User talk:NinjaRobotPirate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
I hope you find my addition to your talk page aggravating and stressful, just the way you like it! :) Natureium (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


Help Please...[edit]

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

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

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

Happy New Year, NinjaRobotPirate![edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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



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

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

Username block[edit]

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

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


In November you blocked:

for block evasion.

You also did a range block on

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

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

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

This again[edit]

DarkKnight2149 01:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Two years!

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

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

You've got mail[edit]

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

IP sock returns[edit]

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

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

Kiera Chaplin[edit]

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

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

Request for unblock[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back again[edit]

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

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

I'm stuck[edit]

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

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

Untitled message from ReverendBhindu[edit]

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

Second adminly opinion[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

January 2019[edit]

(Personal attack removed)

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

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

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

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


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

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

Eagle song pages[edit]

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

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

I would like to know, too[edit]

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

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

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added EnterpriseyJJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5Jenks24GraftR. Baley

Interface administrator changes


Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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


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

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

Wow! signal: possible socks[edit]

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

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

Not to evading block[edit]

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

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

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

Request for help with potential sockpuppet[edit]

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

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

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

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

General sanctions[edit]

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

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

Likely vandal[edit]

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

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

Christian Moeller[edit]

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

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

2019 Pulwama Attack[edit]

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

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


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

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

Block on[edit]

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

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

Shiftyfinger CU[edit]

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

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

recreate ban topic articles[edit]

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


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

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

I asked Steward[edit]

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

Potential sock[edit]

Hi, NinjaRobotPirate, I noticed the same edit made by Sudip20 [13] as was previously made by Swapachi8890 [14], who you recently blocked for their edits on Anand Teltumbde here. I don't know if they are both socks of the same user, or whether someone is impersonating the banned user, but I wanted to let you know either way. Take care. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I also reported IP editor (talk) over the same conduct as Swapachi8890 at AN3 here. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, good catch. I blocked both of them and semi-protected the article. I like the easy cases. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Serena Buhman sock[edit]

Lightning McQueen2006-2017 looks like a solid duck of Go!Animate Comedy World, who Materialscientist blocked as a Serena Buhman sock. -- ferret (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought I was good at finding obscure sock puppets, but I don't know how you found that.  Confirmed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Qzekrom gets the credit. They were asking on Discord how to rate an article that the older sock had un-redirected. While looking I noticed the block, reverted, and while checking contribs found the second one. -- ferret (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Genre of The Prodigy - Firestarter[edit]

It isn't a techno song. You might be able to link to a crummy article that calls it techno but it isn't a techno song and it is utterly obvious to anyone that is familiar with the genre. See all the comments in this thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is written accoring to what reliable sources say, not what we personally believe. There are plenty of other websites where you can argue about genres. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Photographic evidence[edit]

I have to say that that [15] was an unusual defence. I'm not saying you should reconsider, but "vandal" wasn't baseless. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Taken in isolation, the appeal seems reasonable. When considered in the context of all those blocks on other projects, it's hard to believe that this was a one-off problem. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I'll trust you on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Insistent artist[edit]

An IP repeatedly attempted to replace large parts of Sarah Bahbah with content copy-pasted from the artist's website. After a few reverts and few hours passing, a new account Fancypants95 popped up to resume the effort. Is it worth looking at the user, or is it better to just leave as a low-level nuisance for now? I'll be requesting revdel for the copyvio shortly in any event. Thanks. Bakazaka (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I think a copyright warning is probably enough for now. Thanks for reporting it. I hid the copyright violations, which should hopefully resolve it. If this becomes a recurring thing, we can semi-protect the article and/or start blocking people. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
No more copyvio, but multiple IPs, including one identifying as a family member, have been persistently removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced content. I've tried to edit to alleviate some of the specific concerns, but the reliable sources say what they say, and honestly it seems like a coordinated effort (perhaps among friends and family) to shape her public image. Semi for a bit might help. Bakazaka (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Reported here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Sarah Bahbah. Bakazaka (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I'm out for now. I've attempted to discuss content changes with the most active account, who claims to be the subject (and whom I have encouraged to contact OTRS), but despite good faith efforts the IP/SPA changes keep flowing. Way too many reverts from me, so someone else needs to take a look. Many thanks for your help. Bakazaka (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


User:Olsen24 is once again Sockpuppeting, this time as User:Broadway22592. SportsFan007 (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007

 Blocked and tagged. Might have to upgrade the protection level if this keeps up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you!!! SportsFan007 (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007


Hey NRP, could this be a Gabriella~four.3-6 sock? She sometimes edits (poorly) on Japanese subjects, in this case she's created a new account to ask AngusWOOF something about Japanese names--AngusWOOF often edits in her interest area. The fact that she asked for my opinion a propos of nothing is curious, since I don't edit much in the world of Japanese stuff. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't really know that sockmaster, and, even worse, there don't seem to be any recent accounts to compare this one to. The LTA page says that Gabriella's talk page message are frequently incoherent, though, and that message seems pretty coherent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
She's been relying more on IP edits lately. The last account that I was aware of was CrispyBaconG77. As for her coherence, it comes and goes and there is often an excited urgency to her comments as there is here. This needless verbosity is dubious. But if you can't dig anything up, I'll let it go. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: the best I can say is that Wake The Dead 09 and CrispyBaconG77 are on the same IP range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Danke! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible sighting[edit]

It's been a while, but WesleyM77 may be a possible AlexHovanec. -- ferret (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems  Possible, I guess. The geolocation is generally correct, but I don't recognize anything else about the technical data. The others were a lot easier to spot, which would make me reluctant to block anyone that seems like an outlier. By the way, I think the CU data on all the accounts has gone stale. There are still some logged details available, and I took some notes on previous cases to help me figure out what was going on. But much of the technical evidence is now gone. I can't really promise anything from this point forward. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)



In May last year, you blocked this editor [16] 1 week for sockpuppeting, they're also SAQ t-banned.

Based on editingpatterns and the use of "truth" and "vandalism" in editsummaries, I think these [17][18] are the same person. Not sure what the procedure is, I've never done any SPI-stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AntonChigurhs gun/Archive may be related. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: yeah, it looks like I missed that connection with AntonChigurhs gun. I blocked everyone involved who wasn't already blocked. Probably the easiest way to report sock puppets is at WP:SPI. There are instructions hidden under "How to open an investigation", but some people like to use Twinkle to add new reports (it's under "arv", like when you report a vandal). If you think I'm familiar with the case, you could try raising it here on my talk page instead – but more people will see it at WP:SPI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps one more, but there's not much evidence atm.[19]. Perhaps if their next ES/post mentions truth or vandalism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, he's making the same edits. I think there's already enough evidence.  Blocked and tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I decided to bother you because you were familiar with the case. ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The IP you blocked for evasion in January is back at it again[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - in exact same range as the (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - appeared yesterday during another recruiting attempt by the subject of Gab (social network) who tried to direct their followers at this RfC. And yet again, without any amenability for discussion (completely reject talk page input, edit other people's comments). More info can be found here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ridiceo. This needs to be solved. Thanks. Tsumikiria 🌹🌉 16:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the same person I blocked before. I did a range block on NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Tsumikiria 🌹🌉 21:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


Philadelphia1933 against EaglesPR1. -- ferret (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ferret: it looks like this person has made a disclosure of sorts – do you think CU would help beyond that? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
On the fence basically on whether to block the second one, so was wondering if CU tied them definitively. I'm ok if you judge we should give them some rope. -- ferret (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
It might be worth a try. Given the obvious COI, there's probably already enough behavioral evidence if there are further problems. I have a feeling that a CU would probably just identify them as coworkers, which seems obvious anyway. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Another blocked IP is back[edit]

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, you blocked (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for a month in January, but as soon as the block ended they were back at it. I'm not sure what they're doing, literally thousands of edits to cricket articles among other things, complaints of vandalism... They seem to be the same person as blocked (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), etc. Maybe you want to have a look, thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Reblocked. It's obviously the same person. Some of those edits may need to be checked to see if they're disruptive. I don't really know anything about cricket. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Nine Lives[edit]

I said I was not going to discuss whether unsourced statements are true or not. No citation said the film was criticized "mainly for its plot and tone". Go bother someone else, please. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm bemused by your edits here and here. As I had already indicated after your comments here, what was added to the lead was a fair and accurate summary of the article contents, and therefore not necessarily requiring of a cite. So I can't see why you are insistent that another cite should be added that says exactly the same as the ones already in the article. With an added aside about edit warring.

Did you read the article before reaching a decision to revert others edits? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, not really interested in arguing over unsourced synthesis. By policy, anything that is challenged requires a citation, so it doesn't really matter what a MOS guideline says. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
We're not going to "argue" (I'd rather discuss) over unsourced synthesis, because that's the first time you've mentioned it. Where's the synthesis?
If you're going to challenge something you need to make clear what you're challenging and why. You can't have been challenging this on the grounds of it requiring a citation because, as I've already explained a few times, it is cited in the article. But really, it's not worth falling out over. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About editing the equalizer 2 gender[edit]

Ah excuse me robotninjapirate i had to respect my editing in the equalizer 2 and i had responsible to edit because its true i had search imdb and you had not responsible to edit i warm you pls i wound stop edit the page Cjsorima10 (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you talking about this edit from November 2018? I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say, but the genre was unsourced. You seem to be referring to the IMDb, perhaps as the source for your edit, but the IMDb is user-generated and thus not a reliable source. You need to cite a reliable source for the genre. Examples are on Wp:FILM/R. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.


  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on National Hockey League team articles.[edit]

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, there is this user that persistently makes disruptive edits on these sports articles. The user that I am speaking of is the one you had placed a short block on because they had violated the three revert rule. I'll explain the current situation to you, so that you have an idea of what is going on. On these NHL team articles, there is a specific section within the articles under "player statistics" which has all the statistical information of a player on a certain team. This user is obsessed with updating the statistics section for every article of all seven Canadian NHL teams. A few issues with this user's contributions, is that they will provide information based on their own knowledge, and not from an official source. So, some of their information won't match anything that an official source provides. For example, just to pretend, a goaltender's goals against average (GAA) would be listed at 2.41 from a source. However, the user would have it listed at 2.43. The reason for this, is because the user confessed that they calculate the information instead of obtaining it from a source. Another issue with this user's contributions, is that in the same "player statistics" section, the user doesn't seem to rearrange the players based on which player has the most points. The players are listed from top to bottom, The players at the top are the ones that have the most points on the team, while the players at the bottom, are the ones with the least number of points. For example, one player would have a total of 25 points, while another would have 24. The user would have the player with 25 points positioned above the player with 24 points. From what I know, and what other users that edit NHL articles know, is that the arrangement of the players are arranged from a player's total points. Myself and a bunch of other users have informed this user about their disruptive edits. We have left numerous messages (went to an ANI report) about the proper procedure of how the articles should be edited, but the user refuses to listen, and continues make disruptive edits that others don't agree on. This has been going on since the beginning of October 2018 from what I have noticed, some say that it began even before October. Another admin that I have been in contact with, discussed a block to be placed on them if they continued to refuse to listen, and if they continued to make disruptive edits after the block, then a topic ban would probably be a better solution to this issue. If you could please look into this that would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions for me or need any clarification, I'll be more than happy to cooperate. Yowashi (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yowashi: you mean NicholasHui? Unfortunately, I know little about how Wikipedia handles sports-related articles, so I'm not really the best person to handle issues more complicated than edit warring or vandalism. Also, except in special circumstances, admins can't unilaterally impose topic bans – that would have to come from the community at WP:ANI. So, that's probably your best bet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is the user that I am talking about. There had already been a discussion about this. The discussion was closed on February 28, after NicholasHui was blocked. But since the block has since expired, they still continue to make disruptive edits on these articles, despite being warned. To clarify, the talks on the bans took place on the ANI page. Although, I'm not quite sure what happened to the discussion after it was closed. I tried revisiting it, but it was no longer there. I don't know if it was archived or not. Yowashi (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Yowashi: discussions at ANI are archived quickly. I would recommend that you start a new discussion there and add a link to the old discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003#Concerns of editing NHL Canadian Teams. You can suggest a topic ban there. Don't forget to include diffs for evidence. Usually, something like five of them is enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day![edit]


User:Olsen24 is once again Sockpuppeting, this time as User:MTA3010. SportsFan007 (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007

Yeah, I just blocked him and semi-protected Nassau Inter-County Express. There are likely other articles he'll move on to, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

> He's not really active on other articles besides the active MTA bus fleet, the retired MTA bus fleet, and NICE. Mtattrain (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

IP block exemption request[edit]

Hi, I had been editing over public wifi using a VPN, to protect my login credentials and prevent my account from being hacked. However, most or all of these IPs are now blocked as proxies or web hosts.

1) Since you're a checkuser, I'd like to request the IP range unblock privilege. (Since I'm using a VPN, I followed the instructions for "anonymous proxy editing", which advise to contact a checkuser. My apologies in advance if that's incorrect.)
2) I agree to never misuse the privilege, and I have not engaged in/will not engage in sockpuppetry.
3) I do have an alternate account, LavenderRose33, that I originally created in case I got locked out of my main account (this one). I declared the link on the LavenderRose userpage when I created the account, and have also added a disclosure link to my main account.

Although I could use the alternate account for public wifi, it would be better to keep all my contributions and watchlist items in one place. So a block exemption would be much appreciated.

Thanks! Big universe (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

IP block exemption granted for 1 year. It will expire after this, so you'll need to re-request it in March 2020 if you're still using it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks so much, I really appreciate it! :) Big universe (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Subtle vandal?[edit]


This IP has a history of obvious vandalism [20] and subtle vandalism [21][22](control + f "booty"). Recently, they're been editing in a way that makes me think that they've moved on to very subtle vandalism [23](notice removal of letters from words to cause them to be spelled incorrectly, hidden by edits that aren't otherwise obviously destructive).

The user has been banned by you previously for ban evasion. I don't really know what to make of their edits. The insane addition of dashes to every other word needs to stop [24] [25] (control + f "-"), as does randomly changing the tenses of wording. There hasn't been any obvious maliciousness since their ban, but... I question the good faith of their edits. I can't tell if what they're doing is purposely disruptive, or if they are genuinely trying to contribute.

Would you care to weigh in? I suspect that your admin senses are more finely-tuned to this than me. My concern is that something will slip through the cracks and spend months on the current revision, unnoticed by editors on the prowl for more obviously bad edits. Is there anything here that can or should be said to the user? Or is this clearly a case of bad intent? Something definitely needs to be done about their "flow and readability" edits, but I wouldn't want to impede on, say, an ESL user if I was grossly misinterpreting their intentions. I haven't wiki'd regularly since 2007 or so, so I'm a bit rusty.

Thanks. -- (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I reblocked I'm not 100% sure what's going on with that IP, but you've made a good case that the edits are disruptive. Given the repeated use of the same edit summary, it seems like the same person is behind most of these edits, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. -- (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


Well, I'm glad that you think trolls who make thinly veiled threats need protecting. --Calton | Talk 09:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Calton: I blocked the editor and revoked talk page access. I don't know what you're talking about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Untitled message from Dmoloney[edit]

Why did i get blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoloney (talkcontribs) 13:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dmoloney: according to your block log, you've never been blocked. Maybe you got caught in a hard IP address block, which prevents anyone from editing on that IP address. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism[edit]

This user is making persistent vandalism to James Blunt's three singles, Goodbye My Lover, High and Wisemen. These singles were released consecutively according to the singer's discography. However, he has continuing his vandal to them. The user should blocked if he trouble in this behaviour. (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

If this were about heavy metal or post-punk, there's a chance that I'd know what's going on. But this looks like something you'd have to raise at WP:ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Your AV and sock puppet work is appreciated. 7&6=thirteen () 12:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion?[edit]

Socks aren't my usual area, but this was hard to miss: On 13 March TheRealCanadian71 was checkuser-blocked indef after being brought up at ANI for disruptive image changes to articles on musicians (e.g. Drake [26] [27]) and hockey players (e.g. Elias Pettersson [28]). The next day Blueshockerx02 was created, and started changing images in articles on musicians (e.g Drake [29]) and hockey players (e.g. Elias Pettersson [30]). Quack quack. (If this is better sent to SPI, no problem, please let me know.) Bakazaka (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, good eye. I didn't even notice that, and one of those articles is one my watchlist.  Confirmed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @Bakazaka: Thank you for the catch, I had been watching Blueshockerx02 for the last two days. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Right place, right time. Thanks to NRP for taking care of it so quickly. Bakazaka (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Probably just a coincidence that JayBlueshocker02 showed up afterward and started with edits like [31] and [32], to article/talk previously edited by Blueshockerx02 and RapGod2X. Bakazaka (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, with the "shocker" username, it's too much of a coincidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Guess who's back: TSMBlueshocker, again with the image edits to Travis Scott, The Weeknd, Ariana Grande, etc etc. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't really seem to be making much effort to hide.  Blocked and tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Block Evasion[edit]

Olsen24 is now socking as SelectBrooklyn and 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:3E. SportsFan007 (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007

SelectBrooklyn and UptownRanger100 are  Confirmed.  No comment with respect to IP address(es). I semi-protected MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet, but that might not be enough. I think it might need extended-confirmed protection. Let me know if the disruption continues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Continued policy violations by User:[edit]

Hi. Since you previously blocked User: for repeat policy violations, I thought I'd point out to you that he has recently been doing it again, and could use another block. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a lot of unsourced changes to BLPs. Verizon Fios IP addresses are usually pretty static, so I blocked a month this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible clone account[edit]

Hi, just noticed User:NinjaRebootPilet. Seems to be an exact copy and paste of your own account. I'm assuming it's a malicious account, just thought I'd bring it to your attention. Kosack (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, that seems to happen once you revert enough vandals. Eventually, you get a fan club. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Something or nothing?[edit]

Hi NRP. Could please take a glance at the recent history of List of LGBT rights activists? Better eyes than mine might be needed. Thank you. Levivich 05:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Jhasm and Robertwagger are very  Likely the same person. I can semi-protect the article for a couple days. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Levivich 05:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Vigo Industries[edit]

Can we 'salt' the article on Vigo Industries, please? There's clearly a paid copywriter currently at work, employed by the company to promote them. They've just been given an indef block, but I suspect will return a third time under another name. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to do that, but I got distracted. Thanks for reminding me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

Yes thank you

Gary Calder1966 (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion[edit]

Hey, you blocked a few IPs for block evasion, and I happened upon a couple of edits I thought worthy of revdeletion. I found your IPs matched the interests and geolocation of this one. Drmies (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I blocked 2601:48:8100:6d8a::/64 because it's block evasion from 2601:48:8100:6D8A:8CF3:35AD:6CB4:EB83. But that's nastiness that goes beyond the call of duty; it's probably worth a block by itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Block my account[edit]

I have been harassed off Wikipedia. Please place a permanent block on my account. noting that I requested it, and that it was not done for disciplinary reasons. Life is too short. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Spoonkymonkey: are you sure that's really what you want? I've seen self-requested blocks cause drama when people changed their mind. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
It's been two months of being stalked and accused, of IPs making false reports and reverting my edits. After 11 years and 3500 edits (there were 3 years when I forget my password), I'm done. Please read the note on my talk page about my feelings re: Wikipedia's problems. I might com, back someday when everyone edits under their own name, takes responsibility for what they write, and sockpuppets are really gone from the system. I was feeling the stress in real life. So what's the point? Thanks. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Since your around...[edit]

..any chance you could look in on this discussion? It's not a dispute, but the deleting admin isn't around, and someone with admin eyes would help out two editors who are by now burning with curiosity! :) It's an odd situation, to say the least. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 16:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that; although I'm starting to wish I hadn't bothered now—suggestions of socking tend to have a deleterious effect on my good faith, I guess. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 20:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Wow. Bizarre. Curious to see if he retracts that accusation or presses on with a whole conspiracy theory centered on how his redirect was surreptitiously deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


I am sorry if you feel my questions were offensive, I was simply trying to get to the bottom of something I found deeply odd and still do. I should say the main question has not been answered. If there is something you would like me to delete, please advise. A way forward suggested by the user concerned was to "file an SPI". I wasn't going to do that, but given what you have said I think I shall do that now. Could you please give me a link to the page I need? Moonraker (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Moonraker: you haven't crossed the line yet, so I suggest you don't push this any further. If you feel that you must, however, the proper forum to make accusations of sock puppetry is WP:SPI. Follow the instructions at "How to open an investigation". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thank you, I'll do that. Perhaps I may have escalated matters by using the wrong word. I see the other user concerned has not been active today since I pinged him/her, so I'll leave it on hold till tomorrow in case something is added to the talk page. Moonraker (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The Making of A Troll in Central Park[edit]

Sorry for my disruptive edit changing in the page about A Troll in Central Park, a full-length animated feature film directed by Don Bluth. I wanted to re-correct the information box about the film being produced at Don Bluth's animation studios in Dublin and Burbank, and with Ireland being the second production country. According to the WorthPoint website and the sequence about a tour of Bluth's Irish studio on the 1994 BAFTA Production Awards television program, maquette statues of the various characters from A Troll in Central Park, Hans Christian Andersen's Thumbelina, and All Dogs Go to Heaven including Stanley, Gus and Rosie, Thumbelina, Prince Cornelius and the unfinished Charlie B. Barkin were made by character sculptor Kent Melton, and they identify Troll being about completed in 1992, just two years before it was released along with Thumbelina.

Also, there was no production section on this current page with enough information about how the film was made according to the ending credits. For example, Don Bluth Ireland Ltd. serves as a studio facility along with Don Bluth Animation Studios (California), and also provided computer software, optical effects (part of the special effects) and title graphics, while both additional animation and in-between services were done at A-Film APS in Copenhagen, Denmark, and at Estudios Moro (or Moro Studios) and Lápiz Azul Animación (or Lapiz Azul Studios) in Madrid, Spain. Wasn't it obvious that A Troll in Central Park was the next Don Bluth feature in production, going after Rock-A-Doodle and before Thumbelina? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Although a lot of historical content may seem obvious to fans and scholars, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is based on what reiiable sources say. This means that you need to cite your sources when you add content. The source we currently have in the article says that it's an American production. You changed this to indicate that it's an American-Irish co-production, which is not supported by the source. I don't know how the British Film Institute determines whether a film is American, Irish, or an international co-production. However, they apparently examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that it's solely American and not an international co-production. If you'd like to change this, the thing to do is find a source that says that it's an international co-production. I usually look at BFI first because it's got one of the most comprehensive public, free databases. Other free databases that one could check include the American Film Institute, LUMIERE, and AllMovie. I think there are also more sources listed at WikiProject Film. For help adding citations, you could read this guide, or you could simply add a link on the talk page. Someone will surely see that and assist you in adding the information to the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Request to archive discussion over a decade old.[edit]

Dear editor,

A recent Google search on "Aesthetic Realism faculty" turned up this talk page, over a decade old, on which there is a bit of contentious material. Could you be so kind as to archive this? I'm one of many original editors of this page, but I'm not sure if I have the authority to Archive, since many were involved in this. Thanks for your time.Trouver (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC) to be archived:

You could add {{NOINDEX}} to the page to keep it from being indexed by search engines. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Serial vandalism[edit]

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, having seen this previous intervention of yours, I would like to inform you that the same serial vandal has probably started again hia action. I have already undone his edits as IP Cheers.--Jeanambr (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to inform you that there is also cereal vandalism happening today, but those edits have also been undone.[4-1] Levivich 22:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's been a recurring problem on opera/discography articles. I did a week long range block. As far as cereal vandalism, at least the vandals stay away from puns. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Peterjack1's three-month block[edit]

Hi NinjaRobotPirate! I hope you're having a great day and that life is treating you well! :-) I'm messaging you regarding Peterjack1 and the three-month block that you placed on his/her account following the evidence and findings on the SPI report that was filed regarding the abuse of multiple accounts. Moments ago, I was notified that an IP user was engaging in similar disruption to an article, which resulted in me blocking the IP for suspected block evasion and retro-actively filing this SPI report for documentation and record-keeping purposes. My question for you is regarding Peterjack1's three-month block and whether or not it should be extended or set to an indefinite duration. I wanted to get your input and thoughts - should Peterjack1's block be changed, extended, or set to an indefinite duration because of this disruption? Let me know what you think (ping me in your response so that I'm notified); I'm curious to read what you have to say about this. :-) Thanks! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: it looks like I was already close to doing an indef after the previous case. If you think this IP editor is the same person, I'd say an indef block is certainly justifiable. If the edits are not especially disruptive, I sometimes just reset the block and warn them that the next block will be more harsh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the response and for the information and your input. Perfect; I'll modify the block after I've made a decision. Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


Hi again, NinjaRobotPirate! About two months ago, you left User:Slagjanb18 a warning about disruptive genre changes, and then a month ago, this warning about removing content. I saw your warnings when I went to the page to leave my own, after reverting these two edits[33][34]. I'm not sure if a block is in order or not, but the user doesn't seem to be responding to warnings and is continuing to engage in the same behavior. Thanks. Grandpallama (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
It looks like this editor hasn't changed their behavior at all; more unsourced genre changes[35] and changes to running times that directly contradict the source.[36][37][38] And all marked as "minor", of course, because why not? Dunno if we're in indef territory quite yet, but they certainly aren't responding to previous warnings and blocks. Thanks. Grandpallama (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
That's definitely disruptive, but it's getting a bit stale now. It might be controversial to block someone over something they did two days ago – and that's the most recent edit. I can leave a note. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Grandpallama (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Need some help with the Spider-Man page[edit]

So I noticed that the infobox for the first Spider-Man film now credits Marvel Studios as a production company based on the source used, which wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the fact that Marvel Studios didn't actually co-produce any Spider-Man films with Sony until Spider-Man: Homecoming in 2017. Is there a better source available that I can use? IceWalrus236 (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. AFI says only Columbia Pictures produced it. AllMovie says Columbia Pictures, Laura Ziskin Productions, and Marvel Studios produced it. On the other hand, Screen Daily says it's produced by Marvel Enterprises, Laura Ziskin Productions, and Columbia Pictures. So, I guess there's at least one source out there that says it's Marvel Enterprises. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'll use the Screen Daily source then. I just wanted to make sure since I didn't want a repeat of the incident on the Shrek the Third article page. Thanks! IceWalrus236 (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk page abuse from User:[edit]

I have tried to file this properly at the WP:AIV board, but a bot keeps removing it because (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is already blocked. As you saw earlier, this user is constantly editing his own talk page to remove block warnings and notices while still being blocked, and adds article content which seems to indicate that he plans on continuing his vandalism when the block expires. Is there any kind of control that can be placed on this user's talk page to prevent him from making these changes? Thank you. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) NRP already updated the block, but I like to drop in and remind editors that users are allows to remove warnings and block notices, even while blocked. I only bring it up because I often see escalation caused by good faith folks trying to restore blankings that are allowed, which just causes the users to get more belligerent. (See WP:OWNTALK. Note that declined Unblock appeals cannot be removed by the user while still blocked tho) (I know this isn't really a straight case of "they're removing warnings", I just felt like sticking my nose in, feel free to ignore me :P) -- ferret (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, block notices and stuff like that can be removed. But I'm pretty sure that all this stuff is hoaxes/vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Appreciate the swift response NRP. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


Hello. (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is likely another case of block evasion. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. Blocked for 31 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Here is another one, 2A00:23C4:711E:C300:B8F2:3BFC:CABA:9CBB (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
This person is very persistent. Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello again. (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is likely another. Same edit summary as previous IPs such as (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and they have used London-based IPs such as (talk · contribs · WHOIS) before. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Blocked for a week. If more show up, I can semi-protect the article again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019[edit]

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

Technical news



  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought community ban discussions were supposed to stay open at least a week ...?[edit]

I would have liked the chance to point out that Sheldybett was revenge-hounding me for calling him out on the bad closures. I don't know if anyone else said anything about it, and if the problem is solved by the relatively narrow TBAN then I guess it's moot, but I thought it was decided last year that all community ban discussions had to remain open for a week: was that only for site bans? Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It's 24 hours. From WP:CBAN: Sanction discussions must be kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. If they stay open longer than a few days, people often start yelling for someone to close them. I don't think the community would ever go for a week, though I personally think 24 hours is a bit short. If the topic ban doesn't work out, I'm sure someone will notice soon enough – there were quite a few people involved in the discussion. I wouldn't worry about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Please don't revert proper punctuation[edit]

Did you seriously just edit out my edit to insert proper punctuation on the Kick-Ass page? Periods always fall inside quotation marks, not outside, and the commas I placed are correctly placed. You essentially reverted the page to when it contained incorrect usage of punctuation. Okay, I'll bite: Is there a specific reason you did that? Why would anyone do that? I almost reverted your edit, but then remembered that most editors who revert proper edits are arrogant, argumentative, holier-than-thou malcontents, and I didn't feel like getting into an edit war with one of those. Ironically, you can use Wikipedia to find out how proper English punctuation works. Why not do a search first? Kubrickrules (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Kubrickrules, please search here: MOS:QUOTEMARKS. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (talk page watcher) Sometimes, even editors who don't revert can be arrogant, argumentative, holier-than-thou malcontents. Levivich 15:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This seems like it's turning into a pile-on, which makes me a little reluctant to add to it... but, Kubrickrules, please see WP:DATESNO for instructions on the proper use of commas in dates. Commas do not belong where you put them. Commas are confusing, especially when you consider international date formats and the various rules in different English varities. I would probably suggest double-checking the MOS before yelling at people. I have been wrong in the past when I forgot to check the MOS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that if a formal, scientific study were to be conducted on the demographics of Wikipedia editors, the words "single," "middle-aged," "male," "lives alone," "personality disorder," and "sociopath" would pop up frequently. I'm also willing to bet that even if I waited five years to revert NRP's reversion to my edit on the "Kick-Ass" page, he would show up in less than 60 seconds to pull down my pants and spank me. Let's get this straight: commas and periods are always placed inside quotation marks, regardless of what the MOS says. The rules of English always trump made-up Wiki style guides. The New York Times has a style guide that says it's okay to write 80's and 1980's instead of '80s and 1980s, but that doesn't mean the style guide is correct. It's ironic how a small, recalcitrant group of Wiki editors once prevented me from using the Metric system on a page because "in non-scientific articles relating to the United States, the primary units are US customary ... " yet here you are, a presumably American Wiki editor, preventing someone from using American spelling rules. You're a stubborn little bully, I'll give you that. But okay. Have it your way. I'm assuming you are going to spend the rest of your life "correcting" all the other pages with proper punctuation, which number in the tens of millions? Kubrickrules (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kubrickrules: this attitude is likely to cause you an indefinite block sooner or later. If you don't like our rules, you don't have to edit here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Although I am in no way an expert editor (my knowledge is so basic, I mostly stick to spelling, grammar, and punctuation corrections), I always take the greatest of care to be as accurate as humanly possible. Nothing I have ever posted is wrong, and I want to keep it that way. I hope to increase my knowledge in the coming years. I believe very much in Wikipedia, and have even contributed to it financially, as I rely on it heavily. I really don't like having my correct corrections uncorrected, especially by editors like you. Do not respond to me anymore. We are done here. I'm heading over to content dispute to learn more about how editors like you are allowed to be like you. Kubrickrules (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kubrickrules: you are really a trip. You come to my talk page, throw a fit when you're proven incorrect, insinuate that I'm sociopath, and demand that I not respond to you. Good luck with this attitude. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet in Marvel Comics articles[edit]

Hello, there. I saw that you had blocked User:Sterling Skywalker, since he was a sockpuppet of User:Atomic Meltdown. I thank you for that, but I'm afraid that this user has returned as User:Grizzly Goblin. He does the exact same edits done by the other socks. Even the form of his username are similar to the others. I'm asking you to help to clarify this. Thank you for reading this and I hope to hear from you ASAP. Penguin7812 (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this account is  Confirmed to Lysol Swiffer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I knew that you would help me. Many thanks and have a Good Time. Penguin7812 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Warnings received[edit]

Hello, I have just received a warning from you regarding engaging in an edit war, I have explained why I have reverted the edits on both my own talk page and the article talk page. I have spent time on improving the article by putting legitimately sourced contents and the user has deleted them for some nonsense reasons. I have even requested a dispute resolution as I believe I am right and my reasons are fair. If you read the talk pages you could judge who is right.Shervin27 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Everyone gets a bit stubborn or carried away sometimes, but you shouldn't revert multiple times just because you think you're right. Everyone thinks they're right. But, yeah, dispute resolution is a good way to resolve an edit war. I'm sure a volunteer will look at your request soon. Admins generally don't make rulings on content disputes, and I don't really understand what the dispute is even about. There seems to be an open RFC in a related article about how much detail to include in sports biographies, so maybe you'd like to look at that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Kevin US History[edit]

Isn't this a sock of that Japanese History Account? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

That's the one who was doing the "Error 404" vandalism, right? This account hasn't made any edits yet, but I guess it should be obvious once they do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Long-term abuse[edit]

Hi NinjaRobotPirate,

Thank you for your assistance here. I know that was a month ago, but I only just noticed it. "Prisonermonkeys" was my old username; thankfully, the IP editor hasn't worked out that I have a new account (or what it is).

I'm not sure how much you're aware of, but the editor in question is GeoJoe1000 and I have been having problems with him harrassing me on and off for eighteen months now. As he said in the edit:

"causing more trouble on me on this site by far, has the inability to take an responsibility for being a downright terrible human being"

All of this started when I referred him to ANI for abusing people. He got blocked and blamed me. He eventually got permanently blocked for sockpuppetry. Ever since then, he has been going back to the Prisonermonkeys talk page in various guises and posting similar messages to the above. Every single sock he created has been blocked, and while I see the page is now indefinitely protected and that editors need to be autoconfirmed to post there, I am concerned that will not stop him. At one point the page was protected for 90 days and he was back almost as soon as the protection was lifted. I would not put it past him to create socks, get them autoconfirmed and curcumvent the protection that way. Given that it has been nearly eighteen months and that he blames me for everything, I have to wonder if he doesn't have some mental health issues.

Is there anything more that can be done? I have long since forgotten the password, so that account will never be active again. No-one has any reason to post there. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I can increase the protection level if there's any more trouble. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for the extra clean-up. I didn't even clue in to the username issue until I saw the redactions.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of an obscure committee to impersonate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Elias WWE Wrestler edit on page[edit]

I do have the source and proof of Elias's birthday. His sister wished him on the 20th. Can I show you the source of the twitter link? AmandaCDover (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest posting a link on the article's talk page so people can discuss it. Sometimes citations to Twitter are contentious, and sometimes people say silly things as a joke (like wishing someone a "merry Christmas" in the middle of July). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

No this is his actual real sister wishing it to him. His mom also did. His sister Maddie Sciullo his mom Maureen Sciullo AmandaCDover (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, so post a link to the Twitter discussion on Talk:Elias (wrestler). What we have right now is a citation to a reliable source, which is typically difficult to overrule. But if Elias's verified Twitter account says that his birthday is on a different day, maybe that would be enough to change it. Once people have a chance to see the evidence, they can come to a consensus. That's generally how content disputes get resolved on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


Billiekhalidfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Seeking a 2nd opinion as you have some experience here. Yesterday I blocked 2601:48:8100:6d8a::/64 for continued block evasion. And today Billiekhalidfan, whom I had blocked on the 6th as a sock suddenly shows up bleating that it is mistaken identity. Behavior evidence makes me think it is PeopleEater143, but a proper CU is not really possible because they almost always use IPs for their block evasion. Can you take a look and let me know if you think this is a sock? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: it's kind of hard to say. The genre warring looks like PeopleEater143, but citing Spotify seems like a newbie mistake that PeopleEater143 would mock. It was easier to tell what was going on when Kellymoat was around because the two of them would go at each other like rabid wolves. I just had to follow the trail of personal attacks and genre warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm. I hate the idea of blocking someone if I'm not highly confident, and right now, I'm not. I may have to consider unblocking them and just keeping a close eye on them. But for a new account they seem to know how to edit. Ping Ss112 for possible supporting info. Unfortunately I have to leave right now. We have a minor family emergency in progress. I will look in later as circumstances permit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Hmm. On second thought, seeing the rookie characteristics like citing Amazon for genres, using Visual Edit and may not be. I was mostly convinced by the attitude and the topic area, but I could have been wrong. If they are unblocked, they need to learn that citing iTunes/Amazon for genres or just not citing them at all is not considered acceptable. Ss112 04:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ss112 I'm leaning in that direction as well and I am going to unblock them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


User:6ullga is clearly the sock of User:Accopulocrat who you have blocked the socks of before. They are editing the exact same pages and adding the same kind of content. Compare edits with User:Leavemydaughteralone, User:Underwritten and User:GoBotsters. They constantly move pages, edit genocide articles particularly List of articles, California genocide and those relating to Soviet war crimes. القمر يضيء في الصباح (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest filing a cast at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Accopulocrat. I don't remember anything about this sock puppeteer, and all the other accounts are stale. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment on scansafe?[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests# You previously blocked scansafe as a proxy. It is now being considered again at WP:OP. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that was a long time ago. I ran a CU, and there are a lot of people using this. Some are just dumping spammy articles in their sandbox, but others look to be good-faith contributors. It'd be nice to have an AI program that could tell us what percentage of edits on an IP range are disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Emmy Expert question[edit]

Hey there, I was doing some cleanup on a chronic copyvio editor, and found myself strongly reminded of Emmy Expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and of course, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emmy Expert/Archive. Sure enough, the accounts edited some of the same articles. Since you and Alex Shih were the blocking admins, I'd like your input if you feel inclined.

Did Emmy Expert ever dump in large blocks of copyvio text? Meet "Plot summary" copyvio guy:

Pattern is to copy and paste in a copyvio plot description from a website. Often it sits there for months on end, unnoticed, so the cleanup requires hiding anywhere from a few to over a hundred versions of a page. This user overlaps on pages Emmy Expert edited. Their tendentious and disruption patterns are identical: refusal to engage on talk, ever, then removing warnings and continuing with copyvios until blocked. But this time they are taking the block without argument, which to me is a red flag that they have socks, or are part of an existing sockdrawer, possibly this one. As it is, I'm assuming that if they edit from this account again once the block is up, the pattern will resume and I'll indef. So, not a major issue. But since this may be another flag on a drawer-full, might be worth the notice. Best, - CorbieV 22:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall Emmy Expert ever engaging in copyright violations in plot summaries. As the name suggests, he mostly edits pages about film and television awards. A lot of his edits are pointless, like obsessively switching images of award nominees. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Good point. There was a similar sockdrawer, Chitt66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), doing image copyvios with unfree flags and logos; some of his socks overlapped with Emmy as well. Though all of the above have the same WP:RADAR signature, so far I think this one is all about the text. Thanks for the input. - CorbieV 17:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


Hey, I really have to get off wiki and go to bed, but if you have time, could you check User:Manabimasu? I've run a check but (1) I can't complete it and (2) it's complicated because although both accounts are disruptive and Manabimasu doesn't act like a new user, there is no page intersection between the two accounts. I'd also welcome your thoughts, although I won't see them until tomorrow morning. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: interesting. I think if I had to guess, I'd say it's not him. Both accounts strike me as not new, but their behavior is quite different. The biggest problem, of course, is the lack of crossover in their edits, but I'd also expect any socks to be a bit more overt. Notimelivelong doesn't strike me as a particularly sophisticated sock puppeteer. The confirmed socks I found were pretty juvenile vandalism-only accounts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Duck check[edit]

Sorry for what seems an obvious duck, can you check: InklingGirl error and Errorfixer 2 -- ferret (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Can add Ferret Fixer to that list too. -- ferret (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, InklingGirl error, Ferret Fixer, and Errorfixer 2 are  Confirmed to each other. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


Seems to be using a different IP, or a couple of different IPs. See here and here. The Gender differences in suicide article is barely edited. So these two IPs showing up to edit it on the same day? And the IP? Has obviously edited two articles that SuperSucker focuses on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, seems pretty suspicious. SuperSucker obsesses over charts, tables, and graphs on Commons. I'm not really sure what to make of the 2601:470 IP. It's allocated to Hurricane Electric, so it could be almost anyone. Might be worth keeping an eye on it to see if it develops an interest in other articles SuperSucker likes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


While in my haste to clean up behind an SPI vandal, I didn't notice that I had followed a redirect, and ended up deleting your userpage! Sorry about that! —DoRD (talk)​ 16:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Ha, that's kind of funny. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Geez, what a noob! What's next, the main page?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular[edit]

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Module:Convert request[edit]

I need to do some Module:Convert maintenance (described here). However, I can't edit the module due to cascading protection from the main page. Would you please edit Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 5, 2019 to:

replace: {{convert|30.5|cm|in|sp=us|adj=on}}
with its output: 30.5-centimeter (12.0 in)

The above will be on the main page tomorrow and I'll see then whether any other tweaks are needed. You helped me with a couple of requests like this before, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like I was too slow, and it was already done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
(Slow to post here) @Johnuniq: I removed it for you, but the module is still cascade protected since it is used in today's TFA. Would you like it removed from there too? — JJMC89(T·C) 03:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Thanks, and if you can work out what needs to be done now that would be good. I was going to wait and see tomorrow but now would be great. I've never tried it, but subst:convert should work. Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: You should be able to edit the module now. — JJMC89(T·C) 03:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Brilliant, thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The Haunting of Hill House (TV series) page title changed to The Haunting (TV series)[edit]

Hi, NRP. How are you? I'm turning to you because you have been able to handle other matters I have brought to your attention and thought you might be able to help in this one.
On 22 February 2019, the title of the TV article The Haunting of Hill House (TV series) was changed to The Haunting (TV series). The last time I edited the page was on 13 December 2018‎ and wasn't aware this change had been made until today. I posted a comment about this matter in the article's talk page, because it contradicts the name on Netflix, the name used by the series' production companies 1 2, and the many sources that refer to it as The Haunting of Hill House. Even the series title card shows "The Haunting of Hill House". This title change is not only WP:OR, it also contradicts WP:UCRN. The series was renewed for a second season as an anthology, but that doesn't change the original, official title of the first season. The page title change was a cockamamie edit. How is this type of situation dealt with in Wikipedia? Thanks! Pyxis Solitary yak 07:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: since the title seems to be contested, I'd recommend a requested move (RM). That avoids the drama associated with arguing back-and-forth, and you can point to the consensus in that discussion if it comes up again. RM discussions are pretty quick, so it's not very bureaucratic, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply and suggestion. I think it's a very good idea. User:Bearcat added his comment to the above-linked talk page discussion, and proposed returning the article back to its original title. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted you to know that it took me a while but I figured out how to file an RM request: Requested move 7 May 2019. What was that about avoiding drama associated with arguing back-and-forth? LoL! :-) Pyxis Solitary yak 08:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, you're probably right that it's impossible to completely avoid drama on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)[edit]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.


  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


Possible Zawl sock: Allweneedisloveandpeace. Script use, page moves, renames, etc. Quite a few behaviorial marks. -- ferret (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Tony got it. -- ferret (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like I'm a bit too slow again. Looks like I need to check my talk page more often. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


I think you should know that an account you marked as a sockpuppet, User:Shawlrolex43098, is not currently blocked, nor does it appear to have been blocked in the past. - ZLEA T\C 15:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It's globally locked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes people consider it useful to block accounts that have already been globally locked, but there's essentially no chance that this account will ever be unlocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Help with a rangeblock[edit]

Hi NRP. A while ago you helped me with a rangeblock request. These IP edits all belong to User:Nainanike, who was indef'd after hounding/stalking me for some time. However, they're simply evading the block on their user account, and editing as an IP. Recent-ish examples can be found here. The most prolific are ranges 117.229, 117.228 and 117.233. These all have a similar pattern of following certain edits of mine. Would it be possible to rangeblock these for a short while (maybe a month), or would it block too many "good" editors? I'd really appreciate your thoughts on this, as it's driving me mad. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I started looking into this, but my internet connection went dead. It looks like it's mostly coming from Special:Contributions/, but there's also some from Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/ I can try doing a short block on and see if that helps. It might be difficult to pull off long blocks without collateral damage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you - anything could help for the short-term. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Block evading[edit]

Today's Queensland IP (well, one of them, there may be more) is (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Thanks for dealing with the rangeblock earlier. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. If this is the same one that I've been blocking intermittently, there's going to be a hundred of these IP addresses. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Now that you've blocked that one, there'll only be 99. It helps. So far there have been edits from only three others in the 124.18.16.* range (if I'm doing this right), and two don't look like the same person. They used (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) yesterday.

As an aside, I wondered about Bardo Nerang, because they filled in one of the IP's empty history sections, as the IP's started doing. They have the same editing hours, a definite topic overlap, and some of the writing looks familiar, but they've used their talk page and created several articles, so it seems unlikely. I'm not asking you to connect them; I know you don't connect IPs & named accounts, merely mentioning it on the off-chance they managed to build a façade under a new login. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the IP. It looks to be adding empty history sections. I don't think I can really comment on Bardo Nerang except to say that, behavorially, it seems possible that he's just some random editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't get why this has to do with block evading. The series was cancelled yesterday, so why revert an update? Sebastian James what's the T? 09:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
It was made by a disruptive editor who was evading an indefinite block. When people create new accounts to continue engaging in the same behavior that got them blocked for disruption, I typically rollback all their edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, edits today from Queensland Special:Contributions/ appear to be block evasion, adding a link to Voice acting, etc., and according to their edit history and old ones on Special:Contributions/ Maybe you could take a look? You're right they've used many different IPs and ranges, so it might be whack-a-mole to block them if they're determined to keep editing. But maybe worth a try for a while, to see if they get bored and give up. I'm checking a few different ranges, so I'll let you know if I see more, or let me know if I should ask someone else if you're busy. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks static-y, so I blocked for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion[edit]

Userpage of Malayalammojo contains suspicious description. New account, but sounds like not a beginner, especially the last sentence seems like the user was involved in arguments before and got blocked. (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Quick check[edit]

SyedAbdulBasitNaqvi12345 stopped editing after I gave a final warning for unsourced content. Charlie.park19 appeared after that and started removing talk sections that Syed had started. -- ferret (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ferret: SyedAbdulBasitNaqvi12345 and Charlie.park19 are  Confirmed to each other. Sovitrastogi is  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). It's difficult to tell for sure with no edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Feeling lenient today. Indef'd Charlie.park19 since it's just being used disruptively to refactor talk pages. Short blocked SyedAbdulBasitNaqvi12345 for the unsourced editing + socking/disruption. -- ferret (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Comviva shenanigans return[edit]

Hi NinjaRobotPirate. You had protected this page until 17 May. Now that protection has expired, Abhnvroh (talk · contribs) (previously involved in adding copyvio to Comviva and making improper redirects there) is at it again:

I've reverted both edits but Mahindra Comviva and Comviva may need protection again.

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. You might also want to cross-check that account with Dreamingfire (talk · contribs) who tried the same shenanigans in March. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I left a final warning on User talk:Abhnvroh. I already ran a CU on the registered accounts. This was a while ago, but they didn't seem like sock puppets from what I remember. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. They may not be socks. Numerous employees and/or digital marketing services have been monkeying with that page for at least 4 years. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you![edit]

Házikecske portré.JPG

Hold on, how do I chat with you. I'm new to this and I'm confused!!! And I mean normally, not wiki love.

ThunderPheonix2021 (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Almost everything on Wikipedia is plain text that you can edit, including talk pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Ok, I will go ahead and work with this

Which specific edits are you talking about? Do they include the digimom articles that I edited? Also, happy Memorial Day. ThunderPheonix2021 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@ThunderPheonix2021: you can simply edit this page normally, as if it were an article. You don't need to keep adding wikilove. You're adding your own personal analysis to articles, such as saying that they received "mixed to positive reviews" and such. Or saying that critics thought the film was great because of the writing. We need reliable sources to perform this analysis for us. We can't perform the analysis ourselves. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)