Note: I rarely check my email, so if you send me something important, you should probably let me know.
Bored? Check out User:NinjaRobotPirate/Games for a list of video games that are probably notable. I listed most of the sources, so you don't even have to find them.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).
Happy adminship anniversary! Hi NinjaRobotPirate! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
Hi NinjaRobotPirate,
I hope this is the correct way to ask, as I’m really not quite sure about the best approach. This is the first time in literally 20 years of actively editing Wikipedia that I have felt the need to reach out to an admin about another user. I selected you specifically because I discovered, while checking the user’s talk page archive, that you had already warned them once before about their dismissive, overbearing behavior, under threat of revoking their advanced permissions. (See below in archive page 11.)
I had a good-faith edit (with edit summary) reverted by a user who patrols a large swath of pages. Many months later, I noticed he’d reverted it with a terse, undetailed edit summary. I took a guess at what he meant and edited again, and as a courtesy, posted a note to that user’s talk page explaining my reasoning in greater detail. He immediately reverted my new edit, and responded to me in a tone that I found entirely inappropriate. I replied again in even more detail, which is pending a response from him. (I have not attempted to edit again, pending his response.)
Looking at the user’s talk page archive, I discovered he has a history of snapping at people with unwarranted aggression and condescension after they ask for clarification (since his edit summaries are often terse and unhelpful), peppering replies with policy links and personal insults, and making a mockery of “assume good faith”. He has been admonished numerous times by other editors about his nasty attitude. This user has numerous elevated privileges, and I believe he uses this position to steamroller over other editors. He shows significant “ownership” of anything to do with South Korean entertainment, demanding prior “consensus” for minor changes he disagrees with, and then refusing to engage in the discussions to achieve said consensus after reverting their edits.
In summary, I do not believe this user has the temperament needed to enjoy any elevated privileges or responsibilities, since he shows a pattern of not respecting even the most basic rules of civility, never mind practicing the collaborative ethos that underpins Wikipedia.
Examples of IMHO totally inappropriate responses: (Sorry, I couldn’t figure how to link directly to individual subheadings on a talk page archive, so the bold titles are the verbatim heading titles.)
they [doesn't] already exists within the page.”
And so on and so forth, on every archive page there are more examples of this behavior. He is clearly angering and scaring off other editors (they’ve said so in the talk pages) with his uncooperative, impatient, condescending attitude, and I think it at least bears investigation by an admin.
Thank you for looking into this. I don’t want or intend to get into an edit war with him, but the fact that this seems to be a pattern of bully-like behavior compelled me to bring this to your attention.
Best regards and happy new year, — tooki ( talk) 04:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Seven years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
-- Minorax«¦ talk¦» 01:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Do you remember back in April of last year that I reported this editor for making unexplained changes in articles and you blocked them for a year? It appears that the editor has evaded their block and is still making questionable edits to articles [1] [2] [3]. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 03:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi there NinjaRobotPirate. I have edited Wikipedia before but am not a professional. I don't know if my pinging you in another article would be seen so I decided to make this note in your talk page as well.
First of all, I know that my edits are not perfect and I welcome constructive criticism. I also respect differing viewpoints. However, there is another Wikipedia user, one who you have
previously topic banned, who has reverted all of my 11,000 bytes of edits on the page for
Roger Ver without, from what I can tell, even reading them. This is similar to why they were banned before. Worst of all, they appear to have a personal bias against Ver. I am not asking you take sides. I would be perfectly comfortable if someone who was neutral went through the page as
I had edited it to and took away what they believed was not appropriate. But I am not comfortable with someone who is biased deleting everything whole cloth and refusing to restore anything, even despite considerable conversations about it in the Talk page. In general, they appear to have a lazy, flippant attitude the longer the discussion goes on. I'd appreciate if you had a look, not to take sides, but just to be neutral, please, and hopefully allow some of these edits to go through.
Talk page discussion:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Roger_Ver#Restore_possible_COI_issues
@ NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you 58.97.215.166 ( talk) 14:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Hiiiii63562hrhd is making edits to this disambiguation about some guy of that name who was born in 2012 and is described in some variation of "the greatest). This is obviously a new account for banned User:535gstjb. -- User:Khajidha ( talk) ( contributions) 16:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Previously you blocked 45.8.146.82. I'm dropping a note to let you know that one IP blocked by another admin, 91.192.81.61, and a currently unblocked IPs 185.104.63.112 are editing the same topics in the same style. There has been a persistent problem with a user behind these IPs that I notice when they edit in questionable information about the use of herbs by ethnicities, particularly the Roma. I think you're well aware of this nonsense but for completeness here are three other previous IPs:
103.171.44.94
2A02:27AA:0:0:0:0:0:1571
2600:6C50:7EF0:4A70:8855:31B:12E7:5D7A
Please let me know if I should be putting this at a particular board when I see this block evader return again in the future, as they will almost undoubtedly return. 🌿MtBotany ( talk) 17:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
@ NinjaRobotPirate Well, thanks for helping me, man. I removed the information from my user page and you're right. I should just shrug it off like it's no big deal. Cheers. NoobThreePointOh ( talk) 11:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
I know it seems pretty weird to give a barnstar for such a simple problem, but since it's like you helped me get out of a pit I wasn't able to escape, I couldn't help but thank you for your mentorship. NoobThreePointOh ( talk) 11:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC) |
When I typed all that stream-of-consciousness diatribe, I was unaware of that account. I didn't see there was a category with nearly 20; I only went from the banner of "Emmy Fan" or w/e to that user page, which showed me a "Keyblade420"; thus, I never saw that death threat. I can understand your aggravation.
As I said in my response, everything I said was as far as I knew him on the 96th Oscars page. I was not involved with a Law & Order forensic sockpuppetry investigation, which is impressive. And examining those other accounts....I just noticed Key Clue #1: He repeatedly blanked ALL of his talk pages there too! Quite an obvious pattern–circumstantial, but nonetheless compelling.
Well, he asked me to vouch for him, and I did as I knew of him then for all of 2 weeks. Can't blame me beyond that. -- Cinemaniac86 Talk Stalk 16:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I've noticed some edit-warring over on The Magic Roundabout (film) and I would like to report an editor who is adding in unnecessary detail. The same applies with The Wizard of Oz (1939 film). I have a feeling that his edits are a WP:FILMPLOT violation. TPercival ( talk) 07:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
A user with your username was registered over at rationalwiki.org https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NinjaRobotPirate a couple of days ago, is this you? if it ain't you I'm probs going to block it for a disruptive impersonation of a Wikipedia admin. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 13:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you blocked
one of their /18 ranges (are these VPNs?). I just noticed
<this> one though, which is on the /17. I guess they didn't do much with it, but I figured you might want to know.
–
2804:F14:8086:5501:5D65:401E:4412:A164 (
talk) 20:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Could you please check whether RyanW1995 is the sockpuppet of Raja Nine to Five? Thanks. Natsuikomin ( talk) 03:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi NRP. I've already reverted this [4] and dropped a warning on the user's talkpage [5], but it's so egregious that I still wanted to call attention to an admin; the user may require some monitoring. Thanks. Grandpallama ( talk) 20:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi NinjaRobotPirate. Could you please do a check of PukeFlower? The account looks like a possible sockpuppet of Bobbylonardo based on behavioral similarities, interaction analysis, and timeline analysis. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan ( talk) 06:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
You might find this amusing. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 13:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Ah, crap. Looks like I've become another target of their non-stop attacks against other editors. Oh well, it was well worth explaining the issue to other editors unfamiliar with the long-term abuse issue on the ANI thread (which was actually filed by them using a previous IP, ended in boomerang action of course). The more editors aware of their behavioural pattern and reverting them, the better, IMO. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
NoobThreePointOh ( talk) 19:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Don't forget to send the form to the other administrators as well. NoobThreePointOh ( talk) 19:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Could you please check whether HotTwoDagon is a sockpuppet of TotalTruthTeller24? This looks like this. This looks like this. Thanks. -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 07:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).
|
|
100% certain this account is another Gamerguy94 sock. There are some obvious editing behaviors on display. The sockmaster doesn't have a SPI page, so I'm bringing this straight to you. Also pinging Ponyo since they've blocked a number of the socks, too. Recent history at The Sixth Sense shows they were using an IP last week for block evasion, too. Grandpallama ( talk) 20:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day! Hi NinjaRobotPirate! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
I did not “remove” references on Footloose. I moved the same AFI to cite the companies not in the credits. I mean do you want 8 of the same references in the INFOBOX? Ok. Gotcha. A lot of other good edits were reverted. Please don’t template me like I’m a vandal. I’ve been here the same time you have. Mike Allen 09:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Snowfallen 678? See That's Entertainment (Hazbin Hotel) -- ferret ( talk) 18:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey Remember when you Blocked WorldWideBallCaps, Well Guess what He's Back. Somehow they came back on Wikipedia and it has been a On going War since then. I would really Appreciate your Help. Here are the 2 Accounts, he has been Using: Special:Contributions/172.92.204.120 and Special:Contributions/172.92.235.185. How can I tell it's Him, Well WorldWideBallCaps openly Admitted that he's from Washington State and I have traced both IP Ranges and they are also from Washington State, so clearly it's the Same Person 100%. Also, they have Edited a Bunch of Pages that WorldWideBallCaps edited and bunch of them are Sports pages. They have been Annoying and a Bully and they are Using their IP address instead of Creating an new Account so they Can't get Blocked again. And if they Reply to this, Don't Fall for their BS.
Original Account: [6] Their Contributions: [7] 2601:84:8D00:2DCB:39E1:BD80:7BAA:6A82 ( talk) 04:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank You NinjaRobotPirate for taking Care of it. See he Basically Confirms and Admitted that he is WorldWideBallCaps. Kinda Wish he was Blocked Indefinitely instead. They have been really Annoying. He 100% Deserves it. Again, Thanks for the Help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:401:902B:15A6:2439:6220:8582 ( talk) 19:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Following proper Wikipedia conduct, I first contact you, the Wikipedia editor who put the SBI talk page to "semi-protected" status, denying people to further bring up criticism to the current state of the article.
You yourself mention that Wikipedia requires more civil behavior, yet you immediately accuse all critics of having "strong feelings", when the talk-page shows how all people were doing was calmly bring up valid criticism against the current state of the SBI-article. To imply that critics have "strong feelings" comes off as an attempt to de-rationalize their criticism or in other words, paint them as "idiots" or else.
You wrote: "Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs or expose the truth."
Certainly, though, Wikipedia is here to report factual information to the best conscience of all contributors, right? In the case of the SBI-article, several named Wikipedia-editors have shown to ignore all and any criticism brought forward, mostly under the flimsy given reason of "Wikipedia doesn't allow social media posts as a source". Which could have been acceptable, if then the consequence would be to remove the entire article (or at least the controversial section) until proper sources exist to shine light on the entire situation. By omitting key information (not feelings), the article is currently abused by bad faith-actors as ammunition for their cause. All that while named Wikipedia-editors are aware of the article's misinformation, because they themselves were shown primary sources such as official tweets by SBI employees and CEO as well as videos, all of which while it cannot be used on Wikipedia ("because social media posts aren't a source"), certainly prove to the individual human Wikipedia-editors that indeed there is crucial information missing to the current article. In which case a removal of the entire controversy-section should have long been the logical consequence.
I hope this gets through to you and those it needs to reach. Otherwise I will follow proper Wikipedia conduct and issue an official un-protection of the article. Thank you. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 ( talk) 18:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The fact that you're openly admitting, as a Wikipedia admin, that this site isn't here to tell the truth, should get you removed from your position immediately. Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective, unbiased source and there is no place for people like you in it. 157.131.103.182 ( talk) 21:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the above block. The same sock seems to be editing from this range as well - [8].
FYI, @ User:Bbb23.
Chaipau ( talk) 17:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
At User:NinjaRobotPirate/Games. Since that table compromises a list of games without a Wikipedia page, why isn't Gorilla Tag, Sun Haven and Dinkum there, given that they are all quite popular and have at least 10k Steam reviews?. In my eyes, they would be notable but Wikipedia says otherwise. (edit 16:55 UTC - corrected link as that used to take to the talk page of that table of games page)
How about Cuisineer and Travellers Rest given that both has at least a thousand Steam reviews? JuniperChill ( talk) 17:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
It's hard to figure what causes one game to get reviewed but another one to be ignored. I think the glut of indie games makes it difficult to find gems, especially if you only have a few reviewers on staff. They can only play so many games per week. The other problem is that so many games are clones of clones. There are zillions of games that have the same basic gameplay and similar graphics. That might attract fans of the genre, but it can alienate others. And if you have to play games for a living, I imagine it gets boring playing the same game repeatedly.
I think I've created around 200 video game articles now, but it could be more. There are probably people who've created more than that – it's certainly not a huge number. The thing is that I can pump them out pretty quickly, so my name shows up a lot. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. While clerking reports at WP:EFFPR, I stumbled upon this account, NinjaRabitPilot, claiming that it was an alt account of yours.
Is this you or just an impersanator? Thanks – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey, sorry to bother you. Regarding this, the sock keeps coming: here and here. ภץאคгöร 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
The personal attacks have started again. Just a notice Trade ( talk) 00:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
You're at exactly 140,000 edits right this moment, good job ;) -- ferret ( talk) 21:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I would be interested in hearing the rationale for blocking this user. Thank you. Useight ( talk) 04:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
On some rather frustrating ISPs, customers on IPv6 addresses will rarely see any messages. Though some people take this to mean all messages to IPv6 editors are pointless, I don't believe that. The reason why this editor didn't get warned, though, is because they've already gotten a final warning on Special:Permalink/927228667 and was previously blocked for the same issue. Unfortunately, I didn't notice that this was several years ago, which is a bit embarrassing because I didn't think my vision was that bad yet. Despite having recently increased the size of my font, I may have to do it again. Regardless, it's still the same person and still the same disruptive edits.
As far as good faith edits go, almost every edit on Wikipedia is made in good faith. The only ones that aren't are from vandals and trolls. When it comes to sensitive articles, I've come to believe that Wikipedia needs to tell more people, "Thank you, but we don't need your help." When you repeatedly add unsourced biographical information to Wikipedia articles – and even remove sources – I think that's a pretty big net negative. The last thing that Wikipedia needs is more people inventing full names, birth dates, and marriages for living people. WP:DOB is pretty clear that there are privacy issues involved. This isn't the sort of thing that you can just make a best-guess at and say, "My bad!" if you're wrong.
I have personally seen my Wikipedia edits show up in CNN articles, reported as if they were fact. Well, they were facts, but that's not the point. People credulously copy-paste content from Wikipedia into reliable sources, and it gets replicated elsewhere. Suddenly, it's all over the place, and impeccable sources are saying that it's true. Except that the celebrity is posting to their official social media, "Hey, that's not true." But people keep re-adding it to Wikipedia because CNN says it's true.
Many people see access the Wikipedia as some kind of human right. I think that's grandiose – Wikipedia is probably 50% "in popular culture" sections – but it's quite understandable. In a post-truth world, sources like Wikipedia are important. But, in my opinion, having the ability to Wikipedia is not anything like a human right. I'm not saying that you see editing Wikipedia like that, but it's a feeling I get sometimes from the community. Like being blocked is some kind of horrible personal hardship. I used to live next door to a crack house. I think my definition of "personal hardship" is a bit off from the majority of Wikipedians.
Sorry, I was thinking about this recently. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 17:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Can you create an article Goat Kidz 64 on Wikipedia please. 166.48.119.67 ( talk) 05:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
Can you add another article to the rangeblock on Special:Contributions/174.247.80.0/20? That person has been disrupting the AJ McLean biography since January, inserting a false girlfriend. Thanks in advance. Binksternet ( talk) 03:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Just wanted to show some appreciation for your enormous body of work on articles relating to independent video games. Almost constantly I go to see if an article has been made on a new game to find you have started and published it! The tracker you have developed is also a great resource. VRXCES ( talk) 09:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
Hi NinjaRobotPirate--you're pretty clever with technology and all that. How are this and this the work of the same editor? Drmies ( talk) 15:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
My sister likes Samsung phones, but she uses the high end foldable stuff that's probably got better stats than my laptop. I'm not that fancy, but I am looking at some of the pricey phones. The Samsung S24 and Pixel 8 Pro are probably within my price range, mostly because they're advertising 7 years of support. If I could go another 7 years without upgrading, that'd be really nice. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 21:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think Betty Logan isn't real, She is another sockpuppet by of Megastar7. If you should mind you could block her for being made by Megastar7? MLJ 657 ( talk) 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you please block Chimpmunkdavis for 3 months? 114.125.101.65 ( talk) 02:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
He edited my Don Quijote page again! Please block that user! 114.125.101.65 ( talk) 02:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Every single edit thus far has been to vandalize articles related to comic books. Grandpallama ( talk) 23:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Please see utrs:87676 regarding a block for which you directed appeals to UTRS. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you please block Eparcells for 8 months? 114.122.15.40 ( talk) 06:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Note: I rarely check my email, so if you send me something important, you should probably let me know.
Bored? Check out User:NinjaRobotPirate/Games for a list of video games that are probably notable. I listed most of the sources, so you don't even have to find them.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).
Happy adminship anniversary! Hi NinjaRobotPirate! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
Hi NinjaRobotPirate,
I hope this is the correct way to ask, as I’m really not quite sure about the best approach. This is the first time in literally 20 years of actively editing Wikipedia that I have felt the need to reach out to an admin about another user. I selected you specifically because I discovered, while checking the user’s talk page archive, that you had already warned them once before about their dismissive, overbearing behavior, under threat of revoking their advanced permissions. (See below in archive page 11.)
I had a good-faith edit (with edit summary) reverted by a user who patrols a large swath of pages. Many months later, I noticed he’d reverted it with a terse, undetailed edit summary. I took a guess at what he meant and edited again, and as a courtesy, posted a note to that user’s talk page explaining my reasoning in greater detail. He immediately reverted my new edit, and responded to me in a tone that I found entirely inappropriate. I replied again in even more detail, which is pending a response from him. (I have not attempted to edit again, pending his response.)
Looking at the user’s talk page archive, I discovered he has a history of snapping at people with unwarranted aggression and condescension after they ask for clarification (since his edit summaries are often terse and unhelpful), peppering replies with policy links and personal insults, and making a mockery of “assume good faith”. He has been admonished numerous times by other editors about his nasty attitude. This user has numerous elevated privileges, and I believe he uses this position to steamroller over other editors. He shows significant “ownership” of anything to do with South Korean entertainment, demanding prior “consensus” for minor changes he disagrees with, and then refusing to engage in the discussions to achieve said consensus after reverting their edits.
In summary, I do not believe this user has the temperament needed to enjoy any elevated privileges or responsibilities, since he shows a pattern of not respecting even the most basic rules of civility, never mind practicing the collaborative ethos that underpins Wikipedia.
Examples of IMHO totally inappropriate responses: (Sorry, I couldn’t figure how to link directly to individual subheadings on a talk page archive, so the bold titles are the verbatim heading titles.)
they [doesn't] already exists within the page.”
And so on and so forth, on every archive page there are more examples of this behavior. He is clearly angering and scaring off other editors (they’ve said so in the talk pages) with his uncooperative, impatient, condescending attitude, and I think it at least bears investigation by an admin.
Thank you for looking into this. I don’t want or intend to get into an edit war with him, but the fact that this seems to be a pattern of bully-like behavior compelled me to bring this to your attention.
Best regards and happy new year, — tooki ( talk) 04:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Seven years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
-- Minorax«¦ talk¦» 01:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Do you remember back in April of last year that I reported this editor for making unexplained changes in articles and you blocked them for a year? It appears that the editor has evaded their block and is still making questionable edits to articles [1] [2] [3]. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 03:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi there NinjaRobotPirate. I have edited Wikipedia before but am not a professional. I don't know if my pinging you in another article would be seen so I decided to make this note in your talk page as well.
First of all, I know that my edits are not perfect and I welcome constructive criticism. I also respect differing viewpoints. However, there is another Wikipedia user, one who you have
previously topic banned, who has reverted all of my 11,000 bytes of edits on the page for
Roger Ver without, from what I can tell, even reading them. This is similar to why they were banned before. Worst of all, they appear to have a personal bias against Ver. I am not asking you take sides. I would be perfectly comfortable if someone who was neutral went through the page as
I had edited it to and took away what they believed was not appropriate. But I am not comfortable with someone who is biased deleting everything whole cloth and refusing to restore anything, even despite considerable conversations about it in the Talk page. In general, they appear to have a lazy, flippant attitude the longer the discussion goes on. I'd appreciate if you had a look, not to take sides, but just to be neutral, please, and hopefully allow some of these edits to go through.
Talk page discussion:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Roger_Ver#Restore_possible_COI_issues
@ NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you 58.97.215.166 ( talk) 14:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Hiiiii63562hrhd is making edits to this disambiguation about some guy of that name who was born in 2012 and is described in some variation of "the greatest). This is obviously a new account for banned User:535gstjb. -- User:Khajidha ( talk) ( contributions) 16:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Previously you blocked 45.8.146.82. I'm dropping a note to let you know that one IP blocked by another admin, 91.192.81.61, and a currently unblocked IPs 185.104.63.112 are editing the same topics in the same style. There has been a persistent problem with a user behind these IPs that I notice when they edit in questionable information about the use of herbs by ethnicities, particularly the Roma. I think you're well aware of this nonsense but for completeness here are three other previous IPs:
103.171.44.94
2A02:27AA:0:0:0:0:0:1571
2600:6C50:7EF0:4A70:8855:31B:12E7:5D7A
Please let me know if I should be putting this at a particular board when I see this block evader return again in the future, as they will almost undoubtedly return. 🌿MtBotany ( talk) 17:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
@ NinjaRobotPirate Well, thanks for helping me, man. I removed the information from my user page and you're right. I should just shrug it off like it's no big deal. Cheers. NoobThreePointOh ( talk) 11:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
I know it seems pretty weird to give a barnstar for such a simple problem, but since it's like you helped me get out of a pit I wasn't able to escape, I couldn't help but thank you for your mentorship. NoobThreePointOh ( talk) 11:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC) |
When I typed all that stream-of-consciousness diatribe, I was unaware of that account. I didn't see there was a category with nearly 20; I only went from the banner of "Emmy Fan" or w/e to that user page, which showed me a "Keyblade420"; thus, I never saw that death threat. I can understand your aggravation.
As I said in my response, everything I said was as far as I knew him on the 96th Oscars page. I was not involved with a Law & Order forensic sockpuppetry investigation, which is impressive. And examining those other accounts....I just noticed Key Clue #1: He repeatedly blanked ALL of his talk pages there too! Quite an obvious pattern–circumstantial, but nonetheless compelling.
Well, he asked me to vouch for him, and I did as I knew of him then for all of 2 weeks. Can't blame me beyond that. -- Cinemaniac86 Talk Stalk 16:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I've noticed some edit-warring over on The Magic Roundabout (film) and I would like to report an editor who is adding in unnecessary detail. The same applies with The Wizard of Oz (1939 film). I have a feeling that his edits are a WP:FILMPLOT violation. TPercival ( talk) 07:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
A user with your username was registered over at rationalwiki.org https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NinjaRobotPirate a couple of days ago, is this you? if it ain't you I'm probs going to block it for a disruptive impersonation of a Wikipedia admin. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 13:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you blocked
one of their /18 ranges (are these VPNs?). I just noticed
<this> one though, which is on the /17. I guess they didn't do much with it, but I figured you might want to know.
–
2804:F14:8086:5501:5D65:401E:4412:A164 (
talk) 20:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Could you please check whether RyanW1995 is the sockpuppet of Raja Nine to Five? Thanks. Natsuikomin ( talk) 03:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi NRP. I've already reverted this [4] and dropped a warning on the user's talkpage [5], but it's so egregious that I still wanted to call attention to an admin; the user may require some monitoring. Thanks. Grandpallama ( talk) 20:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi NinjaRobotPirate. Could you please do a check of PukeFlower? The account looks like a possible sockpuppet of Bobbylonardo based on behavioral similarities, interaction analysis, and timeline analysis. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan ( talk) 06:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
You might find this amusing. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 13:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Ah, crap. Looks like I've become another target of their non-stop attacks against other editors. Oh well, it was well worth explaining the issue to other editors unfamiliar with the long-term abuse issue on the ANI thread (which was actually filed by them using a previous IP, ended in boomerang action of course). The more editors aware of their behavioural pattern and reverting them, the better, IMO. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
NoobThreePointOh ( talk) 19:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Don't forget to send the form to the other administrators as well. NoobThreePointOh ( talk) 19:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Could you please check whether HotTwoDagon is a sockpuppet of TotalTruthTeller24? This looks like this. This looks like this. Thanks. -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 07:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).
|
|
100% certain this account is another Gamerguy94 sock. There are some obvious editing behaviors on display. The sockmaster doesn't have a SPI page, so I'm bringing this straight to you. Also pinging Ponyo since they've blocked a number of the socks, too. Recent history at The Sixth Sense shows they were using an IP last week for block evasion, too. Grandpallama ( talk) 20:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day! Hi NinjaRobotPirate! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
I did not “remove” references on Footloose. I moved the same AFI to cite the companies not in the credits. I mean do you want 8 of the same references in the INFOBOX? Ok. Gotcha. A lot of other good edits were reverted. Please don’t template me like I’m a vandal. I’ve been here the same time you have. Mike Allen 09:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Snowfallen 678? See That's Entertainment (Hazbin Hotel) -- ferret ( talk) 18:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey Remember when you Blocked WorldWideBallCaps, Well Guess what He's Back. Somehow they came back on Wikipedia and it has been a On going War since then. I would really Appreciate your Help. Here are the 2 Accounts, he has been Using: Special:Contributions/172.92.204.120 and Special:Contributions/172.92.235.185. How can I tell it's Him, Well WorldWideBallCaps openly Admitted that he's from Washington State and I have traced both IP Ranges and they are also from Washington State, so clearly it's the Same Person 100%. Also, they have Edited a Bunch of Pages that WorldWideBallCaps edited and bunch of them are Sports pages. They have been Annoying and a Bully and they are Using their IP address instead of Creating an new Account so they Can't get Blocked again. And if they Reply to this, Don't Fall for their BS.
Original Account: [6] Their Contributions: [7] 2601:84:8D00:2DCB:39E1:BD80:7BAA:6A82 ( talk) 04:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank You NinjaRobotPirate for taking Care of it. See he Basically Confirms and Admitted that he is WorldWideBallCaps. Kinda Wish he was Blocked Indefinitely instead. They have been really Annoying. He 100% Deserves it. Again, Thanks for the Help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:401:902B:15A6:2439:6220:8582 ( talk) 19:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Following proper Wikipedia conduct, I first contact you, the Wikipedia editor who put the SBI talk page to "semi-protected" status, denying people to further bring up criticism to the current state of the article.
You yourself mention that Wikipedia requires more civil behavior, yet you immediately accuse all critics of having "strong feelings", when the talk-page shows how all people were doing was calmly bring up valid criticism against the current state of the SBI-article. To imply that critics have "strong feelings" comes off as an attempt to de-rationalize their criticism or in other words, paint them as "idiots" or else.
You wrote: "Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs or expose the truth."
Certainly, though, Wikipedia is here to report factual information to the best conscience of all contributors, right? In the case of the SBI-article, several named Wikipedia-editors have shown to ignore all and any criticism brought forward, mostly under the flimsy given reason of "Wikipedia doesn't allow social media posts as a source". Which could have been acceptable, if then the consequence would be to remove the entire article (or at least the controversial section) until proper sources exist to shine light on the entire situation. By omitting key information (not feelings), the article is currently abused by bad faith-actors as ammunition for their cause. All that while named Wikipedia-editors are aware of the article's misinformation, because they themselves were shown primary sources such as official tweets by SBI employees and CEO as well as videos, all of which while it cannot be used on Wikipedia ("because social media posts aren't a source"), certainly prove to the individual human Wikipedia-editors that indeed there is crucial information missing to the current article. In which case a removal of the entire controversy-section should have long been the logical consequence.
I hope this gets through to you and those it needs to reach. Otherwise I will follow proper Wikipedia conduct and issue an official un-protection of the article. Thank you. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 ( talk) 18:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The fact that you're openly admitting, as a Wikipedia admin, that this site isn't here to tell the truth, should get you removed from your position immediately. Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective, unbiased source and there is no place for people like you in it. 157.131.103.182 ( talk) 21:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the above block. The same sock seems to be editing from this range as well - [8].
FYI, @ User:Bbb23.
Chaipau ( talk) 17:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
At User:NinjaRobotPirate/Games. Since that table compromises a list of games without a Wikipedia page, why isn't Gorilla Tag, Sun Haven and Dinkum there, given that they are all quite popular and have at least 10k Steam reviews?. In my eyes, they would be notable but Wikipedia says otherwise. (edit 16:55 UTC - corrected link as that used to take to the talk page of that table of games page)
How about Cuisineer and Travellers Rest given that both has at least a thousand Steam reviews? JuniperChill ( talk) 17:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
It's hard to figure what causes one game to get reviewed but another one to be ignored. I think the glut of indie games makes it difficult to find gems, especially if you only have a few reviewers on staff. They can only play so many games per week. The other problem is that so many games are clones of clones. There are zillions of games that have the same basic gameplay and similar graphics. That might attract fans of the genre, but it can alienate others. And if you have to play games for a living, I imagine it gets boring playing the same game repeatedly.
I think I've created around 200 video game articles now, but it could be more. There are probably people who've created more than that – it's certainly not a huge number. The thing is that I can pump them out pretty quickly, so my name shows up a lot. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello. While clerking reports at WP:EFFPR, I stumbled upon this account, NinjaRabitPilot, claiming that it was an alt account of yours.
Is this you or just an impersanator? Thanks – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey, sorry to bother you. Regarding this, the sock keeps coming: here and here. ภץאคгöร 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
The personal attacks have started again. Just a notice Trade ( talk) 00:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
You're at exactly 140,000 edits right this moment, good job ;) -- ferret ( talk) 21:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I would be interested in hearing the rationale for blocking this user. Thank you. Useight ( talk) 04:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
On some rather frustrating ISPs, customers on IPv6 addresses will rarely see any messages. Though some people take this to mean all messages to IPv6 editors are pointless, I don't believe that. The reason why this editor didn't get warned, though, is because they've already gotten a final warning on Special:Permalink/927228667 and was previously blocked for the same issue. Unfortunately, I didn't notice that this was several years ago, which is a bit embarrassing because I didn't think my vision was that bad yet. Despite having recently increased the size of my font, I may have to do it again. Regardless, it's still the same person and still the same disruptive edits.
As far as good faith edits go, almost every edit on Wikipedia is made in good faith. The only ones that aren't are from vandals and trolls. When it comes to sensitive articles, I've come to believe that Wikipedia needs to tell more people, "Thank you, but we don't need your help." When you repeatedly add unsourced biographical information to Wikipedia articles – and even remove sources – I think that's a pretty big net negative. The last thing that Wikipedia needs is more people inventing full names, birth dates, and marriages for living people. WP:DOB is pretty clear that there are privacy issues involved. This isn't the sort of thing that you can just make a best-guess at and say, "My bad!" if you're wrong.
I have personally seen my Wikipedia edits show up in CNN articles, reported as if they were fact. Well, they were facts, but that's not the point. People credulously copy-paste content from Wikipedia into reliable sources, and it gets replicated elsewhere. Suddenly, it's all over the place, and impeccable sources are saying that it's true. Except that the celebrity is posting to their official social media, "Hey, that's not true." But people keep re-adding it to Wikipedia because CNN says it's true.
Many people see access the Wikipedia as some kind of human right. I think that's grandiose – Wikipedia is probably 50% "in popular culture" sections – but it's quite understandable. In a post-truth world, sources like Wikipedia are important. But, in my opinion, having the ability to Wikipedia is not anything like a human right. I'm not saying that you see editing Wikipedia like that, but it's a feeling I get sometimes from the community. Like being blocked is some kind of horrible personal hardship. I used to live next door to a crack house. I think my definition of "personal hardship" is a bit off from the majority of Wikipedians.
Sorry, I was thinking about this recently. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 17:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Can you create an article Goat Kidz 64 on Wikipedia please. 166.48.119.67 ( talk) 05:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
Can you add another article to the rangeblock on Special:Contributions/174.247.80.0/20? That person has been disrupting the AJ McLean biography since January, inserting a false girlfriend. Thanks in advance. Binksternet ( talk) 03:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Just wanted to show some appreciation for your enormous body of work on articles relating to independent video games. Almost constantly I go to see if an article has been made on a new game to find you have started and published it! The tracker you have developed is also a great resource. VRXCES ( talk) 09:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
Hi NinjaRobotPirate--you're pretty clever with technology and all that. How are this and this the work of the same editor? Drmies ( talk) 15:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
My sister likes Samsung phones, but she uses the high end foldable stuff that's probably got better stats than my laptop. I'm not that fancy, but I am looking at some of the pricey phones. The Samsung S24 and Pixel 8 Pro are probably within my price range, mostly because they're advertising 7 years of support. If I could go another 7 years without upgrading, that'd be really nice. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 21:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think Betty Logan isn't real, She is another sockpuppet by of Megastar7. If you should mind you could block her for being made by Megastar7? MLJ 657 ( talk) 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you please block Chimpmunkdavis for 3 months? 114.125.101.65 ( talk) 02:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
He edited my Don Quijote page again! Please block that user! 114.125.101.65 ( talk) 02:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Every single edit thus far has been to vandalize articles related to comic books. Grandpallama ( talk) 23:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Please see utrs:87676 regarding a block for which you directed appeals to UTRS. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you please block Eparcells for 8 months? 114.122.15.40 ( talk) 06:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)