Jump to content

User talk:NinjaRobotPirate: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→SPI: alternative
→SPI: ask another
Line 363: Line 363:
::::: You realize the email + the SPI is something like 7000 words, right? That's as much as an entire Arbcom case. Volunteers tend to shy away from stuff like that. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate#top|talk]]) 09:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
::::: You realize the email + the SPI is something like 7000 words, right? That's as much as an entire Arbcom case. Volunteers tend to shy away from stuff like that. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate#top|talk]]) 09:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::Well, the alternative is allowing a banned user edit freely and call several editors names. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 09:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::Well, the alternative is allowing a banned user edit freely and call several editors names. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 09:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
::::::I'll ask {{u|Doug Weller}} if you don't want to do it. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 09:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:25, 10 February 2021

Did you know that F5 is the "generate drama" key? Try it! Every time you press it, more drama is auto-generated on Wikipedia.
I hope you find my addition to your talk page aggravating and stressful, just the way you like it! :) Natureium (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent editor (11)

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

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

Quick check on duck

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

Different continents, though OpenDesignsInOfficial has a couple other accounts (OpenDesignsIn, Opendesignsindai). The OpenDesigns stuff is probably paid editing, for what it's worth. I don't see how these accounts could benefit them, but they tried to create an official "SEO" account or something on the same IP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At least more paid editing sock/meat was found. It felt weird he'd block evade as a clear promotional account, but the timing was oddly lined up as well. -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly recreated article

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

Yeah, it does seem fishy. It's inescapably similar, but it's not a copy-paste. The original was created by RandomHaiz, a sock puppet of FilmLover2016. FilmLover2016 is usually not too difficult to spot. There's usually a heavy burst of article creations about non-notable films, actors, etc. Most of the citations go to random user-generated websites, self-published blogs, social media, stuff like that. A one-off wouldn't be FilmLover2016. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for looking into it! BOVINEBOY2008 15:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
  • Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

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

User:BillieLiz

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

Well, you can't avoid the proper noticeboard simply because it's backlogged. And, for what it's worth, people generally don't use proxies. Most editors can't even figure out how to make a ping work properly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand a lot of users are inexperienced, but Billiekhalidfan was caught out using another account after their main account was blocked, so I don't think they are so inexperienced. Anyway, I suppose you already would have seen if they were using a proxy or VPN when you checked. Ss112 16:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I was wrong about who they were, but still a sock and now blocked: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joveal George Joshua. Ss112 13:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Octoprey

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

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

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

Pulisi

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

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

Precious anniversary

Precious
Four years!

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

Question

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

Note, this question was also asked on WP:TEA and answered in detail.[1] Now User:Chip-chip-2020, apparently dissatisfied with the answer, appears to be using the strategy of WP:OTHERPARENT. The edits in question occurred today on Waltzes Op. 70 (Chopin) and its talk page. User:Chip-chip-2020 has subsequently disagreed with the title "scherzos" on Frédéric Chopin. A fortnight or two I created Scherzos (Chopin), where the Library of Congress spelling is used. Smerus[2] has also described User:Chip-chip-2020 as One-track, single-issue, repetitive, editor who objects to other editors disagreeing with him/her. And failing to convince them seeks to present self as victim in the hope that this may advance his/her cause. aka WP:SPA Mathsci (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand how I fit in. But WP:ANI would probably be the best place to go if someone feels that there's hounding or other disruption going on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

24.170.255.67

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

Looks like the IP just got off a block for the same thing. Reblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The IP returns to the attack by repeatedly trying to add the occupation of some voice actors without indicating any type of source as if they had ever sung in animations and accompanying some IPs that appear in different editions, evading the original blocking of the mentioned IP:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is up with editor's edit summaries...

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

Just weird edit summaries, I think. I haven't any idea why anyone would use edit summaries like that, either. The editor doesn't seem to be a native English speaker, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like how they don't answer the question when it is asked... I guess I just don't understand why they do this sometimes-misleading piping within edit summaries. Shearonink (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent editor (12)

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

Blocked six months this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid MasonKim has popped up again as 2601:5C4:4301:56D0:656D:2A98:A003:79CB (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as seen with this edit [3].—JlACEer (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely odd, but I doubt it's the same IP editor as above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure in Brisbane

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

Blocked. And I was just editing a Yahoo Serious article, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd. So is this: https://www.thebharatexpressnews.com/rarely-seen-yahoo-serious-in-sydneys-palm-beach-with-her-dog/ --IamNotU (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks... today he's back on 101.178.108.103, you blocked it in July 2019. Looks like there were some edits October 2019 to October 2020 that weren't his, and it geolocates to Victoria rather than Brisbane, but as before the edits are obvious, he's done the same thing a dozen times in Natural landscape. PS, I've had some more e-mail contact with the support worker, who's forwarded it to his manager. Don't know if it will lead to anything, but maybe... --IamNotU (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what's going on with 101.178.108.103, but it looks to have had multiple sock puppets on it over its long history. Could be more evidence for your theory about public IPs. I blocked it for a year since it doesn't seem like anything useful is going to come from it. It would be nice if we made some progress on stopping this, but I wouldn't hold my breath. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Talonjay, Heybruhham, and GrizzlyGarcia

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

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

I was going to say that it looks like just a few random people, but I ran a check to make sure. Turns out that you're right: Heybruhham, GrizzlyGarcia, and Sweet6Teens are  Confirmed to Talonjay. I blocked Talonjay for a week for sock puppetry, and the others are indeffed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BenJen10 (talk · contribs) Possible block evasion by Talonjay [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah,  Confirmed and blocked. How many accounts does this guy need to genre war? Indeffed the master, too, since he doesn't seem to have any intention of stopping. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm keeping my eye out for any more sleeper accounts. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big Question????

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

unblock request for another user

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

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

Not here, in one way or another

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

Looks like there's an active SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karagory. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so there is. Thanks. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sacha

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

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

User:Verablanc01

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

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

Block evasion by Rishabisajakepauler

NOTHING4FREE (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

NOTHING4FREE is  Confirmed to Aptesttt (talk · contribs). no No comment with respect to IP address(es). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
68.192.11.231 (talk · contribs) Another possible block evasion by Rishabisajakepauler [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP sock

Hello,

This IP [32] which you gave a CheckUser block to in the past based on my ANI report [33] has reactivated and is engaging in the same sort of WP:CIR editing, which I and others discussed here [34] for example. Can you block again? Crossroads -talk- 05:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Block for Genisys

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

Sorry, don't know what you're talking about. Did you include a citation to a reliable source when you made your edit? That's what most of my blocks are about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You know that another solution to good faith edits is to put the source from another page or put the "citation needed" label, not just block the user, so stop abusing your power and stop pretending you don't know what I'm talking about when you know perfectly well. Jienum (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you protected Nima Owji?

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

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

grrrrrrr

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

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

Possible block evasion by Kee1992

Fejkxk (talk · contribs)

I think this account is related to block editor Kee1992, due to the fact that the editor has edited articles related to J. Cole, such as Revenge of the Dreamers III [35] [36]. After being blocked on August 9, 2020, it seems like the editor returns back to the article with these edits [37] [38], that look pretty suspicious to me. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created this account in Feb 2018, my first edits can be seen here [39]. I dont have any relation to the user that was named. Sorry for that last edit on 2014 Forest Hills Drive, I just wasn't aware why some of the content was removed. Best wishes. Fejkxk (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, Kee1992 and Fejkxk live in different countries. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay just making sure.
@Fejkxk: Sorry for thinking you were the block editor. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for patrolling Wikipedia and making difficult decisions about sock puppets and vandals. I appreciate how difficult it is for admins like you to issue blocks, when vandals who get caught doing awful behavior quickly come up with the loudest and craziest excuses for why they are innocent. I have seen you make correct calls and have seen you have good practice for your moderation. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for saying so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

162.238.56.66

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

Yeah, blocked for six months this time. Even if that doesn't stop the disruption, it'll give us a lengthy break from it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick action here. Nate • (chatter) 23:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting an disruptive editor

There is some editor who is changing track lengths for unexplained reasons [40] [41] [42] [43]. It turns out that the editor is using this range. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Persistent editor (13)

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

I blocked the IP, but I think it'd be best to wait to see if he pops up again before doing a range block. There doesn't seem to be any collateral damage, but the IP range here could potentially be pretty wide. There was this one sock who went to internet cafes, computer stores, and restaurants just to troll and vandalize. Luckily, most people don't go to that much trouble. You have to wonder what kind of sad life a person like that leads. Can someone literally have nothing better to do than to drive to a cafe and vandalize Wikipedia? Yikes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously! Sad for sure. As for blocking the IP range, exactly what I was thinking as well. Best to wait and see, or even consider the alternative of protecting the pages for 3-6 months. Thanks for all your help with this nuisance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdness

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

Seems a bit sketchy to me. Have you tried checking Google? If it's SEO or spam, they have to advertise their services somewhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a scan. My first thought was that it might have been a compromised account, and someone was playing around with their scripts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The account was accepting/declining drafts earlier, so it's not out of character. Someone who returns after two years might also be a bit rusty, and I've got nothing fresh to compare the recent edits to, anyway. I'm not really sure there's enough evidence to run a check for sock puppetry yet, either. Are there any accounts that you suspect are socks of this person? I've seen people submit an article through AFC, then accept it with a sock. It gives their article a veneer of respectability (a third party already checked it), but it also tends to look pretty suspicious once people notice you're routinely accepting spam. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive

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

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

A Request

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

I agree that it looks, well, fishy. I was waiting to see if they add more spam links, but I suppose it could be a poorly-written spambot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check

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

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

So I understand this correctly

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

The point was that the IP is stale, not that it's stale by an exact number of hours. If I'm wrong, and the IP stays allocated to a vandal for longer than I expected, I can block it for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see what you meant now by "Vodafone IPs can stay allocated for a while, but it's already been more than a week since the first vandalism. It could be reallocated by now", quite prophetic: [44]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks like my estimation is about right. Blocked that one for two weeks. Virgin Media is usually a month, Vodafone and TalkTalk are usually two weeks, and BT can last months to years. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice to know where the experts are! ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm a CheckUser. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible COI/UPE, not sure what's going on

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

I don't know. In the past, I've had decent luck with a polite message on someone's talk page that explains Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Citing yourself and Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. I guess I'd give that a try. If that's actually a journalist instead of a spammer, you'd probably get a useful response. Plus, if they deny everything, it might make a stronger case for avoiding scrutiny. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feeling nice tonight, so I left the COI notice and a hand written inquiry. -- ferret (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Message from a CU on it.wiki

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

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

BMK

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

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

User:Informed analysis

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

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

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

Sky Broadband IP

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

What an odd IP editor. Looks like the same person as Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:8C03:7900::/64, who was blocked for 3 months. I blocked a month, so I guess we'll be right back here soon enough, unfortunately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, that's the same strange person. They know the place well. I wonder if it's an alternate 'personality' of a banned user or LTA who decided to be odd in a particular, consistent way in order not to be recognised. They've triggered an edit filter tagged 'LTA edit summary or editing pattern hit (Oshwah)' several times. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah's edit filter doesn't necessarily prove anything by itself, but it's useful for tracking suspicious behavior. That said, this does look like a repeat customer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Storieblu

Storieblu (talk · contribs)

This editor is edit warring in the article "Blinding Lights" by keep adding reviews after other editors remove the reviews due to weight [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partially blocked for 24 hours. Lots of edit warring in the article recently. Might need full protection if this keeps up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I keep an eye on the article if the editor keep restoring the content after the block has expired. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

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

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

Ugh. That's really long. What emails? If it went through OTRS, no, I wouldn't have seen it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I e-mailed 'checkuser-en-wp at wikipedia.org'. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that goes to an OTRS queue. It requires an OTRS account to read, and I'm not really interested in jumping through their hoops to get an account. They have bizarre requirements, like sending them personal information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You got mail. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just send me an e-mail if you want the PDFs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You realize the email + the SPI is something like 7000 words, right? That's as much as an entire Arbcom case. Volunteers tend to shy away from stuff like that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the alternative is allowing a banned user edit freely and call several editors names. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask Doug Weller if you don't want to do it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NinjaRobotPirate&oldid=1005966370"