User talk:NinjaRobotPirate: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:04, 13 May 2022

Did you know that F5 is the "generate drama" key? Try it! Every time you press it, more drama is auto-generated on Wikipedia.

Note: I rarely check my email, so if you send me something important, you should probably let me know.

Bored? Try editing the following articles about heavy metal and industrial albums:

Bricks Are Heavy – like most L7 articles, this is just a tracklist and a few reviews, but there's probably mountains of coverage.
The Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Taste – I've been working on fleshing this out for a while now, but it still needs work.
The Land of Rape and Honey – Same deal. This was a big deal in the 1980s industrial scene, which means lots of coverage.
Big Sexy Land – The Revolting Cocks' debut album. There's probably retrospective coverage and interviews.
Agogo (album) – Nothing but a tracklist and citation to Allmusic.
A Drug Against War – This is fairly fleshed-out for a single, but that's partly because I added some sources.
Beg to Differ – Like most Prong albums, this is mostly just a tracklist. Tommy Victor is not shy in interviews.
War of Words (Fight album) – From Rob Halford's other band. Nothing but a tracklist.
I Luciferi – Like many mid-era Danzig albums, this need some work, such as reorganization and copy editing.
Implode (album) – Many FLA albums are a list of samples and singles, then a tracklist, especially if they're missing Rhys Fulber.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

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

Administrator changes

Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

CheckUser changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Oversighter changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news

Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sock and vandalism

Hello, JdbolivarChavezmarcos (talk · contribs) and JdbolivarChavez (talk · contribs) seems the same, doing also a lot of vandalism and needs at least rollback to fix it. Maybe someone act before you see this but I felt had to report what I saw. Nubia86 (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're part of a sock farm around Andres Jonathan Balingit Fajardo (talk · contribs). I blocked everything I saw, but let me know if you see more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Thank you Nubia86 (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing NinjaRobotPirate a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Idneed

Idneed (talk · contribs)

This editor keep removing sourced content without explaining why in the article Circles [1] [2] [3]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They might have stopped after the edit warring notice. I guess we'll see. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I let you know if they keep on edit warring after that warning. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions?

Or just ignore? This IP is only responsible for one lot of edits on one day, but elicited this rather rude response to a Welcome message: User talk:110.175.224.137. Happy new year! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could remove the message from the talk page if you think it's inappropriate. The person will eventually realize that they should create an account. It seems like such a strange thing to rant about, like "I stepped into my shower with my clothes on, and my clothes got wet! The people who made this shower stall are morons!" If people post stuff like that on their own IP talk page, I ignore it. If they post it to an article talk page (where someone might actually see it), I remove it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's pretty strange. I suppose it only makes them look a bit silly, so perhaps I'll just ignore it for now. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requests

My account was blocked due to copyright violations which I am regretful for. I undertsand why copyright violations is grave and why it should be avoided. I want to unblock my account. Kindly help me and show me some way out. Thanking you TheUniversalEditor (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky III

Hello, you recently reverted my edits on the Rocky III page and Rocky Franchise. Instead of reverting it and starting a back and forth between us, I would just like to state my point and hear your’s as well. I am simply going by the real sources such box office mojo, the numbers, and financial information. The sources previously listed were all outdated newspaper columns that were simply presuming what the gross would be. It was harder back then to get the box office info at an early time so they should not be the sources listed. The box office information should reflect what the websites dedicated to tracking box office records shows. I mean no disrespect nor disruption, I’m simply trying to get the correct numbers. Hope to hear from you. Zvig47 (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Real sources"? Newspaper articles are not like food and don't go bad over time. Box Office Mojo and The Numbers only list the US gross, as sometimes happens. They are perfectly reliable sources, and they are used throughout the website for exactly this purpose. However, they are not the end-all, be-all for sourcing. We do not remove sourced content simply because it's missing from their databases. UPI is perfectly fine, and the source is not randomly pulling numbers out of thin air – it's stating a fact. At the time of writing, the worldwide gross was nearly $270 million. The biggest problem, in my mind, is that we don't know the final worldwide gross from that source because it's speaking in present tense about an action that has not yet completed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent disruption, part 9

50.200.160.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So I went back and discovered this is the ninth time I've reached out to you about this, so now these section headings will actually carry real meaning! ;)

Our "masonkim" friend is back, yet again. I've tolerated them for several months to see if things would eventually change, but alas, my time is still getting consumed by cleaning up their messes. About 1 in 4 edits requires some kind of correction or warrants outright removal (improperly sourced or not sourced at all). Here's one example that shows the source they're adding is linked to the same editor: this source was added in this edit.

Thanks in advance! --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP for a year. It seems pretty static. I really wouldn't advise waiting months to report a sock puppet, but it's not my mess to clean up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probable SPA

Hi NRP. ChromaticaCali appears to be a single-purpose account whose sole motivation is to remove any negative criticism from the Grace Randolph article, over which they have edit warred since first creating an account; their user talkpage claim that they joined WP to "fight the good fight" is pretty telling. Their edits usually involve claiming the sources are wrong and questioning the motives of other editors (including repeatedly calling editors "trolls" despite having been informed that constitutes a personal attack). There might be some COI at play, but it could also just be a superfan, so I haven't filed at COIN. It also doesn't seem disruptive enough to necessitate ANI, but trusted admin eyes are probably needed at this point. Maybe an enforced break just from that page will encourage ChromaticaCali to find other subjects to which they can contribute? Grandpallama (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, do I have to read the article and the sources and the talk page discussions and all kinds of other drama? I left a message for the editor instead, including a discretionary sanctions alert. Maybe they'll just go to WP:BLPN and discuss the issue. If not, I can look further into the situation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you're a masochist! Let's hope the message does the trick. Grandpallama (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you

Thanks for your action on User:BillCaxton and his related socks. He'll re-appear any time a by-election comes around, but now that he's been confirmed by the checkuser it'll be easier to tag and block him. Cheers! — Czello 12:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it might help. Most often, it just helps a bit with mitigation, though. Hopefully, I can more easily connect the accounts to each other and find blockable IP ranges. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Victor Aify

Victor Aify (talk · contribs)

This editor is only adding the website The Afro Desk Journal in articles [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Clearly that they are only using this account for promotion then anything else (WP:NOTHERE). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could be citation spam. I left a message. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion by Cool a123 (again)

Hi. I reported IP 2603:8000:400:41B4:408B:DFF8:AD79:F776/44 to you in this message from October, as the user is a persistent block evader. They were given a three month block, but the block has now expired, and the editor has resumed editing again. Any chance something can be done? Yowashi (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reblocked the IP range for six months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the editor has made a fairly new account @Sheridides. Editor edits the same pages as the IP that you had blocked previously. Yowashi (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me something more to go on, like diffs? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, the two accounts both edit sports related content. More specifically the Anaheim Ducks, USC Trojans related articles, along with the 2021 KC Chiefs season page. In addition, Sheridides is using their user talk page as a sandbox, similar to what Cool a123 was doing. On Sheridides user page, they mention that they live in Placentia, California. The IP 2603:8000:400:41B4:408B:DFF8:AD79:F776/44 that they were using is coming from the Anaheim/Placentia area.[9] Yowashi (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like pretty solid evidence. Blocked indef. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits from 72.83.34.66

72.83.34.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. I am writing this message to inform you that I am seeing some disruptive editing from the Metrobus fleet (Washington, D.C.) articles for one reasons. An anonymous user 72.83.34.66 is vandalizing one too many times on this article, constantly adding some trivial details on the article. I have been reverting this user's edits back as many details became pointless, and bore readers, or by saying, notes contains excessive details. I warned this user 4 times already after adding back unnecessary notes to the article. Is there anything you can do to help? Analyze all his edits and let me know is the user should be blocked. I saw that this IP was previously blocked for the same reason as it is currently happening to the article. Thank you for your time. Leobran2018 (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia isn't vandalism. Also, I don't understand why you're asking me to analyze every edit that an IP editor made to an article that I've never edited. That's kind of random... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. If you say so. Leobran2018 (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting BowserJr3

BowserJr3 (talk · contribs)

There's an editor who is adding unsourced date ranges in articles [10] [11] [12]. I think this editor is MakaveliReed evades their block yet again. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAmazingPeanuts: seems fairly likely to me. Dangerouspositions is on the same wide IP range. Could you look at those edits? I don't really remember a lot of details about what edits MakaveliReed made, and there don't seem to be many date ranges. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just take a look at Dangerouspositions' edits, I don't think they related. MakaveliReed's edit history is just changing date ranges or unsourced date ranges. However, I do think that Dangerouspositions' edits are disruptive by adding unsourced content in articles. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Hello. I noticed you reverted an edit made by a sockpuppet account on the British Expedition to Abyssinia. Did you also see the edit made after? It looks like another sockpuppet of the user making the same edit change. Ue3lman (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I watchlisted a few of the articles but not that one. Yeah, that looks like User:PaullyMathews, too. He mostly edit wars using sock puppets to maintain his POV about Ethiopian history. He sometimes has a dozen socks active at once, so I occasionally miss a couple. If he hits the same article too many times, let me know, and I'll semi-protect it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2600:387:9:0:0:0:0:0/48

User is back editing award articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:AE (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS

You may get some amusement out of UTRS appeal #53724. No action necessary, the request just made me smile. :) If you don't have access to UTRS, let me know and I'll mail it to you. Hope you are having a great day! --Yamla (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the apparent confusion over my username? I'd be surprised if there weren't more appeals like that. My username is probably confusing for people who aren't drenched in Western pop culture. I don't like choosing usernames and usually just pick the first thing that pops into my head. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LTA issue

You made a block on this [[13]], looks like they are back [[14]]. Unbroken Chain (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't both accounts belong to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnathan57Joyceefyt? Girth Summit? I'll let the checkusers sort it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not too familiar personally and I didn't have the evidence needed to file a case. Hi Bbb23, good to see you around. Unbroken Chain (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Unbroken Chain, I don't think there's any need to file a case. My post was to NRP and to GS just in case they're not aware of the possible connection. NRP didn't name an LTA (although he mentioned Kingshowman), but it was a CU block. I may block the new account without tags awaiting action from the checkusers, but so far the sock has made only the one edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's Johnathan57Joyceefyt. From my block, I guess I disagreed on the ultimate master, but you can also tell that I don't care all that much who exactly it is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Administrator changes

AustralianRupert • Cimon Avaro • Euryalus • Jehochman • Nunh-huh

28bytes

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes

Interface administrator changes

Evad37 • Galobtter

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP keeps on added unsourced content

Hi NinjaRobotPirate! IP 27.32.71.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (blocked by you on 2 Feb) keeps on editing as 203.220.72.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) , adding the same unsourced/incorrent material to various pages[15][16][17]. –Austronesier (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, must be the same person. I'd prefer to leave Orang Asli unprotected for now, though, so that I can track the IP addresses used, like a honeypot. From prior experience with this ISP, I don't think it will help much, but it's worth a try. Sometimes I can do a range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back as 220.240.86.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). And starting to remind me of this one: 113.197.13.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), with the same mix of Asian/Oceanic ethnicity-related topics, obsession for Aussie crime-related topics, and extreme obstinance. –Austronesier (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, and Austronesian peoples semi-protected. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Kkollaps

Kkollaps (talk · contribs)

Genre warring in the article Kids See Ghosts [18] [19] [20] [21]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this account is might be related to Giubbotto non ortodosso, but I not so sure. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute is mostly happening on Kids See Ghosts (album), right? I protected that article for a couple days. I don't really know that sock puppeteer, so you're going to have to tell me why you think this might be a sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I think this editor is related to Giubbotto non ortodosso because they made these edits at Blonde (Frank Ocean album) recently. Giubbotto non ortodosso has made edits back in September as Hotbox eron. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, wrong continent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just making sure. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help on reviewing page edits, please?

Long time no see, N.R.P. I have recently made edits on pages involving Billboard's Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart, it's archived lists of number-one albums, as well as Nas' album, Life Is Good and an unsure edit on an article about record and movie executive Lance "Un" Rivera. I have also redirect number one rap album lists to number one R&B/hip-hop album lists and move the R&B album article names without asking first. I don't know if I had all the edits right with the sources I added and some I noticeably forgot or couldn't find. Can you review those pages for me and see where I went wrong? Thanks and all due respect. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 05:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know... it looks fine to me. Billboard is a reliable source, of course. I don't think you should be tagging your own statements as unsourced, and I don't really know anything about music charts, but it looks like you're just making obvious statements (that two charts have been consolidated into the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart). Discogs isn't a reliable source, though. Beatport looks like it's an online store? That wouldn't be a reliable source, either. I don't recognize some of the other sources that you cited. I saw some weird formatting errors, but it looks like they were caused by Visual Editor, not you. I probably know more about hip hop than the average heavy metal fan, and I've become pretty competent at sourcing music articles, but I'm not really the person to ask about hip hop articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @DBrown SPS: I think it's better to ask Ss112 for this kind of question, since he's the one who been adding these charts to articles for years. Also, don't use Discogs as a source, it's not reliable. There is a list of reliable and unreliable sources at WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAmazingPeanuts: Didn't mean to bug anybody here. I just needed some help. Thanks also for fixing up the page regarding Nas' album and removing the Billboard Independent entry on Frank Ocean's album per WP:Record charts. Also, credit owed to you for showing reliable and deprecated sources involving music (artists, charts, albums, etc.); I'll try to be cautious next time. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 19:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: My bad, buddy. Didn't mean to bother you if that's the case. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 19:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: as per N.R.P.'s suggestion, can you look to some recent edits I did on Wikipedia? I may have not done them right. There may be unreliable or deprecated sources I unexpectedly added. I have just re-edited the page regarding entertainment exec. Lance "Un" Rivera. There still may be some unsourced edits on there. Fix this situation for me, please and thank you. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 19:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DBrown SPS: Ss112 have the pings turned off, so he might not see your comment. The best thing to do is go to his talk page instead. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAmazingPeanuts: Thanks for reminding me. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 21:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem asking admins for help or advice. It's just that I'm not as familiar with those topics as some others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnifer sock using Wikiquote now

User:Jinnifer's latest sock puppet account has taken to Wikiquote to canvas me, and a few other users to make their requested edits to the decades on the horror film article.[22] Is this something you can address directly, perhaps a global block, or is there a proper procedure I'm unaware of? I ask because the Wikiquote account doesn't seem to have an active accompanying Wikipedia account to report. Thanks NJZombie (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that most of Jinnifer's IP addresses are already blocked on English Wikipedia. But, unfortunately, that doesn't affect other projects. The first thing I'd suggest that you do is disable email from every project except English Wikipedia. Once I did this, the number of email death threats I got dropped significantly. See m:Help:Unified login. m:Global blocks are a thing, but they can cause a lot of collateral damage because they affect every Wikimedia project (Commons, Wikidata, English Wikipedia, Japanese Wikipedia, Wikiquote, etc). However, if you explain that it's for an LTA who engages in harassment on multiple projects, it's a lot easier. You can also request that registered accounts get a m:global lock. You'll have to find a m:steward, though. Easiest way is to follow the instructions at m:Steward requests/Global. There are a couple English Wikipedia administrators who are stewards, so you could try asking them. AmandaNP is a steward and English Wikipedia CheckUser. You might have better luck approaching her than other stewards, but I don't really know. For individual projects, you can look for their equivalent to WP:AIV. For example: Wikiquote:Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress. When reporting socks, you can link to en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnifer, which might help. Unfortunately, each project is run independently, so admins on English Wikipedia can't really do anything on Wikiquote unless they happen to be admins on there, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive edits

There is an editor who is using this range for making unconstructive edits in articles [23] [24] [25]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish these IPs were arguing over something like industrial metal. Well, it's unsourced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Box office bomb

Removal of that is because the line 'the film was a box office bomb' is so endemic that it's thrown around by some editors as if it must be declared (we've got around 150 articles with the phrase minus drafts), and it's often not sourced as to why it was a bomb (or done so by a drive-by who doesn't like the film). I do understand your argument about films still being a bomb minus theater cuts, but just that line above...it's so repetitive and needs finessing or variations on the phrasing. Nate • (chatter) 22:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, of course it's unsourced editorializing when people add stuff like "box office success" or "box office bomb". That sort of analysis needs to come from reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting 66.220.200.160

66.220.200.160 (talk · contribs)

This IP is adding unsourced content in articles [26] [27] [28] [29]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first warning this IP editor got was after their last edit. That's what we call "insufficiently warned" at AIV. They're supposed to continue their disruptive editing after having seen the warning. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I let you know if this continues. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

There's an editor who is using multiple accounts for disruptive editing and keep restoring their edits in articles, such as the article Life Is Good [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those are IP addresses, not accounts. Also, those IP addresses are spread out over the world. Some things just look wrong, and it doesn't matter how much you try to convince people that it's not wrong – they'll still fix it. See, for example, 0.999... and Monty Hall problem. If it gets bad, I can semi-protect the page. If it only happens once in a while, I'd suggest simply reverting it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just making sure that these IP addresses are not related to the same person. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mspriz

https://sigma.toolforge.org/timeline.py?page=Russia&users=Mspriz&users=Thelastcheck&server=enwiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 14:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it looks like I figured out what you wanted. Thelastcheck is a sock of Horope. You can be as terse as Rorschach, but please write messages in English. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this - https://sigma.toolforge.org/timeline.py?server=enwiki&page=Russia&users=Mspriz&users=Thelastcheck&users=Thesickreservoir Thesickreservoir is a new sock Renat 15:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, confirmed and blocked. Feel free to revert any unconstructive edits made by this editor per WP:BANREVERT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is it possible to merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Horope with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LastBreath64? Renat 18:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I don't really like doing that kind of bureaucratic stuff. I guess you could request an SPI clerk do it at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

user talk:Metoo15

I had tagged user talk:Metoo15 with db-attack. This does blank your block notice. Should I remove the db-attack, or let it stay? user:Meto15 is un-created. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't delete talk pages. It was revision deleted, anyway. I probably would have just reverted it, but it's not a big deal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is there a way to find out if someone was stealth-canvassed to a discussion via an email through Wikipedia? I have a not-concrete suspicion (due to someone campaigning and forum shopping a dispute on an unrelated noticeboard, and one of their frequent collaborators tag-teaming with them on both threads), but there's nothing concrete other than that. The possibility of this happening doesn't sit well with me. Dark knight 2149 09:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. For privacy reasons, anything that would be useful is not logged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I might be alone, but that's a little unnerving. Given how the consensus process and administrative forums work, unintentionally giving editors a backdoor to secretly canvass other editors undetected seems counterproductive. I feel replacing the Email this user system with a Wiki private message system (that can only be checked by trusted administrators for specific reasons, similar to CheckUser) would be a better option. I'm not sure if anything like that has been proposed before. Dark knight 2149 20:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would never happen, and it wouldn't make much difference, anyway. You can't prevent people from colluding, engaging in sock puppetry, or whatever. The best you can do is mitigate it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much. Dark knight 2149 22:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing of edits and blocking users who oppose you.

I often see you change edits which you don’t agree with and accuse them of being sock puppets you need to change your banning policy you are banning public networks like library wifi. Wikichangerei (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. Are you really claiming that User:Himyaricboy27187 and User:Himyarkid27181 aren't the same person? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

46.177.147.100

Can you reblock 46.177.147.100 (talk · contribs). Thanks. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why people edit war with blocked editors on their own talk page. I've disabled the IP's talk page privileges, but there's no reason to revert every edit that a blocked editor makes to their talk page. For example, they are explicitly allowed to remove warnings. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 08:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious IP

I think 2600:100C:B229:B22A:EDFB:5345:448A:C892 is Angel Arreguin Hernandez. Editing the same articles, and exhibiting the same behaviors regarding them. The "I know" after having already added the redundant information and being told it's redundant (meaning they made the edits knowingly) was the same thing Angel did last time--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty suspicious. I semi-protected the articles and did a short range block, which might help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block request

Hi,

Can you please block Special:Contributions/92.98.241.69 due to persistent vandalism on United Arab Emirates national football team?

I can attach examples should you need, though they're all available in the recent edit history

Many thanks,

Felixsv7 (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I warned the IP editor. People should ideally be warned before they're blocked. If the IP continues after the warning, I'll block them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, just wanted to bring it to your attention! Felixsv7 (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block request

Sup,

Can you block Hiimarcelo due to vandalism on Ariana Grande's Discography, Selena Gomez, Mac Miller and also wrote a irrelevant and god faith article Ariana Carper for its impersonation of Ariana Grande. When I told them, they've even offended me- but that's something I'm not even worried about.

Kindlecomelio (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OzonedOut

These edits seem rather suspicious, especially this and its revert. Do you think its just run of the mill vandalism? Or is it a sock? -- Whpq (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, kind of suspicious. I don't recognize that account as anyone in particular, though, and it's definitely not TwentytwoAug. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've given them a welcome message with a bit of a warning. -- Whpq (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Latest revision to David A. R. White

Hello,

I noticed you removed some info from the article about David White. Why is that? Also, what does unsourced mean? Isn't there enough sources there? Just scroll through if you can't find what you're looking for. In fact you removed a lot more info than necessary in my opinion (eg. the categories, when he moved to LA, etc). If you don't think those are sourced, I think you're wrong because there are plenty of sources on the article. The article has been the way before you edited it for a while and I again don't see why that was nessecary. Just please clarify and let me know what you think was unsourced.

Anston 172.221.217.126 (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't just some random blog that nobody reads. You have to be careful about what you say – the stuff that's written here shows up prominently in web searches and gets uncritically added to books, newspaper articles, and other sources. Biographies of living people on Wikipedia need to be easily verified through inline citations to reliable sources. This is so that biographies don't become full of guesswork and misinterpretation. For example, someone could say that they grew up in a city, and a Wikipedian may interpret that to mean that they were born there. It's a pain to go through this when you're sure that you're right, but this is important. When Wikipedia gets this stuff wrong, it can affect people's lives. And just because an issue might not have been noticed earlier doesn't mean that we should continue to ignore it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Administrator changes

Modussiccandi

BOZ • Brookie (deceased) • Jackmcbarn • Jamesday • Jonathunder • Master of Puppets • Saravask

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news

The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

Arbitration

Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

Miscellaneous

The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block IP

Hi,

This IP: Special:Contributions/14.248.191.144 has been editing players' club and age data at random across multiple national team sites.

Please block!

Thanks Felixsv7 (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, they should be warned first, but this seems to be overt hoaxes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Ytpks896 block

Hi! I've noticed that you've blocked Ytpks896 as a sockpuppet. Is that a CU block? The most recent SPI case I can see is from 2020, it was against the same user but was dismissed because of the absence of evidence. – Uanfala (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my blocks are not from SPI cases. But, no, it doesn't look like it was a CU block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't kept up to date with how sock hunting is done nowadays, but my experience from a couple of years ago was that for an editor to be banned as a sock, there needed to be evidence, solid evidence usually. – Uanfala (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been a requirement for a case at SPI before someone is blocked as a sock puppet. Luckily, Wikipedia's bureaucracy does have limits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if a formal SPI is required, but the presence of solid evidence certainly is. I don't believe you've just blocked this established regular editor on a whim? – Uanfala (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go away. I don't like passive-aggressive people. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't intend that to sound aggressive. I was trying to give you the chance to amend what I thought was an honest omission. I'll go away from your talk page. But the attitude you've shown here – that advanced administrative actions should be exempt from accountability – is concerning, so I've brought the case to Wikipedia:Administrative action review. – Uanfala (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conversing with senior colleague

For some reason your username reminds me of Cyrax, & Sector From mortal kombat, did you get inspiration from there? lol I’m sorry if you didn’t find this funny. My main purpose for messaging you was concerning this I’m not so sure that was a good idea but in any case I bow to your superiority and vast knowledge. Celestina007 (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a conscious reference, no. I dislike choosing usernames and usually pick the first thing that I think of. Ninja and pirates are an old internet meme. I preferred the first two Mortal Kombat games, anyway. The later games introduced a bunch of odd characters that I didn't really like, and the games got increasingly overcomplicated. And maybe my reflexes simply weren't good enough to beat teenagers any more by the time of the fourth game. I doubt that the editors I unblocked are sock puppets, and if they write anything too spammy, it'll probably get caught. They're apparently part of a Meta-organized event. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheKerberos01

Hi there,

it's about the account TheKerberos01. He was banned because I allegedly used multiple accounts. I want this account to be unblocked again - I haven't figured out exactly how to do it with my actual account yet and didn't have time until then or I kept forgetting.

In any case, if you do an unannounced edit, it does NOT count as an account. Furthermore, you don't have to believe me, but every few days a program on my computer "cleans" my browser history and makes sure that I'm not logged in every now and then. So that means I often have to log in again, also on other websites. The problem with this is that I am not automatically logged out of every website at the same time! And since I don't always check if I'm still logged in on Wikipedia, I often end up making edits without being logged in.

I didn't find out I was blocked until December when I registered again. But I knew that I was unannounced for a while. I didn't log in because I forgot my password for a while. I didn't know what email I used either. After I remembered what my password was, I logged in again. I made this account to sort things out with the other account. However, I don't know on which specific page this is possible.

Why am I bringing this up now? I haven't really had the time to do that lately, I've also forgotten the name of this account and for the most part didn't think about it.

Therefore I ask again to unblock my account TheKerberos01. Why would I edit page with different accounts and compromise my TheKerberos01 account?

Regards

--MisterGengar (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)MisterGengar[reply]

It looks like I blocked TheKerberos01 (talk · contribs) because you were restoring edits by a sock puppet, and, from Special:Diff/1045740214, it looked like you were actively coordinating with that sock puppet. However, I think I was too harsh, and I should have taken into account that the sock puppeteer may have simply been trying to entice you into proxying instead of admitting that this was already happening. I'll unblock your account. If you read through Wikipedia:Banning policy and Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, it will explain the policies regarding sock puppets and restoring their edits. The short version is that you can do it, but you shouldn't do it at their behest. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unblocking and yes I actually have nothing to do. I was also very surprised that someone took advantage of me for editing. As soon as I remember my password, I'll log out with it and go in with the others. I use this account as a "replacement". By that I don't mean that I edit something with both accounts at the same time, but if it should happen again with TheKerberos01, e.g. a blocking so that I can use this account and clarify it with it.

Then I have one more thing. It's about The Walking Dead. And one person always puts an edit back on some characters and says it's kind of unimportant and that's mainly how people know the character. So now I mean characters like Negan, Yumiko, Ezekiel and Tomi (and other little things). In any case, his surname was confirmed in the television series - in the case of Tomi even the full name; Tomichi Okumura. Negan's name is Smith, Yumiko's name is Okumura, and Ezekiel's last name is Sutton. Normally I know that if something has been confirmed on something then that information should be added. I know that Negan, Ezekiel, and Yumiko's last names were not confirmed in the comics, but what I don't understand is that Glenn, Stephanie, Shane, Carol, Sophia, Eric, Tyreese, and Dale's last names are also not confirmed in the comics were, but in the television series. And those last names are on the characters, both on the section and on the season pages and in the charts. Furthermore, some also have their own page, with their last names.

My question now is whether this information is really unimportant or not? I personally think that this information is added. --MisterGengar (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what you're talking about. If there's a dispute over the names of characters, it should probably be handled by citations to reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of sockpuppetry in 2019

Hi NinjaRobotPirate. I just did a random check of my own username using this method, and was - horrified - to see that I was once accused of sockpuppetry. I am very glad that you had the accumen to close the case without blocking my account, particularly as the same thread calls for talkpage access to be revoked wherever Evlekis sockpuppets are discovered. I have two questions. First, why was I not notified that a discussion was taking place? Surely one has the right to defend himself against malicious accusations? I at least expected the podium to express my own viewpoint once if no more. This leads to my second question, what does "technically indistinguishable" mean? It's obviously some jargon, but there is a frightening aspect here which is that I could have been banned indefinitely with talk page access removed and without so much as a whimper as to the purpose. When you get time, please let me know about it - thanks. --Edin balgarin (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to notify people of sock puppetry cases. People always say the same thing ("I'm not a sock puppet"), so it's often considered unhelpful to solicit their input. It looks like you weren't even reported. Your name simply came up because, if I had to guess, you were on the same ISP as a sock puppet. People often end up on the same IP range or even the same IP address as a sock puppet, and some of them will eventually be indistinguishable through technical means. This might happen if the information in the log files isn't detailed enough to differentiate between users. You have to work with what you've got, and, because Wikipedia's focus on privacy, there usually isn't much. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Account Blocked

May I know why my account has been Blocked immediately after creation of my account? 2409:4071:2094:2E22:7C:7E3B:1433:8DAF (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/2409:4071::/32 has been blocked from editing only one article, Vokkaliga. It's because there is a persistent sock puppet on this ISP. You can edit any other article on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 4th Hollywood Critics Association Film Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duane Johnson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP Boocked

Hey...You have Blocked my IP address...May I know why? Vyas 2000 (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The block will have a rationale listed. If you can still edit Wikipedia while logged in, it was an anonymous-only block, probably for persistent vandalism or disruptive editing. Some mobile IP ranges have a very high number of disruptive people on them, and I try to leave account creation enabled on those IP ranges so people can continue to edit constructively while logged-in. If you wanted more specifics, you'd have to tell me your IP address, or I'd have to use the CheckUser tool on you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP address something

Hello and good day! I want to address something. It isn't a complaint at all, nor do you need to take any action. The issue is: IP address 2401:4900:1F20:3922:442D:83B7:35B3:2C3A is my anonymous IP adress (I do not make edits from there, that being a different thing.) It has been blocked some 5 times, alternatively by you and Oshwah, every time for disruption from the IP address. I can edit perfectly fine WITH an account, that is why it is not a complaint, but the reason I came here is: Why is it blocked? Have you initiated a long-range block? Scratchinghead (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, another administrator asked me to block that IP range. I left account creation on because it's a wide IP range. Then a persistent sock puppeteer started making a lot of accounts on that IP range to harass someone, so I disabled account creation. For wide IP ranges, I usually try doing an anon-only block first. The problem is that mobile IP ranges make it very easy to abuse Wikipedia. Every time you get blocked, you can just get a new IP address and start up your disruption again. So, they tend to get blocked a lot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming; I thought my IP address was blocked because I was being disruptive (forgetful me.) Scratchinghead (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scratchinghead! It might not have been you. Other users might be sharing this range, and the block is pretty wide. It's not a hard block; you should be able to sign into your account and you should have no issues with editing. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Scratchinghead (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Walking Dead

Hello, I asked you about this a few days ago because of some character names. Exactly, that's what I mean.
Personally, I find the reasoning stupid as well as the regulation. Negan's, Yumiko's and Ezekiel's last names have been confirmed on the show and I think they should be there too, not just on the character's page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Walking_Dead_(TV_series)_characters&action=history

Regards --TheKerberos01 (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)TheKerberos01[reply]

I don't think there's any rule or guideline on that. The policy on common names is about article titles, and the manual of style for fiction doesn't really say much about character names. It says that you shouldn't extrapolate questionable facts from a plot summary, so you shouldn't extrapolate on the "official" name of a character, such as saying that a character's full name is "Samuel" instead of "Sam". But if the character's full name is revealed in the fictional work, I guess it's fair game, subject to to the consensus of other editors. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/117.230.47.166

Still at it: Special:AbuseLog/32197121

Might want to expand the partial block for the range to include Kerala Congress. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like unrelated disruption. I could semi-protect that article to stop people from disrupting it with more IPs show up, but I'd rather not expand a hard block. That prevents logged-in editors from editing the listed articles, too. This is preventing a self-promoting sock puppeteer from spamming a few articles, which is why the hard block works without too much collateral. If I expand it to include every problematic article that gets edited on a wide IP range, it'd be like saying "nobody who geolocates to London should be allowed to edit London Underground", or "nobody from New York should be able to edit Manhattan". There'd be a lot of collateral damage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Film awards guy

I feel like 205.234.80.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (last edited 14 March) is the same guy as 8.48.254.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which is a range you blocked for block evasion... I think I encountered another unblocked IP with similar traits and geolocation to the block evader that edited recently but I forgot it. wizzito | say hello! 22:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that IP. Wrong geolocation. There's almost always another IP active. This is a persistent sock puppeteer who edit wars to rewrite articles. Most of the changes are cosmetic, though, such as changing all the images to different ones. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Walking Dead (season 11)

Hello. There is recently a problem on the page. For some reason an user keeps trying to remove the information out of the page because he thinks it's irrelevant. I tried to reason with him yet again he insists and then also insulted me. Can you do something about it please? Thanks. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last comment seems to be evidence of not being here to constructively build an encyclopedia, but I gave the editor a warning about discretionary sanctions and edit warring. Hopefully, that'll be the end of the disruption, though I'm not going to hold my breath. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, so despite your warnings, he is insisting of removing the content. I already reverted it but don't know how much effective it will be. Tobi999tomas (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a partial block for a week. If there's something to discuss, Rustyze can do so on the talk page. I'm kind of skeptical that this is being done in good faith, but I guess it can't hurt to give the editor a chance. If we're being trolled, it will be blatantly obvious after this, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it looks like this IP address is removing similarly the content that's on the page. It's possible that he is using different IP addresses. Tobi999tomas (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, blocked the IP and reblocked Rustyze. No need for the CheckUser tool here; I can't imagine who else would be removing that phrase, and Rustyze threatened to keep this up indefinitely. The next block will be indefinite. I probably should have blocked Rustyze indefinitely this time, but I guess I'm feeling stupidly optimistic today. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to touch some grass kid haha. Creating a different IP just to get me banned, really? Does the truth hurt you THAT much? Rustyze (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Hi Ninja, you recently blocked Special:Contributions/191.125.99.83 for evasion. Special:Contributions/190.45.120.96 appears to be the same user. Regards. BilCat (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, definitely. It looks like these IPs stay allocated for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! BilCat (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Great job! Leonel Sohns (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion?

104.153.241.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who you blocked for 3 months for block evasion, seems to be making similar edits again. ― Qwerfjkl talk 21:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks like it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if 50.84.111.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is related, but they seem similar (and they both use {{R with Possibilities}}). ― Qwerfjkl talk 14:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...and 50.84.111.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ― Qwerfjkl talk 14:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it. They're using the /29 50.84.111.80/29 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) which is registered to a hotel in the same geolocation as previous IPs. wizzito | say hello! 14:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Range blocked. That's the most reasonable explanation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

104.153.241.65

Currently evading blocks as 50.84.111.80/29 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). wizzito | say hello! 14:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now active at 104.153.241.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). wizzito | say hello! 01:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My browser is autofilling these block rationales. Reblocked. I don't even remember blocking this IP range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content on Yunus Parvez

I had added the information regarding the date of birth of Shri Yunus Parvez based on a very reliable source. Tabassum is an Indian film actress and a reliable source regarding matters pertaining to the Hindi Film Industry. It will be better, if instead of deleting content you ask for the source here. I am adding the content again. The source is given above. Captainbrahmin (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did not cite a source in Special:Diff/1080913044. The date was changed without an inline citation. "The source is given above" makes no sense to me. If you have a source, cite it in the article when you make an edit. I don't know what else you're referring to. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Vegilbelin is a guy who vandalized my talk page, he just edit my page saying "Hi i am dumb Hi i am dumb Hi i am dumb Hi i am dumb Hi i am dumb" and I reverted it. Minutes later, he vandalized my talk page again saying "HI I AM C*M😊". I gave him 2 warnings and he didn't listen. Can you block him? ZerryTheBest (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No hes lyeing because hes stupid Vegilbelin (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?? ZerryTheBest (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Administrator changes

Firefly • Sdrqaz

Ad Orientem

Geschichte • Ryan Postlethwaite • Sabine's Sunbird • Wassupwestcoast

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.

Technical news

Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.

Miscellaneous

Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Awakener4411

Awakener4411 (talk · contribs)

An editor named Isaacsorry has been blocked by Diannaa back in September for adding copyrighted content in articles. It appears the editor is evading their block, I have open an investigation on it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question

How come my edit on The Master of Disguise is hoax to you, and why did you block me because of it? After all, Happy Madison Productions, Columbia Pictures and Revolution Studios DID make the movie. Can you please define what a hoax even is, because clearly, that was not hoax.--2600:8801:3:D800:ECDD:73DF:870C:AF55 (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Special:Diff/1074127066? That edit cited this page at the AFI Catalog of Feature Films as a source, but the AFI entry says nothing about those companies being production companies on that film. You made a claim that a source said something, and the claim was provably false. If you're here to argue over the content of that edit, please be aware that I have no interest in being drawn into debates over whether unsourced content is true or not. If you make a claim, it's your burden to provide a citation to a reliable source that verifies the claim. Before you ask: no, the IMDb is not a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFI isn't really a reliable source either. If you looked at the posters or the logos or anything else, they were involved in the movie.--2600:8801:3:D800:6C0D:5CB4:A6A0:E169 (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A logo on a poster doesn't prove anything except that the company's logo is on the poster. We can't know why its on the poster, and we're not allowed to guess. They could simply be an investor or a rights holder. AFI is a professional database maintained by film scholars. If you want to use this website, you have to follow our rules. That's just how it is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

IP abuse

The blocked IP range seems to be at it again [37], this time after the user became blocked.[38]. This article [39] was recently protected however the IP is continuing disruption in other articles [40]. Should the articles be protected or range block as its clearly sockpuppetry now. Magherbin (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP range for 6 months – these IPs seem to stay allocated to the same customer for a long time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for decline of unblock request

Hello, I can see that you have just declined my request for a removal of my p-block. Please elaborate on that. You only refer to WP:NOTTHEM, which states that I should talk about my self and not the other person. How can that be my decline reason? I stated what I had done, and that the reason for why I was blocked in the first place was not valid anymore. "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long term, though intermittent, harassment." was the reason for my ban in the first place, and clearly that is not valid anymore. So what do you exactly mean by your stated reason? Thanks. BoMadsen88 (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what other people have done when we're discussing your behavior. Make another unblock request if you think that decline was wrong. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And my point is that I AM discussing my behaviour. But of course one has to refer to the actions that has happened, since that is the entire reason for my initial ban. And I have to make it clear to the moderators, that the reason for why I was banned is now not valid. As I clearly state: I was banned for "conducting an ongoing harassment campaign against QRep2020", and that has now been cleared out as not being the case. So why did you decline it? BoMadsen88 (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Thelintos

Thelintos (talk · contribs)

There's an editor who is keep adding "Lil Xacah" in articles while using multiple accounts in mostly Pop Smoke-related articles [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]. This editor is even using my username [49]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a couple accounts confirmed there. Could be on proxies, but who knows. There's probably more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Pascal

Thanks for protecting the article not it is currently in the vandalised version. Could you please restore it to the established version? Many thanks. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not vandalism. It seems like something that could be a legitimate WP:BLP complaint. Go to the talk page and discuss the issue. If the other editor keeps acting trollish and threatening to engage in sock puppetry and edit warring without discussion, I'll block him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is the result of disruptive editing at the very least. Look at the history of the page (and the edit summaries). This has been discussed in the past and the sock/meat puppets who are determined to remove the content at all costs are not interested in discussion. The page has been semied in the past and the disruption just continues I had just requested pending changes before you protected it. That seems a reasonable way forward. In any event, the current version is in violation of WP:3RR and should be reverted. Thanks. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fully protected because neither side was discussing the issue. So, go to the talk page and start discussing it. An article not be in violation of 3RR, only a user can be. I already warned Luckypascal about the trollish edit summaries and threats to engage in sock puppetry. Maybe I'm being a bit stupidly naive and optimistic tonight, but I'm going to assume this was done in the heat of the moment while passions were running high. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but surely a 3RR violation should not be retained (especially one by an editor who is most likely a sock and who is clearly not acting in good faith given his edit summaries and comments on the TP, where I am - yet again - engaging). Lard Almighty (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

m:The Wrong Version. That's about all I have to say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but no. When there has been an edit war and a page is protected, it is returned to pre-edit war status while the matter is resolved. That is all I am asking you to do. That is especially true when only one editor has actually broken 3RR. Lard Almighty (talk)`

m:The Wrong Version. That's about all I have to say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I'm saying, as I've explained. PP is there to protect the project from disruptive editors. There is only one disruptive editor (whose passions are running high as you say) in this case. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indian IPv6 range editing issue

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Stricter block for Indian IPv6 ranges due to sockpuppetry. Thank you. If you could specifically take a look at 2409:4071:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (since you are the blocking admin for this range and another admin reinstated your partial block to it), that would really help. — B. L. I. R. 01:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts?

Behaviorally on Bribemylar. I haven't checked yet, could just be a fan making a mess quickly, but *possibly* a TotalTruthTeller? (Noticed Bbb23 has seen this user as well.) -- ferret (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the totality of it all... it's gotta be TTT24. Geolocation, article topics, other accounts on the same IP address, overlap/restoring edits made by confirmed socks, etc. This sock has more of a focus than usual on video games, but there are still the usual edits to comic book characters and comic-to-film adaptations, both in logged-out and on socks confirmed to this one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

stickerplacer

oops! we ran into each other on that one -- I was feeling "school IP", looking at the other stuff CU showed. So I lifted the autoblock simultaneously with you declining it! --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One one them claimed it was a school IP, so who knows. I didn't block, so it's not a big deal. I figured any further vandalism would probably show up at AIV, so it wasn't worth getting too worked up over whether to block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editor

Do you remember back in June 2021 I that reported an editor who is using this range for disruptive editing. It appears that the editor is back again and just like before making the same questionable edits as before [50] [51] [52] but using another range such as this. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I'm using a laptop with a touchscreen and touchpad, which can be kind of frustrating. Until I get used to this thing, I probably shouldn't block anyone. You might raise the issue at WP:ANI or something. I'll try to remember about this later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again. That laptop is pretty cool, but it can be frustrating at times. It's like a tablet: whenever you touch it, it does something you didn't want to happen. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rrfaner4444

Should this account be tagged too or no? Wasn't blocked for sockpuppetry, but their edits make it very clear to be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ebberddj/John Cena Fan 2002. Magitroopa (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter? It looks like a throwaway account that nobody's ever to interact with again. I guess I can tag it as "suspected", though. There's no effort involved in that beyond copy-pasting the sock template. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling me a Neo-Nazi

Regarding my editing of the page for Las Vegas Aces head coach Becky Harmon to reflect the fact that she is a lesbian and chose to live in a sin that is detestable to God and your subsequent blocking and calling me "an obvious neo-Nazi," it is laughable that you are that closed minded. I am not a neo-Nazi. It's just the opposite. I am a Bible-believing Christian who knows that according to the Bible being a homosexual is a sin, and despite the general worldview that people are born a homosexual and it's not a choice I know of several people who have come out of that lifestyle, become Christians, and have testified to the fact that it in fact is a demonic presence they were under and are now heterosexual. There is a reason why I quoted that verse in Leviticus regarding lying with a man as one lies with a woman is detestable in the eyes of the Lord (paraphrase). It was a reference point that proved my assessment of Harmon not being a devout Christian anymore, despite what she has said about being raised a Christian as a child. The simple fact is that unless she is delivered from her homosexuality beforehand, she will be judged by God upon her death and will not wind up in Heaven.

One of Wikipedia's own definitions of neo-Nazism is homophobia. I'm not homophobic. I don't care who or what you decide to have sex with. It'd be better to be heterosexual but if a person decides to go the other way, or are bisexual, they have to answer for their sin when they die just as a straight person would have to answer for any other sin, such as adultery.

Call me what you want, but I know on the Day of Judgement I know where I'm going and God's choice for me will be did I do what I was called to do-- not if I'm going up or down. I'm heading to Heaven. Are you? It doesn't appear so if you really think witnessing and pointing out hypocrisy is neo-Nazism. 2604:CB00:824:B800:5866:BD41:472A:8422 (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. Congratulations on not being a neo-Nazi. I've never edited the article you mentioned, and I've never blocked this IP address. If you're complaining about the block on Special:Contributions/2600:1005:b100::/40, that's a range block that was likely targeted on a different person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- ferret (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Administrator changes

Colin M

David.Monniaux • Fribbler • Grue • Kpjas • West.andrew.g

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversighter changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.

Technical news

The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.

Arbitration

Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion by Isaacsorry

Marlborozmoker (talk · contribs)

Possible block evasion by Isaacsorry, who have a bad habit of going back to the same articles as before, especially articles related to Michael Jackson [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there's an SPI case open. I'll take a look. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are sleepers, I let you know. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disrupting forward progress

I would like to discuss the situation at Scam baiting with you. Your approach to the discussion I created on the talk page is uncalled for, and your behaviour was uncivil. It’s very surprising coming from an Administrator and a user of your tenure.

“Stop removing sourced content just because you want to promote this activity.”

To imply that I want online racial violence to be promoted solely due to an edit I made on a Wikipedia article is not only totally outlandish, but it is also a disgusting accusation to make about a fellow member of Wikipedia.

I have outlined the problems I found with the sources, which I had read prior to making any edits. You reverted my edit based on your belief that I want to promote racism through Wikipedia.

Please do two things for me:

1) Discuss (on the talk page) the reasons that those sources are still valid in today’s context of scam baiting. If you do not know anything about scam baiting (which I am guessing you don’t from your “could care less” statement), then you should leave reverting and/or discussing the issue to someone who does know about the community in its present form.

2) Apologise, or at the very least, retract your remark that I have an objective of promoting racism on Wikipedia. I make edits based on things that are local to me, and things that I am passionate in. For an Administrator to make such a remark about a fellow editor so callously, it risks disincentivising others from daring to make edits they believe to be correct in order to avoid harassing allegations against them. I certainly hope I’m the first person you’ve made such a remark to.

Corona1112 (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 793: / Line 793: @@
 : It looks like there's an SPI case open.  I'll take a look. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate#top|talk]]) 06:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 ::I'm sure there are sleepers, I let you know. [[User:TheAmazingPeanuts|TheAmazingPeanuts]] ([[User talk:TheAmazingPeanuts|talk]]) 07:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
+== Disrupting forward progress ==
+I would like to discuss the situation at [[Scam baiting]] with you. Your approach to the discussion I created on the talk page is uncalled for, and your behaviour was uncivil. It’s very surprising coming from an Administrator and a user of your tenure.
+“Stop removing sourced content just because you want to promote this activity.”
+To imply that I want online racial violence to be promoted solely due to an edit I made on a Wikipedia article is not only totally outlandish, but it is also a disgusting accusation to make about a fellow member of Wikipedia.
+I have outlined the problems I found with the sources, which I had read prior to making any edits. You reverted my edit based on your belief that I want to promote racism through Wikipedia.
+Please do two things for me:
+) Discuss (on the talk page) the reasons that those sources are still valid in today’s context of scam baiting. If you do not know anything about scam baiting (which I am guessing you don’t from your “could care less” statement), then you should leave reverting and/or discussing the issue to someone who '''does''' know about the community in its present form.
+) Apologise, or at the very least, retract your remark that I have an objective of promoting racism on Wikipedia. I make edits based on things that are local to me, and things that I am passionate in. For an Administrator to make such a remark about a fellow editor so callously, it risks disincentivising others from daring to make edits they believe to be correct in order to avoid harassing allegations against them.
+I certainly hope I’m the first person you’ve made such a remark to.
+[[User:Corona1112|Corona1112]] ([[User talk:Corona1112|talk]]) 04:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)