
– 2804:F14:8086:5501:5D65:401E:4412:A164 (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Many East Asian IP addresses that edit English Wikipedia seem to be proxies, VPNs, or similar. A decent amount of long-term disruption and sock puppetry comes from them. They'll get increasingly harsher range blocks as they're abused, regardless of whether they're VPNs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Check two suspected sockpuppets

Could you please check whether RyanW1995 is the sockpuppet of Raja Nine to Five? Thanks. Natsuikomin (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think they're related? You'd have to give some sort of evidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I've made a report on Indonesian Wikipedia, but the checkusers there don't give immediate response. So, I ask you here hoping that you can directly check it. Natsuikomin (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

BLP Violation

Hi NRP. I've already reverted this[4] and dropped a warning on the user's talkpage[5], but it's so egregious that I still wanted to call attention to an admin; the user may require some monitoring. Thanks. Grandpallama (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

DAHcat, MannEdith, TheHetStopper, and Frankypedia are all  Confirmed to each other. I figured it would be some LTA vandal in the Israel-Palestine topic area, but I guess it's just a garden variety political troll. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Glad I pointed it in your direction, then. I was just focused on the BLP side, though I did note the odd editing history; even so, I wouldn't have had anyone against which to match the user in order to file at SPI. Grandpallama (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Hi NinjaRobotPirate. Could you please do a check of PukeFlower? The account looks like a possible sockpuppet of Bobbylonardo based on behavioral similarities, interaction analysis, and timeline analysis. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Bobbylonardo has an extensive history of logged out editing, but his IP address was blocked for a lengthy period of time. That seems to be around when he switched to using his account. PukeFlower looks Red X Unrelated. There's a little overlap in their editing, but they're probably both just fans of pop culture. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for checking! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

In case you missed it...

You might find this amusing. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jauerback I couldn't help but cracking a smile at that. I know this may not be my business, but it makes me laugh a bit at it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess the whole "why does everyone think I'm a bad person just because I sent death threats and keep sneaking back under different names" thing is a bit amusing, but it makes you wonder whether Gen X were even worse parents than the Baby Boomers. I used to think our parents screwed up the world much worse than us, but you can only really blame reality TV, the commercialization of the internet, email spam, Millennials, and Gen Z on us. At least we're not responsible for most of the political messes in the world. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Eh, that's true. To be fair though, I am a Gen Z, and I only started learning all about this generation stuff and I was pretty surprised to hear that my dad was literally right at the end of the Baby Boomers. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
The lines can get pretty hazy. I think statisticians mostly just make up date ranges, then the rest of the world more-or-less goes along with them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

My user talk page

Ah, crap. Looks like I've become another target of their non-stop attacks against other editors. Oh well, it was well worth explaining the issue to other editors unfamiliar with the long-term abuse issue on the ANI thread (which was actually filed by them using a previous IP, ended in boomerang action of course). The more editors aware of their behavioural pattern and reverting them, the better, IMO. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

You mean Special:Diff/1209591097? It's ironic that this person would talk about living in someone's head rent free. Sounds like a pretty obvious case of projection to me. Not so surprising that they so worried about what people say about them that they're reading through admin boards, too. It doesn't really matter. I'll just semi-protect your talk page. I let him post to mine so I can collect IP addresses and use them as data for range blocks. If it gets out of hand, I'll just complain to the ISP and ask for his parents' service to be cut off. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah.
I honestly don't really mind the occassional or weekly personal attack, I deal with a fair share of different LTAs here, and legitimate IPs / new accounts do post to my talk page from time to time, but thanks for that.
The post they made to RfD lately gave me a good laugh. I don't feel upset in the slightest, I found it pretty funny. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you've got a thick skin. It helps a lot when dealing with unsupervised children. If you're really that chill about abuse being lobbed at you, you might consider trying your hand at being an administrator some day. It makes cleaning up after LTA vandals a lot easier. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
This message is not a response to NinjaRobotPirate, but to 'that guy':
Lol. Just thought I'd let you know, that I'm not upset at all by your sayings. I'm having a good laugh here. If you read carefully, I didn't specifically request page protection here. The lack of me responding means I don't care at all. In fact this is the last time I'll ever respond directly. Bye! — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

My other message

Don't forget to send the form to the other administrators as well. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The form is in your Gmail. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not really interested. If I ever get bored enough to click on random links that people send me via email, I've got about 1000 PC games I can play instead. I'm terrible about buying cheap games and never playing them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Oof. Okay. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Edit: I asked DFO if he would do the response, and both he and Yamla did them. The responses though? Very interesting lol. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet

Hi! Could you please check whether HotTwoDagon is a sockpuppet of TotalTruthTeller24? This looks like this. This looks like this. Thanks. --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's TTT24. Some of my old range blocks are timing out. I guess I need to start doing them for 1 year instead of 6 months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Sock

100% certain this account is another Gamerguy94 sock. There are some obvious editing behaviors on display. The sockmaster doesn't have a SPI page, so I'm bringing this straight to you. Also pinging Ponyo since they've blocked a number of the socks, too. Recent history at The Sixth Sense shows they were using an IP last week for block evasion, too. Grandpallama (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Exceedhingly obvious sock is now blocked, along with Trollhunter97.-- Ponyobons mots 20:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks--you wasted no time! :) Grandpallama (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

“removing sources”

I did not “remove” references on Footloose. I moved the same AFI to cite the companies not in the credits. I mean do you want 8 of the same references in the INFOBOX? Ok. Gotcha. A lot of other good edits were reverted. Please don’t template me like I’m a vandal. I’ve been here the same time you have. Mike Allen 09:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Whos?

Snowfallen 678? See That's Entertainment (Hazbin Hotel) -- ferret (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that'd be TotalTruthTeller24 (talk · contribs), along with Kneelint (talk · contribs) and a bunch of new proxies that I hadn't blocked yet. TTT24 socks have been diversifying their interests somewhat – the newest socks typically go on a run of edits to unrelated articles before developing an obsessive interest in cartoons, comic books, and superheroes. It's like, "Hello, I'm just an average editor who's interested in copy editing articles about financial investments, and, oh yeah, here's a 20KB article about some cartoon character." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Boo. That's less interesting than some other sock I simply haven't seen before. It was clear not new but I didn't make the cartoon connection since I deal with Ttt24 mostly through VGs. -- ferret (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, TTT24 has been on a cartoon binge recently. Or, at least, I'm pretty sure they're all cartoons. I haven't really kept up with pop culture in years, so I have to look this stuff up sometimes. I finally got around to watching the John Wick films this month. They're not bad. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate Oh yeah, today I just watched KFP4. I don't understand how critics think it's bad, because I like the chemistry between Po and Zhen. Sadly though, the Furious Five don't appear until the freaking end. Honestly, it might not be as good as the first three films, but it's not entirely inferior as the critics say. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I don't know much about that. I tend to prefer art (in its various forms) that is dark, violent, and surreal. H. P. Lovecraft, H. R. Giger, David Lynch, David Cronenberg, that sort of thing. I had a girlfriend in college who tried to get me to listen to uplifting music because she thought all my music was too depressing. I was like, "It's not all industrial music, death metal, and The Cure. I listen to happy music, too." I put on something that I thought was pretty damn happy. She said, "You call that happy?" NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I hate when those adults always have that cliched saying "Video game music isn't real music." Well, I'm telling you, they are so wrong. Have they never listened to Super Mario Galaxy music? Believe me, Nintendo actually used a live orchestra to record it. I had never known they would use an orchestra for a video game, since it sounds way more lifelike than a chip-tuner and has a lot of depth. Mario Galaxy will always remain one of my favorite games of all time, because seriously, I can never get over how damn good the Bowser music is. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
New forms of media often struggle at first to be recognized as worthwhile art. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Facts. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

WorldWideBallCaps's Sockpuppets

Hey Remember when you Blocked WorldWideBallCaps, Well Guess what He's Back. Somehow they came back on Wikipedia and it has been a On going War since then. I would really Appreciate your Help. Here are the 2 Accounts, he has been Using: Special:Contributions/172.92.204.120 and Special:Contributions/172.92.235.185. How can I tell it's Him, Well WorldWideBallCaps openly Admitted that he's from Washington State and I have traced both IP Ranges and they are also from Washington State, so clearly it's the Same Person 100%. Also, they have Edited a Bunch of Pages that WorldWideBallCaps edited and bunch of them are Sports pages. They have been Annoying and a Bully and they are Using their IP address instead of Creating an new Account so they Can't get Blocked again. And if they Reply to this, Don't Fall for their BS.

Original Account: [6] Their Contributions:[7] 2601:84:8D00:2DCB:39E1:BD80:7BAA:6A82 (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, he isn't that much better either. He's the one who's really in the wrong here. 172.92.204.120 (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Serves You Right! Nah, you Were in the Wrong Here! 2601:84:8D00:2DCB:A817:49D4:930E:FAA9 (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank You NinjaRobotPirate for taking Care of it. See he Basically Confirms and Admitted that he is WorldWideBallCaps. Kinda Wish he was Blocked Indefinitely instead. They have been really Annoying. He 100% Deserves it. Again, Thanks for the Help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:401:902B:15A6:2439:6220:8582 (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Requesting un-protecting of the Sweet Baby Inc.-talk page

Following proper Wikipedia conduct, I first contact you, the Wikipedia editor who put the SBI talk page to "semi-protected" status, denying people to further bring up criticism to the current state of the article.

You yourself mention that Wikipedia requires more civil behavior, yet you immediately accuse all critics of having "strong feelings", when the talk-page shows how all people were doing was calmly bring up valid criticism against the current state of the SBI-article. To imply that critics have "strong feelings" comes off as an attempt to de-rationalize their criticism or in other words, paint them as "idiots" or else.

You wrote: "Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs or expose the truth."

Certainly, though, Wikipedia is here to report factual information to the best conscience of all contributors, right? In the case of the SBI-article, several named Wikipedia-editors have shown to ignore all and any criticism brought forward, mostly under the flimsy given reason of "Wikipedia doesn't allow social media posts as a source". Which could have been acceptable, if then the consequence would be to remove the entire article (or at least the controversial section) until proper sources exist to shine light on the entire situation. By omitting key information (not feelings), the article is currently abused by bad faith-actors as ammunition for their cause. All that while named Wikipedia-editors are aware of the article's misinformation, because they themselves were shown primary sources such as official tweets by SBI employees and CEO as well as videos, all of which while it cannot be used on Wikipedia ("because social media posts aren't a source"), certainly prove to the individual human Wikipedia-editors that indeed there is crucial information missing to the current article. In which case a removal of the entire controversy-section should have long been the logical consequence.

I hope this gets through to you and those it needs to reach. Otherwise I will follow proper Wikipedia conduct and issue an official un-protection of the article. Thank you. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you'll find that almost all of your concerns are addressed by reading the linked pages in my message. You're not the first person to come to Wikipedia to wage an ideological battle using primary sources and links to social media. Those links will answer your questions and complaints. Please also be aware that Wikipedia editors must assume good faith. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
You just violated the "good faith"-rule by accusing me of "waging an ideological battle". I have repeatedly explained that this is not about anyone's opinion, it's about a factually incorrect article, omitting key information. In a hypothetical scenario where you chose to only include information from the other side, it'd be just as bad. It shouldn't be that hard to understand that a situation ought to be portrayed in its entirety before a Wikipedia-article is warranted. Right now, you are the one "waging an ideological battle", whether you intend to or not.
I will now request an official un-protecting of the article since you have shown to not act in good faith. After all the calmly brought forward arguments, this has ended in a very disappointed manner. Have a nice day regardless. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs or expose the truth."

The fact that you're openly admitting, as a Wikipedia admin, that this site isn't here to tell the truth, should get you removed from your position immediately. Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective, unbiased source and there is no place for people like you in it. 157.131.103.182 (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Or we should promote him to Super Admin, since he's exactly right, per our policies and guidelines. -- ferret (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Ferret I literally agree. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Saw this edit in recent changes, not to dogpile any further but this essay on verifiability, not truth may be useful to understanding this policy. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@157.131.103.182 Yes, he did say that the site isn't here to tell the truth, but it was all for the right reasons. Also, saying that he can't even be in it is considered as a personal attack. Don't ever do that again, as you may get potentially blocked. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Ferret Or not even Super Admin; possibly we could even promote him to a bureaucrat (though the threshold is pretty tight). NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
It's frustrating how all of this appears to be "fun" for you. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Bureaucrats don't really do anything except supervote during requests for adminship. I'm not even sure why we have them. The reason why people think it's amusing is because they've grown cynical. Wikipedia's admins have to deal with this day-in and day-out – people trying to convince you that you need to cite self-published blogs and social media to get the full story on Flat Earthers, or vaccines, or astrology, or UFO abductions, or... it's just endless. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
NO no no no no... this is definitely our first rodeo at all this! -- ferret (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Did you know there's a Wikipedia Bingo? Very cynical indeed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't know why I'm laughing at all of this. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I didn't know about WP:BINGO. I think I win at least once a week. I want all my nothings now please. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I can't offer a genuine Marvel No-Prize, but you can have a cheap knockoff that was made in New Jersey. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

2409:40E6:0:0:0:0:0:0/36

Thank you for the above block. The same sock seems to be editing from this range as well - [8].

FYI, @User:Bbb23.

Chaipau (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You mean Special:Contributions/2409:4065::/36? There's actually a bunch of socks active on there. Probably on the new one above, too, since it's pretty busy and wide. I don't usually have a problem with blocking wide IP ranges, but that one is a bit busier than I usually like. I could disable anonymous editing and see if that helps any. It should make any sock puppets a bit easier to see, at least. It's harder to track them when they're popping up all over the place on random IP ranges. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, that works. You have already protected them! Chaipau (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Some games not in your list

At User:NinjaRobotPirate/Games. Since that table compromises a list of games without a Wikipedia page, why isn't Gorilla Tag, Sun Haven and Dinkum there, given that they are all quite popular and have at least 10k Steam reviews?. In my eyes, they would be notable but Wikipedia says otherwise. (edit 16:55 UTC - corrected link as that used to take to the talk page of that table of games page)

How about Cuisineer and Travellers Rest given that both has at least a thousand Steam reviews? JuniperChill (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The page started out as a place for me to store my notes for video game articles that I intended to create. As time went on, I looked through more sources and expanded the scope to include more stuff, such as console games, pixel art games, and obscure Eurojank. However, it's still limited to what I've found and what's notable by Wikipedia's standards. For example, Sun Haven has no critic reviews at Metacritic. But if someone sees anything that I missed, it can't hurt to mention it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh I see. I thought that was just a list of somewhat popular games without a Wikipedia page. It feels odd seeing that games like Dinkum and Sun Haven are more popular than say, Fae Farm even though the latter has a page but the former don't. In other words, popular video games (including the ones I mentioned) don't have a page and obscure video games can which is out of the ordinary. Any idea what would have been the most popular video game (using Steam reviews) without a WP article? Supermarket Simulator springs into mind, more popular than Sun Haven, also not having a Metacritic. That table of games seems to also help other creatirs make those video games because you already listed some of them. I think three reliable sources is the minimum. I also feel like your the one who has created the most video game articles yet. JuniperChill (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The most popular one that I found was Brotato, which had 64K reviews before I moved the draft into mainspace. Of the articles I personally created, it was probably Timberborn, which had around 20K reviews before I created the article. I created Dave the Diver just after it was released, but it already had around 10K or 15K reviews, and reviewers were calling it one of the best games of the year. Timberborn was mentioned in some lists of the most popular indie games of all time, but it's still in early access. That somewhat limited its coverage in reliable sources, but there was enough to make an article. Right now, Unheard has almost 27K Steam reviews.

It's hard to figure what causes one game to get reviewed but another one to be ignored. I think the glut of indie games makes it difficult to find gems, especially if you only have a few reviewers on staff. They can only play so many games per week. The other problem is that so many games are clones of clones. There are zillions of games that have the same basic gameplay and similar graphics. That might attract fans of the genre, but it can alienate others. And if you have to play games for a living, I imagine it gets boring playing the same game repeatedly.

I think I've created around 200 video game articles now, but it could be more. There are probably people who've created more than that – it's certainly not a huge number. The thing is that I can pump them out pretty quickly, so my name shows up a lot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Well anyway, thank you for the discussion about what video games belong to your user page table and how popular games do not end up having an article. JuniperChill (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this you?

Hello. While clerking reports at WP:EFFPR, I stumbled upon this account, NinjaRabitPilot, claiming that it was an alt account of yours.

Is this you or just an impersanator? Thanks – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Same as SpaceSuitSpiff. Some long-term vandal or another. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok thanks. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

IP sock

Hey, sorry to bother you. Regarding this, the sock keeps coming: here and here. ภץאคгöร 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's got to be the same sock. I can semi-protect Barbie (film), which might help. I'm not going to remember this, so I'll write it here: the first one looks like it's a hotel or something, so I range blocked the /29; and the second one looks like more Comcast IP-hopping, so I range blocked that /44. If the sock shows up again, just let me know. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, have a nice day. ภץאคгöร 21:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I wasn't sure if creating a new section would be ideal as this IP looks like the same sock, similar editing while continuing to imitate my edit summaries. ภץאคгöร 23:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
It's more of a problem when people literally edit some section in the middle of the page. I'm visually impaired and sometimes find it difficult to focus on the right spot in a sea of text. There don't seem to be many other obvious sock edits on that IP range. I'll just block the IP for a week, and I guess we can figure out what to next time when it comes around. Sometimes Comcast customers continue to pop up for a while on random IP ranges. It's mostly a matter of Whac-A-Mole, I guess. Page protection is also an option. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.

The personal attacks have started again. Just a notice Trade (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not surprised at all that their username is a violation of the username policy with the word "bot". NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh yeah. I forgot to keep checking the talk page after the protection ended. I could try to keep a closer eye on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Congrats ;)

You're at exactly 140,000 edits right this moment, good job ;) -- ferret (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Ha, I didn't notice. I can't wait for the free gift at 150,000. I heard that this year, it's going to be a DVD of Highlander 2. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Block of Special:Contributions/2600:1702:C0:8CA0:0:0:0:0/64

I would be interested in hearing the rationale for blocking this user. Thank you. Useight (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty clearly labeled: BLP violations. See, for example, Special:Diff/1215782576. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it was clearly labeled. Perhaps I didn't clearly word my question. Let me be more specific. What was the rationale behind considering those edits to be BLP violations as opposed to good faith edits, the rationale for not warning the user, and the rationale for not notifying the user of the block on the user's talk page? Obviously, "good faith edits" is subjective, warnings are not required, and administrators should (not must) notify the user - I'm not trying to call anything out as wrong or get us in some kind of attack/defend dynamic. I'm just curious about your process, as it is very different from my own. Useight (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
It's a range block. There's no talk page for an IP range. Blocked editors see instructions and links on how to proceed – I think MediaWiki:Blockedtext. It's been a while since I looked at the internals of MediaWiki; there may be additional pages or a different one for IP addresses. But the point is that they're not left adrift with no instructions on how to request an unblock. The reason why I didn't leave a block notice on one of the IP addresses on that IP range is that it's pointless. ISPs rapidly cycle the addresses allocated to customers, so the customer is going to be on a different IP address by the time they try to next edit.

On some rather frustrating ISPs, customers on IPv6 addresses will rarely see any messages. Though some people take this to mean all messages to IPv6 editors are pointless, I don't believe that. The reason why this editor didn't get warned, though, is because they've already gotten a final warning on Special:Permalink/927228667 and was previously blocked for the same issue. Unfortunately, I didn't notice that this was several years ago, which is a bit embarrassing because I didn't think my vision was that bad yet. Despite having recently increased the size of my font, I may have to do it again. Regardless, it's still the same person and still the same disruptive edits.

As far as good faith edits go, almost every edit on Wikipedia is made in good faith. The only ones that aren't are from vandals and trolls. When it comes to sensitive articles, I've come to believe that Wikipedia needs to tell more people, "Thank you, but we don't need your help." When you repeatedly add unsourced biographical information to Wikipedia articles – and even remove sources – I think that's a pretty big net negative. The last thing that Wikipedia needs is more people inventing full names, birth dates, and marriages for living people. WP:DOB is pretty clear that there are privacy issues involved. This isn't the sort of thing that you can just make a best-guess at and say, "My bad!" if you're wrong.

I have personally seen my Wikipedia edits show up in CNN articles, reported as if they were fact. Well, they were facts, but that's not the point. People credulously copy-paste content from Wikipedia into reliable sources, and it gets replicated elsewhere. Suddenly, it's all over the place, and impeccable sources are saying that it's true. Except that the celebrity is posting to their official social media, "Hey, that's not true." But people keep re-adding it to Wikipedia because CNN says it's true.

Many people see access the Wikipedia as some kind of human right. I think that's grandiose – Wikipedia is probably 50% "in popular culture" sections – but it's quite understandable. In a post-truth world, sources like Wikipedia are important. But, in my opinion, having the ability to edit Wikipedia is not anything like a human right. I'm not saying that you see editing Wikipedia like that, but it's a feeling I get sometimes from the community. Like being blocked is some kind of horrible personal hardship. I used to live next door to a crack house. I think my definition of "personal hardship" is a bit off from the majority of Wikipedians.

Sorry, I was thinking about this recently. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that thorough and informative answer. I appreciate the time you took to explain it and I wish you luck with your eyesight. Eat a lot of carrots. Unless that's an old wives' tale. But even if it is, carrots are still tasty. Useight (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Yamla (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Article request Corn Kidz 64

Can you create an article Goat Kidz 64 on Wikipedia please. 166.48.119.67 (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You mean this one? Sadly, there's no coverage in reliable sources, so it would just get deleted. You could potentially squeak through with just three professional reviews, but I generally prefer to have four. They'd have to be big names, like IGN, Rock Paper Shotgun, PC Gamer, etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
There is more reliable sources now! Can you add pages like Super Kiwi 64 just like indie games when reliable sources Siactro games please. 166.48.119.67 (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
How but this, is this a good one. 166.48.119.67 (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Addition to partial block

Can you add another article to the rangeblock on Special:Contributions/174.247.80.0/20? That person has been disrupting the AJ McLean biography since January, inserting a false girlfriend. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Just wanted to show some appreciation for your enormous body of work on articles relating to independent video games. Almost constantly I go to see if an article has been made on a new game to find you have started and published it! The tracker you have developed is also a great resource. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been slacking off lately, but I think I'll get back into it again soon. I guess I needed a break. I think I got most of the notable 2023 video games at least catalogued, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Q

Hi NinjaRobotPirate--you're pretty clever with technology and all that. How are this and this the work of the same editor? Drmies (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like Special:Contributions/103.61.240.174 is a p2p proxy. My understanding is that these are basically proxies hosted on residential IP addresses. There's a bot that goes around blocking p2p proxies, but it doesn't get them all. There's some information at {{Blocked p2p proxy}}, but I don't think there's ever been a write-up or anything at the CU wiki. Someone should probably do that, but I'm not really sure I know enough to write credibly on the topic. A lot of my knowledge is getting kind of dated these days. My sister was laughing at me because I still use a 7 year old smartphone, and it's slowly dying. I think I need to finally upgrade. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I just replaced my 2017 Samsung phone :( -- ferret (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks--I'll have a look at that. It's really quite complicated for simpletons like me. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Ferret You thought 2017 was bad? Well, after nearly 8 years, I had to get a OnePlus Nord N200 5G (not happy with it at all) after replacing my Samsung Galaxy J7. I know the new phone looks good, but trust me. I would rather have gone with the flagship models. My old phone specifically had a horrible battery life, lasting only like 10 hours on a single charge. Pathetic for me. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Drmies: ah, there is something at the CU wiki. See this page.

My sister likes Samsung phones, but she uses the high end foldable stuff that's probably got better stats than my laptop. I'm not that fancy, but I am looking at some of the pricey phones. The Samsung S24 and Pixel 8 Pro are probably within my price range, mostly because they're advertising 7 years of support. If I could go another 7 years without upgrading, that'd be really nice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I have an S23. The battery lasts forever.-- Ponyobons mots 21:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Ponyo Wait, wait wait wait. Forever? As in like, 8 days or something? Trust me, my phone only lasts for 3 days on a charge so far. But again, that can be attributed to the phone only having a Snapdragon 480 and an Adreno 619 GPU. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I just replaced my Galaxy S8+ due to Android 9 support being dropped in some apps I need. I went with the Pixel 8 Pro. A few things to get used to leaving the Samsung ecosystem but no more weird Samsung stuff either. -- ferret (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Meh. In my opinion, OnePlus is definitely a good company. If you're looking for a good phone, probably try going for the OnePlus 12. I've heard their SoC, which is supposed to be a Snapdragon 8 Gen 3, is perfect for intensive apps and gaming. I'm not a fan of Samsung nowadays, especially with that weird design of the Z Flip. Easy fragility. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Pixels win the game for cameras generally (Tho Samsung is right there too) and I wanted the best camera I could get right now. I also wanted a stock Android experience this time around. Bixby is a curse. -- ferret (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I can agree with that. The battery on the other hand, though? Well, OnePlus easily takes the cake for that. I was watching a video once about the OnePlus 12's battery life, and it stayed at 100% for over 30 minutes. My jaw actually dropped. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I've never had any battery issues myself so I wasn't really worried, any flagship model would essentially meet my needs. -- ferret (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Optimization is key, I guess. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, anything would be a big improvement over what I was previously using – a Moto X4. It's got 3GB RAM and 32GB storage, which was fine at first. I mostly used it for various 2FA apps and to configure routers and such. Then I installed a few games and got a dog. Now I want a nice camera and decent performance. Speaking of which, the Pixel 8 really doesn't score very well on Geekbench, which is a bit surprising. The OnePlus seems to do really well, though. Might be worth a look. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh you got a dog! Cute. I have one I'm trying to get rid of--please come on by. I want a possum. You know, I know a Wikipedia editor who's taken care of stray ferrets. No, not you, ferret. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I do have a rescue ferret though. Lil' guy. -- ferret (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
OK Ferret that makes me like you even more. No, it's an editor we banned, but I love him. Anyway, there might be a pattern here. Ferret has a ferret, and Tedder might well have a tedder. And Ponyo likes ham? Drmies (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
(A wild Tedder suddenly appears). No tedders at the Tedder compound, unfortunately. tedder (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Good to see you again, Tedder. I remember working on your article fondly. By now you could have been owning a farm, you know. There was an editor at the time you were chatting with, and their username was some computer or coding thing--for months or longer I tried to look for a way to get them up at DYK, but unsuccessfully. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Ah, that editor was Bob Datacenter. tedder (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I can't believe I used to have two pet fish when I was a little kid. I had a goldfish and a tetra with red eyes. Well, obviously the goldfish didn't survive, but the tetra did. One fish, two fish, red-eyed fish, goldfish (I know, it's a pathetic joke from the Dr. Seuss book). NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
A short clip of my dog. She likes wearing her glowing pink collar at night. I had to convert it, but I tried to preserve as much quality as possible. I don't want to spam Commons with pics of my dog, which would probably get me in trouble, but she's quite photogenic. I think she's around 100 pounds (45 kg) in this video. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

About Betty Logan

I don't think Betty Logan isn't real, She is another sockpuppet by of Megastar7. If you should mind you could block her for being made by Megastar7? MLJ 657 (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that she's secretly a superhero. Or a space alien sent to infiltrate humanity. Or maybe an alien superhero. I don't really see how she could be a sock puppet of anyone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Maybe we are all Betty. -- ferret (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocking Chimpmunkdavis

Can you please block Chimpmunkdavis for 3 months? 114.125.101.65 (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocking Bringingthewood

He edited my Don Quijote page again! Please block that user! 114.125.101.65 (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate I have a feeling this user might be a sock trying to get revenge on other users for reverting their unexplained content removal. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Block that user that reverted my page! 114.125.101.65 (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
No clue who it is, but they finally explained their content removal. There would be nobody left if we got blocked over something like this, lol. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account

Every single edit thus far has been to vandalize articles related to comic books. Grandpallama (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The editor looks to be young but reasonably constructive on Commons. I wonder if it could accidental. I doubt most people are as clumsy as me when it comes to using mobile devices, but I could see myself making accidental edits like that if I weren't being careful. I gave a level 3 warning for vandalism. If it keeps up, I'll block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look! Grandpallama (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

UTRS #87676

Please see utrs:87676 regarding a block for which you directed appeals to UTRS. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That's to stop a racist troll. It's been discussed on the CU mailing list, and harsh range blocks were pretty much the only solution I could come up with. If someone seems like they're a reasonably normal human being, and not a 14-year-old psychopath, I'd say account creators should let them through. On a block like this, a lot of people will just give up and assume that they're "banned for life" by corrupt moderators. UTRS is a way for them to speak to a real human instead of reading Wikipedia help pages. And nobody ever reads the help pages. In the case that I've typed in the wrong IP range (it happens), they also need a way for someone to do a sanity check. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Las Vegas Sands

Can you please block Eparcells for 8 months? 114.122.15.40 (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Talk:Paramount Pictures

Someone apparently trying to hijack Larryboy: The Cartoon Adventures to a Japanese anime w/ the same name left this on Talk:Paramount Pictures (diff) apparently copy/pasting one of your posts. Not sure if I should do something about it. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. I didn't really want to deal with it, but I did a short range block now. It looks like there's been recurring disruption and hoaxes on this IP range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

User_talk:Guerino_Symons

You probably know, but FYI that is User:Hamish Ross. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 02:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware of that, actually. I don't think I've run into that one often enough (or recently enough) for it to stick in my mind. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Dumbo lead section

I don't understand why you reverted my edit (diff).

I thought I explained my changes clearly and that the text I was restoring based on the GA reviewed version[9] of the article was better than directly mentioning Rotten Tomatoes in the lead section (and some of the other lead section changes seemed like the kind of WP:SYNTH problems that WP:FILMLEAD warns against.) -- 109.76.198.112 (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Your edit summary seemed to suggest you thought my changes were not sourced. I assumed that the text from the GA reviewed version had been sourced but that per MOS:LEADCITE those citations did not need to be repeated in the lead section. -- 109.76.198.112 (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
The point of that section of the MOS is that summarizing the critical consensus requires a source. Making up your own summary is synthesis. It's also completely unnecessary. There are websites out there dedicated to summarizing the critical consensus of films, and it's typically easy to find a citation to Variety for major Hollywood productions. Quoting Rotten Tomatoes could not possibly be "undue weight". It's a juggernaut in the film industry, and studios have complained a poor rating can kill their blockbusters.

It also satisfies the MOS requirements by sourcing the critical consensus. There is no citation for what critics thought about the film in the article except for Rotten Tomatoes. So, this is new information that needs to be sourced properly. The MOS never prohibits citations in the lead, by the way. It just says that they're not necessary if it's already sourced elsewhere. If we had were already citing an article from Variety that came to that conclusion, it'd be fine to say in the lead without a citation. I do favor citations for direct quotations, though, if only because it's easier to verify what the quotation is when someone inevitably changes it.

The film also did not receive mixed reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. A 46% rating on Rotten Tomatoes is "rotten". American film criticism sometimes follows Siskel and Ebert, which used a binary "yes or no" system. Some people have criticized this aspect of Rotten Tomatoes, but it's simply how the site operates. We can't just ignore how the site works simply because it might not work the way we want it to work. Ignoring the "rotten" score on Rotten Tomatoes in favor of the conclusions reached by a different aggregator (Metacritic) is ironically a pretty good example of undue weight. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you've given it plenty of thought but putting even more emphasis on the Rotten Tomatoes isn't ideal either, it's a very reductive site. I think we're both trying to avoid synthesis but from slightly different perspectives. Anytime I see parentheticals in the lead section -- a section that is supposed to be summarizing -- the alarm bells go off and your changes were better than that (diff) but reverting to the GA version seemed better than highlighting a site as flawed as Rotten Tomatoes (if it was forced to highlight any specific publication in the lead section it would be Variety.) I think it is possible to summarize the critical response briefly and generically without synthesis but what I see as basic editing you might see different. I know that Rotten Tomatoes calls anything less than 60% rotten, which is synonymous with negative, but when the GA reviewed version said mixed and Metacritic says mixed and Rotten Tomatoes says 44% I don't think it is unreasonable to summarize that as mixed. You say we shouldn't ignore Rotten Tomatoes but we shouldn't ignore Metacritic either, so on balance and for the purposes of the lead section quickly summarizing for readers I still think having a very wide band summarized as mixed was reasonable, and that seemed to be the consensus at the time the article was GA reviewed.
Rotten Tomatoes sucks, but I suppose I can reluctantly agree it is less worse than the synthesis you were replacing, so thanks for clarifying. -- 109.76.196.99 (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't really care if its methods are reductive. What's compelling to me is whether reliable sources treat it like the gold standard. If they suddenly stop caring about Rotten Tomatoes, so do I. If I cared more about the topic area, I might have opinions of my own, but I don't really. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at Top Thrill 2

So we have a case of subtle vandalism that initially appeared to be a simple content dispute at first. It was discussed at the talk page as you would expect, and then they disengaged and resorted to occasional disruption that continues to trickle in from time to time. Several editors have been involved now, and a page protection request I submitted was denied. Is an ANI discussion resulting in an IP range block really the next move here? This editor isn't seeing any warnings. What's your advice at this point? Thanks in advance as always. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, this latest edit by the IP is yet another case of disruption. The coaster is not under construction, and they KNOW that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Is this the same person from Special:Permalink/981180039#Cedar Point? It's a bit difficult for me to understand exactly what's going on here, but the IP's edits don't look like blatant vandalism. Sometimes edits fall somewhere under the banner of "not exactly correct", which makes it difficult to deal with. Most of Wikipedia's policies are only applicable to vandalism and blatant misinformation. If something even sounds plausible, you're usually told to resort to dispute resolution. And then you get the "Randy in Boise" thing.

I dunno. I guess I'm not really fond of the whole "Randy in Boise" situation, which makes me more likely to take action on stuff that other admins might not. But if this is the same editor as before, I think a partial block might be justifiable even after such a long time. Or at least a warning of some kind. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback. It hadn't even occurred to me that it might be the same editor, but the IP does geolocate to the same "Verizon Business" carrier in Cincinnati, so it could be possibly? Hard to say. I'm open to suggestions. I could even step away for a bit from that article. Nothing they're doing is all that drastic at the moment. The edits are mostly an improper understanding of how the parameters are used in the infobox. This and this had to do with trying to force a "closing date" which is only for permanent closures, and note the second attempt how they copied my edit summary. Not sure if that was a form of trolling or what. If you comb through their other edits, there are other similar examples of fighting the manufacturer and now this new issue regarding the "status". Just odd. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
After giving it more thought, let's stick a pin in it for now. The disruption (or whatever we want to classify it as at this point) seems to have waned a bit in recent days. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, if the situation has resolved itself, that would be nice. I wasn't really sure what to do next, if anything, anyway. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Well that was short-lived. Here's more WP:SNEAKY in this edit (you can bet this editor knows "testing" doesn't mean the ride is open and operating again). And then we get blatant disruption here. Also, somehow we missed this earlier edit and a blanking here. Is there a way to block the IP range from this article only? --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's possible, but it's easier to just semi-protect the page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Sock?

Hi, would you be willing to check if <this user> who is giving some bad(like advising an user to commit meat puppetry: diff), and some other questionable advice at Teahouse, is a sock? It reminds me very strongly of <another sock> who's sockpuppeteer I do not know, who also advised meatpuppetry back then (maybe the username is in a similar vein too, now that I think about it). – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:C4DC:E500:5610:A60F (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be User:Architect 134. He trolls people in the Teahouse or other highly visible places using usernames that reference female anatomy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Damn, I was assuming good faith for a second there... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Darkcastle.com from Spam-blacklist

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, I work for Dark Castle Entertainment. I'm trying to update the article about the company, but I am having some trouble because the company website, www.darkcastle.com, is on the Wikipedia spam-blacklist. Darkcastle.com was once a spam website that was unconnected to Dark Castle Entertainment, but the company claimed the site several years ago, and it is now a legit website with details about the production company. I posted on the proposed removal site to get darkcastle.com removed from the blacklist, but so far no one has responded to my request. I see that you are an admin and a member of WP:HORROR. As Dark Castle has produced many horror films, I'm hoping you'll consider removing the site from the blacklist so we can then properly request COI edits to the article. Thank you, DJ for Katz (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Wow, there's almost nothing that links to this website, and the WHOIS data is anonymous. Seems a bit sketchy to say the least, but I guess it can't hurt. Just don't replace all the content with a bunch of malware, or we'll both look a bit silly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, NinjaRobotPirate. Don't worry, I am doing my best to stick to wiki policies. You can see my request here. If you notice any issues, feel free to point them out. Thanks for your help, DJ for Katz (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

About C-137

I saw that you removed a pipe-link from C-137 to Rick Sanchez because the user who added it is blocked.

However, the main Rick covered at Rick Sanchez is indeed C-137, it even says so at the article, so can I add it again? Bonus Person (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The entry was added by a banned sock puppeteer, and further edited by him, too. If you think it's useful, you could independently restore the edits, but you then take responsibility for whether the edit is true or not. The only thing that banning policy overtly prohibits is restoring the edits at the banned editor's request. It looks like someone else removed the entry entirely, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Repointing Jus danny

Jus danny (talk · contribs)

There's an editor who is making these unsourced edits in article To Pimp a Butterfly for the past months [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18], I think the edits might be related to this user's edits [19] [20]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

AFI later films accuracy

I don't want any further issues, so let's discuss this. Seems we've been having a bit of disagreements with the use of AFI sources in DreamWorks Animation film articles. You say deleting the citation can be considered disruptive, claiming it's because I simply disagreeing with the source. I believe that AFI can post incorrect info in their films, specifically ones labelled "THIS TITLE IS OUTSIDE THE AFI CATALOG OF FEATURE FILMS (1893-1993)".

After settling an issue I was involved with, from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 81#Production/distributing companies issues on Rambo 4, one of the users concluded:

[Also] in my experience researching production data, AFI is not as accurate unless it comes from AFI Catalog of Feature Films (1893-1993). It's best to use as a guide for additional research or second to last resort (behind posters).

Additionally, in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 53#Nationality, a discussion I was not involved with, it's repeated many times that AFI (among others) can have issues, with many examples noted being outside the 1893-1993 line. Also, this point is relevant:

I've seen other glaring errors in the AFI on this point previously...local consensus on a balance between all available sources is the only way to come to a landing on who should or should not be involved.

IAmNMFlores (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Please see the essay WP:VNT, which may explain the issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Why yes, my point was stated right "If it's written in a book, it must be true!":

In many cases, if something appears in a reliable source, it may be used and attributed where needed, but reliable sources are not infallible...Even the most reliable sources commit mistakes from time to time, such as misspelling a name or getting some detail wrong.

IAmNMFlores (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
That could be said about any source, including the ones that you try to replace the AFI source with. Give me a break. The point is that Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say, not what you personally believe. I don't care if you think X is a not distributor or that Y is a production company. Your opinions are irrelevant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah we're not gonna be in agreement anytime soon. I juat find it odd that you're cherrypicking what to follow from the essay you presented to me. You're oversimplifying the ordeal. It's not about what I think, it's about what is known. Nowhere in DreamWorks Animation says it's a distribution company. When a source contradicts that notion, it's fair to question its accuracy, especially when it has a pattern of the same situations. IAmNMFlores (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You may want to know

Hello, so I'm really not familiar with Commons (reporting users), but a user mocking your username is causing disruption on my talk page there. Mike Allen 20:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@MikeAllen I got someone to lock this. -- ferret (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Mike Allen 20:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Graham Beards
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice!

I appreciate the revert you did to my edit on Predator. I assumed that the language section was to feature the languages present in the film (with primary being at the top of the list) since I saw some multilingual films with multiple languages listed even if there was a primary language featured. I'll definitely take this as a note. Clammodest (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that film infoboxes are already quite large, even restricted to just the content recommended by MOS:FILM and {{infobox film}}. Including more release dates, languages, etc, is always tempting for people, but then the infobox would probably stretch down to the bottom of the article (or beyond). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Spartan231297

Hi, is Fanaticaddict Spartan231297? See article intersection.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Wrong country for Spartan, but Fanaticaddict is on the same IP address as an account Ponyo tagged as a sock of Aksh 539. Same kinds of edits, too, so I blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
At least I wasn't completely wrong: they are a sock. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Looking at Aksh 539 and socks, I must say that Fanaticaddict is more behaviorally similar to Spartan.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hi, could you check if this account is a sockpuppet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hidolo Its a newly registered single-purpose account who does nothing other than adding "far-right" or similar to political parties, even if the statement is not supported by sources (eg. here, he/she added "far-right" 1, even though it was not mentioned anywhere is the provided source 1 and was describing a completely different party). The user seems to already be familiar with tagging users and WP:3O (1) which leads me to believe that this is not the first time this person has edited here --FMSky (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, the edits do seem to indicate a user who's not new, but that can be explained away by several things: clean start, legitimate alternate account for editing contentious political articles, former IP editor, etc. Do you have another account in mind as the sock master? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, i dont --FMSky (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

PA and general incivility

Would you mind taking a look at this PA when you get a minute? This IP editor appears to be incapable of WP:FOC and takes every opportunity to inflame the discussion, not to mention bludgeon it with walls of text. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That would be further block evasion from Special:Contributions/2601:280:CB00:0:0:0:0:0/44. Zzuuzz already blocked the /64. If he comes back on this IP range again, we can always widen the block or start protecting pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Much appreciated, but another quick note that a brand new account has decided to join the fray. May or may not be related in some way if you decide to check it out (diff). --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Interesting. It looks like almost everyone editing Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is a sock puppet of someone. I semi-protected the article for a short while. I think it'll need longer protection, though. Seems like catnip for sock puppets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
This looks like the Colorado sock that has been blocked many times. ภץאคгöร 22:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Another sock

Looks like another cropped up. Special:Contributions/Ratmanny appears to be logging out and socking as Special:Contributions/151.44.77.140 and Special:Contributions/151.38.222.99, as shown here, making the same edits under the guise of being a different editor. Not enough evidence on its own, but if we look further back at the history of Rayman and Rayman (video game), we get a clearer picture. Similar IP ranges were disrupting both pages, which led to page protection and the creation of Ratmanny.

This was recently brought to my attention, so thought I'd pass it along! Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Ratmanny is  Confirmed to a Honest Yusuf Cricket sock puppet that Ponyo blocked. I know some of Ponyo's rogues gallery but not this one. There's no doubt, though. no No comment with respect to IP address(es). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Wordain sockpuppetry

IP socks of Wordain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have begun block evasive editing Dimasa kingdom again, after the partial protection ended. May I request reinstating partial protection or some other means. Chaipau (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 3 months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Chaipau (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Reporting Stereoyum

Stereoyum (talk · contribs)

This editor is only here for vandalism and adding false information in articles [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Mr. "TheAmazingPeanuts" is not right. BBL Drizzy is an alias for Drake. I'm doing helpful edits please check my contributions I'm absolutely not here for vandalism only Stereoyum (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
This editor is now harassing me at my talk page [28] [29] [30] [31]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not "harassing" you. I'm tryna understand the motive of this report, but you're refusing to explain that to me Stereoyum (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Your behavior pretty much proves that you not here to build an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
What kind of behavior though? I'm trying to understand what am I doing that I'm not supposed to do, you are refusing to answer to this question.... Idk why Stereoyum (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
That's a sock of Giubbotto non ortodosso.  Blocked and tagged. You might want to check for more vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
This guy never gives up, geez. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

CC5K goes anonymous?

Upon reading this archived case, I realized they tended to edit under an IPv6 range:

Last notorious activities were on May 2023. I thought this would have been worth noticing.197.2.244.222 (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)​​

Careful with the reverts

Please be careful when reverting. While I don't object to this change, you reverted a several other edits of mine in one stroke Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Reporting Vnectarofthegods

Vnectarofthegods (talk · contribs)

This editor has a history adding unsourced or poorly sourced in the article Did You Know That There's a Tunnel Under Ocean Blvd since April of last year [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]. I think this editor is only adding WP:FANCRUFT in the article and nothing else. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

96.249.154.116

Saw you also left a warning on this account's talk page. Thanks for doing that. Not sure why they are doing it, but this person has just kept continuing with the disruptive edits on the same pages under the new name Dyl.buzinsk (talk · contribs). Just wanted you to be aware. Udar55 (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess I can warn that account, too. If it keeps up, I guess we'll see what happens. The sourced edits seem legit, though, which is kind of weird. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

DReifGalaxyM31

Just dropping a quick note here for future reference. I don't think there is a direct link between this older account and Bradley026258, but it is highly suspicious that they recently tried to reinstate an image originally added in 2020 by Free Fly Spinner, a confirmed Bradley sock. Coincidence perhaps. This older account has been through two blocks following an ANI report and a follow-up discussion with El C. Recent activity prompted me to leave a warning on their talk page, so we'll see where that takes us. This is more of a placeholder for now, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty question

Since you slapped a ban on me for edit warring in April, which I didn't oppose because in a stretch you had a point and it was also eclipse time, please have a look and step in at the Statue of Liberty page where someone is accusing me of edit warring even after providing the source asked for. I'd revert again because I did provide a source (the statue is obviously walking forward, sourced, and not balancing on one leg, what's she going to do next, play hopscotch?) but thought I'd bring this to you. It's being discussed on the talk page as well. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

You provided a citation to a self-published blog on a website advertising commercial tours. That's obviously not a usable source on Wikipedia. A reliable source would be something like The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Wall Street Journal... half of the impeccable sources commonly cited in featured articles are probably based in New York City. And for a topic on New York itself? Come on, just look at View of the World from 9th Avenue. There's nothing a New Yorker loves to talk about more than New York itself.

One of the things that I try to remind myself when adding content to Wikipedia is that if I can't find it in an impeccable source, it's probably not worth adding. I also tend to avoid stating facts that seem obvious to me because, well, they're obvious.

As far as solving content disputes, there's always dispute resolution. I get that the petty stuff becomes increasingly more important to you as you get reverted, but it helps to take a step back and consider whether your current dispute, whatever it happens to be, is worth fighting over. For a few years now, I've kept a text file logging edits that I wanted to make but that were reverted. When I get bored, I look over it and decide whether to try the edit again. Frequently, I think to myself, "Huh? Why did I even care about this stupid edit?", and I remove it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the longish reply. No major dispute here, I'm having my say and not very invested in the result. The disputed interesting information has been in the article for a long time and, ironically, was itself a sentence in the feature article summary two days ago (July 4), so if it is incorrect then it's too late to pull that back from the over five million people who were exposed to it. I don't think it's incorrect, and photographs show the foot well upwards as if walking, but yes, the source I provided when asked is from the main Statue of Liberty tour company who, I would have hoped, got it right, but is a bit removed from the New York Times (as if the Times is the go-to place for accuracy!). Nice talking to you, and thanks for good advice. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Banned IP is back!

Banned IP 103.60.175.51 has returned under a new address of 103.67.159.225, and is continuing the same relentless nonsense again. SpinnDoctor (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's probably a p2p proxy, so I blocked it. I'm not really sure about range blocks. These IP ranges look suspicious, but they're also apparently allocated to consumer broadband ISPs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
They've returned with a similar address 103.67.156.253, making the same disruptive edits. SpinnDoctor (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Alan Spencer and Alan Spencer (comedy), block evasion?

Hi NinjaRobotPirate.The article Alan Spencer was redirected by you with an edit summary of "block evasion". Subsequently the article has been recreated at Alan Spencer (comedy). It does appear to be different content. Would you be able to take a look? Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Sklerh is stale, so the CheckUser tool isn't useful. Going by the edits, I'd guess that's also Hammerman Gunmetal, but it's hard to say. If I remember correctly, that account makes spammy edits mostly centered around Alan Spencer. It's been a while, but maybe User:Drmies, who did the original block, might recall something else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry I only recall the generalities. I compared the edits (with the other socks as well) and there's some similarities (the pretty high number of edits) but also differences (the bare URLs and then the ref tool). It is weird though that an SPA would show up, and then disappear--and SPA who knows, perhaps, how to not back a redirect but write up a title with disambiguation. NRP, one wonders if any of the old accounts ever tried to log in accidentally. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for looking into this. Just FYI, I will probably be shifting the history around to add a new disambiguation page. Tassedethe (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

MinorRefiner and much earlier master

Hey, what about this comment involving FiveSidedFistagon?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with any of them, but MinorRefiner was on an IP address previously used by MaiJodi Mk 1. Yeah, I assume there are older accounts, but I guess I'm skeptical of self-reported socks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion by Mdd97

Archivedbypd (talk · contribs)

This account was created today, and I think it is related to blocked editor Mdd97, going by the similar edits [39] [40]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that IP editor is related to Mdd97. It's also getting pretty hot here, and I'm not too keen on doing a lot of research on socks. You could always try WP:SPI if you think there's a case. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Alright. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi NinjaRobotPirate :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Could be fun. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

New combative user

New user Wikiacc321 (talk · contribs) continues to make disruptive edits, on the Serbia national basketball team page without providing sources to their edits, after being asked multiple times to state their reason following being reverted. They're unwilling to work within the community as partners to build an article, and just want to push a narrative. SpinnDoctor (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this some kind of Balkan thing? That's a contentious topic, though people have to be alerted. Speaking of which, Wikiacc321 doesn't even have any posts on their talk page yet. I know sometimes it feels like you're just going through the motions for the sake of bureaucracy, but it's rare that someone's behavior is so disruptive that they need to be blocked without any discussion or warnings their talk page. Also, it looks like Wikiacc321 started a discussion at WP:DRN, which is a good sign. Reverting again after doing that blunts it, of course, but they haven't been told about what policy says about edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I am Serbian, but there is no particularly "Balkan" controversial topic here (at least I think so), the best I understand it it is some type of FIBA vs Olympics controversy. I don't know what narrative I am supposedly pushing either, but clearly this isn't getting resolved without a third party. Wikiacc321 (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
No not a Balkan thing at all. Just simply asking them to provide sources to their edits, which editors on any article should provide if they're ie. adding stats or rearranging info. Also, they've continued to provide no sources to edits I've asked them on the matter. Just to reply with, certain competitions are more prestigious than others. I provided a source to dispute their claim, and they reverted it. And now we're here.
SpinnDoctor (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what type of a source do you expect for point differentials and winning percentages, it is data available on the Wiki pages of the tournaments. Or you are referring to something else, but I don't know what unsourced information did I add that you object to?
As for the prestige of Olympics/World Cup, FIBA is obviously not an impartial source, but which one is more prestigious isn't that important in itself, certainly not important enough to constantly delete my work over such a minor issue. If you take such offense to Olympics being given primacy over the World Cup, why aren't you also editing their order on the Wiki pages of USA, Brazil, Argentina or Canada, who all have Olympics listed ahead of the World Cup, instead of focusing all of your efforts on Serbia's Wiki page. If that is really the issue, the good-faith approach is to just rearrange their order instead of vandalizing the article. I just did that for you by editing their order to your liking. Hopefully now you will stop deleting my work and we can put this matter to rest. Wikiacc321 (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I have a feeling that new account above I alerted you about is a suspected sock. It's just a coincidence that a partially banned IP Special:Contributions/212.200.181.54 makes a deceiving edit to the same page, they're probably linked. That same IP apparently hasn't made an edit in over a year until now by the way. SpinnDoctor (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I have nothing to do with that IP, if you want to put the World Cup first, feel free, but don't delete my work. Wikiacc321 (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

IP editor

The IP editor who disrupted the Ursula (name) and Ursula (The Little Mermaid) articles under the ‎2603:7080:bc39:24c range is back, this time as 2603:7080:bc39:24c:5176:cbee:4212:690d (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2603:7080:bc39:24c:5126:11f2:9e2d:28fa (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Can you please look into this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, HJ Mitchell's got it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, all's well that ends well, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Predators genre changes

Hi NRP! Longtime fan, first-time caller (I think?)? This isn't a big deal to me, but I noted that you reverted genre edits (specifically from action to horror) to Predator 2 and Predators (film) claiming that the changes were unsourced. FWIW, I checked the sources and they do mention horror. Not trying to stir up anything, but wasn't sure whether you were aware. DonIago (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I didn't notice that. Allmovie's website seems to have changed a lot recently. Maybe the listed genres changed, too. I don't remember them listing genre salad like now. I guess you could have your pick of genres – anything from action, adventure, horror, science fiction, fantasy, or thriller. Geez. Why not just list comedy, too, so you can have every genre known to man? MOS:FILM says, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and reflect what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." I don't really see how AllMovie's new genre salad makes sense to use, but whatever. If you wanted to restore it, that's fine. Someone will hash it out on the talk page, probably. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I think you may be right that the listed genres changed, but I have no idea how one could make a reasonable argument without strong evidence that the previous listed genres are somehow more accurate than the current listed genres. FWIW, I've personally deprecated AllMovie in favor of AFI when doing genre classifications most of the time, though I don't really like AFI's choices much of the time either (so I'm admittedly selective about citing it). Honestly, part of me thinks this would be a lot easier if we did away with classifying a film's genres in the lead or explicitly decided what sites were and weren't acceptable for it. Or if there was a 'genre aggregator' site that we could point to. In any case, I have no intention of reverting you. If the IP wants to raise the matter at the Talk page, we can have the conversation that will likely be more trouble than it's worth over a matter of a couple of words. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
AFI is a tertiary source that's staffed by film professionals and academics, which I think makes it a good choice for most of this stuff. Even more compellingly, there isn't really an alternative for American films that's both free and unambiguously reliable. I tried reaching out to some of the subscription services, but they weren't interested in becoming the Official Film Database of Wikipedia(tm). The whole point of paywalling your database behind a $1000/month fee is that its contents stay secret, I suppose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Only $1000/month? Lemme just dig out the trusty old checkbook... (moths fly out of pockets) Hmm... DonIago (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Geena Davis Institute

Hi, I've submitted a revised draft of the Geena Davis Institute on the article's Talk page. Because I wrote and submitted the draft on behalf of the institute, as part of my work for Beutler Ink, I won't make any direct changes myself. I noticed that you created the article originally, so I thought you might be interested in taking a look. Over the years I think it's grown a bit overly detailed, and has become reliant on the institute's own work for verification. I'm hoping to trim the article back and refocus the content of what third-party sources have written about. Curious to hear any thoughts you have. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the article was targeted by college students as part of a class assignment. I don't think anything I wrote is still in the article, and my write-up was from almost a decade ago. At this point, I think my views are about as relevant as some random person off the street. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
No worries, I understand and appreciate the response. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor adding "crime" genres

I believe 2601:2C1:4000:F330:8197:D803:FBFE:9920 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who you warned the other day for unsourced edits, is back as 2601:2C4:480:1450:1896:3A75:D3B5:8011 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Their editing patterns are nearly identical. They are adding categories/genres, such as "crime", to animated TV show articles where they don't make sense (compare [41] with [42] or [43]), and restoring their prior edits that were removing content with no explanation, such as on Queer Duck: The Movie (compare [44] with [45]). Almost all of their edits are disruptive and have been reverted by multiple editors. Also pinging admin EvergreenFir as they reverted some of the recent genre changes. – notwally (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it's gotta be the same IP editor. They were already warned, so I guess a block is warranted, too. I did a short one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Both are geo located to Texas, so I would assume they're the same EvergreenFir (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
That's sometimes all you've got to go on. I can tell you that this was much easier back during the pandemic, when everyone was on their residential ISP and never left home. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Honest Yusuf Cricket

I think Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk · contribs) is back again, this time under 151.38.209.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), based on this edit and their geographical location (Italy). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, looks kind of obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Improper italics in AT

This should be uncontroversial, and since you have some experience in this realm, thought I'd ask here first.

Are you able to move Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey → Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey, dropping the italics? As you are likely aware, ride names do not contain italics as evidenced by the thousands of coasters and non-coaster attraction articles we have on Wikipedia. Because of a technical limitation, I'm not able to drop the italics (system thinks I'm moving it to the same title). Because of the films and books, this was likely given italics inappropriately at one point, but the subject of the article describes neither media type. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You've got an {{italic title}} up at the top of the wikicode. That's what makes it italicized. It took me a minute or two to figure that out. It's hard to see it in that mess of code. The syntax highlighter helps, but it's still not very good. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Interesting. I had never encountered that template before. Appreciate it! -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NinjaRobotPirate/Archive2024-1&oldid=1240349167"