Note: I rarely check my email, so if you send me something important, you should probably let me know.
Bored? Check out User:NinjaRobotPirate/Games for a list of video games that are probably notable. I listed most of the sources, so you don't even have to find them.
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
Hello. I have a quick question on if I'm editing correctly. I've made edits on The Hitcher, The Hitcher II: I've Been Waiting, The Hitcher, and Mayfair Witches in regards to horror being a genre of those projects. I was wondering if I'm editing incorrectly, because a user had messaged me recently about the former three projects and just today, again, the same user left a message about the latter project. Before I reply to the new message on my talk page, I wanted to know if I'm making incorrect edits. I left multiple sources on The Hitcher page, but the edit was still reverted. I'll leave links to my edits below and my responses so far. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong and any advice would be helpful, because I don't want to upset anyone or make any more bad edits, as I was already told that I shouldn't add things that I think would be helpful to articles. I'm just confused, I suppose, and just want to know how to be better. Thank you for your time. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I had thought as well. I added five sources, not reviews, in this edit and it was changed back and I was told here not to add things to articles that I think would be helpful. I just don't want to keep upsetting people by adding sources, because I want to be helpful. I was continuing to edit other articles as well after that, but I was told here today that I was causing problems and it just made me want to figure it out. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I didn't look at all the edits (or sources) in question, but just some general advice that strong sources to cite for genre include AFI, BFI, and AllMovie. The Hitcher, for example, is listed as "horror" at this entry. Usually I check all three sites to see if there is a consensus among them, then I roll with that. Worth noting that AllMovie isn't what it used to be (see this discussion), but AFI and BFI are definitely solid. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have used AllMovie among other reliable sources and I'll keep that in mind. I appreciate the help from both of you. I want to edit the pages back, but I am worried about the same user calling me a problem again, or telling me to not edit the page again. I get hesitant to edit now out of fear of doing something wrong. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk Page Messages
Hello. Are other users allowed to keep removing talk page messages from my talk page? It's happened twice now by the user I mentioned above. Thank you for your time. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some range blocks, which may help. I don't understand why people keep creating redirects for this sock puppeteer. I guess I'll watchlist them and see if anyone comes around to edit them later. Maybe I can at least use them as honeypots. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
Thoughts about this IP? Based upon the nature of and edit summary from their first edit last December, it's the same person on a static IP. They've occasionally been disruptive, but the past couple of weeks they've shown up more frequently, and been more disruptive, than previously. I wondered if a preventative block might be in order, given the apparently static nature of the address, but I know admins are generally very reluctant to block IPs for long. Grandpallama (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what exactly is the problem? Some of the edits seem to be removing unsourced content, such as Special:Diff/1242882557 and Special:Diff/1242883490, which remove unsourced claims of urban legends with the rationale that they're folklore, not urban legends. Are there more disruptive edits? To be honest, I have no intention of checking every edit. If it were 10 edits, sure. But not that many. You have to show me the disruptive ones because my random sample didn't find any. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry--I'm going to drive you crazy with notifications today. I forgot I'd left this note for you. Mixed in with what look like reasonable edits from that IP are ones like this with an edit summary that it's not an urban legend, despite being sourced and the source very clearly describing it as such, and this, which removes as the "personal opinion" a sourced academic opinion. In any case, you're right that some of the editing is fine. It's a mixed bag, and I understand if their infrequent editing doesn't justify any real follow-up. Grandpallama (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keith McKenzie
I'm considering unblocking Keith McKenzie with strict restrictions. See UTRS appeal #94890. I'm the original blocking admin, you subsequently revoked talk page access. I've CU-verified there's been no recent block evasion. If you don't have access to UTRS, I'm happy to state the restrictions I'm proposing here. Let me know if you have questions or concerns. --Yamla (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, that was someone who was logging out to perform Nazi-themed vandalism and then posted obvious lies about it? If you think someone like that can be helpful. I just don't think that we're so hard up for users that we need neo-Nazis. If someone volunteered at a food shelter and got caught scrawling swastikas, I don't really think they'd be welcome there any more. For whatever reason, a lot of people treat editing Wikipedia as if it's a basic human right, and it's some kind of cruel and unusual punishment to tell someone to go away. If the press found out that we had a revolving door for neo-Nazis, there'd probably be a big scandal. I look forward to the inevitable New York Daily News headline "Wikipedia secretly written by Neo-Nazis who can't stay banned!!" NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Please pay attention to used sources and their reliability. Controversies can be described in their own section, and should not be stated as fact in the main section, especially when poorly referenced.
A couple sock puppets edit those articles if I remember correctly. It looks like latest puffery was added by Sk7xd. That account has extensive overlap with Vrghs jacob and his sock puppets, but I'm not 100% sure that's a sock puppet. It would be easier if everyone stayed on the same IP range, like during the COVID19 pandemic. I haven't looked at these articles in a little while, so it's hard to remember what all the disruption was about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gng1999. I blocked them and tagged them as suspected socks of HollywoodHero30. You retagged them as a separate case. Now we have Douglas1998A, whom I'm willing to block based on the following behavioral characteristics in no particular order: username similarity, creates cats of a certain type and populates them; and edits at a rapid clip atypical of a new user. I also noticed some differences: uses the visual editor and edits the page rather than the External link section. Gng1999, unless there is recent login data, is stale, but I thought I'd ask for your CU and non-CU thoughts before blocking. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I was pretty confident of that tag, doesn't it? Douglas1998A is on the wrong continent, though. He has a previous account, Sirdougieparrella98, which hasn't edited in almost two years, but that was a while ago. Wrong continent for HollywoodHero30, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
I just pinged you to Talk:John_Wick#Atomic_Blonde_cross-over where I ended my comments with a claim that the disruption around source misrepresentation has been happening at other pages, too. In the interest of not going completely off-topic at the John Wick talkpage, I'll note here the other two examples I found after only a couple of minutes of checking. Almost the entire sentence on this one, and the claim while acknowledging that there are plans for additional stories following the events of The Creep Tapes on this one. Grandpallama (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hey NinjaRobotPirate, it doesn't look like A&M is going to beat Texas so I'm going to try and go to bed. Thing is, someone on the other side of the world--well, if you have a quick look at my log you'll see what I mean. Can I leave the wellbeing of our beloved admins and editors in your hands? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like more VPNs and very wide cellular networks. What a pain. The WMF needs to do something about these VPNs. We used to have bots that temporarily blocked them, but it looks like they're all offline now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean "other side of the world" literally, haha, but yes. They also managed to complain about not being taken seriously in a sad little unblock request that Zzuuzz deleted. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
There was a brief discussion about that that topic at the admin noticeboard, and people said they were going to discuss clarifying policy on that matter. I think it is (or should be) allowed, but I don't know if the discussion happened yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one request isn't what I'd call burdensome. By definition, every range block has collateral damage. It would be fine to create an account for that IP editor. They could go through WP:ACC, which I think would reroute their request to a CheckUser (that's what Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide#CheckUsers seems to imply). However, I don't have any personal experience with that process.
If that's not how it works, I could just do it through Special:CreateAccount. To create an account that way, I would need to know an email address to receive the password, though. I don't see any way to request an email address through the UTRS request. To the best of my knowledge, UTRS comments are kept forever and can't be redacted, so people probably shouldn't send personal information like email addresses through there. They could create a temporary, one-time-use email and post that as a comment, but I doubt most people would bother with security measures like that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for teaching me something even I didn't know about myself!
Ergobus seems related. I don't know exactly what's happening at the Spore page, but it looks like someone who's pretty bored. Maybe on school break, too. It seems to me like there should be easier solutions to this. I'm probably going to regret saying this eventually, but maybe the WMF should be pushed to consider AI-based solutions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I request your help/advice on how to handle this situation. I think that if I revert the article to a re-direct page that my edit itself will just be reverted. Regards, Jeffrey Beall(talk)18:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
That article was recreated by a sock puppet, who I blocked indefinitely. I also put the article under extended confirmed protection, which should stop further socks from popping up to recreate it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Debi Derryberry
Hello NinjaRobotPirate, I have a problem about someone is editing her date of birth without your permission. Can you please delete her sources? I they edited back her source, erase it. Bozoclown2024 (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, and I'm not really sure why your IP range hasn't been blocked. I doubt there'd even be much collateral damage. Let's try a 1 month block and see what happens. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
Fair enough, that would have been immediately clear if you had used an edit comment like "no reliable sources".
Meanwhile I found that the webpage marked as "Offical Website" has a link to an Instagram account on its Contact and About pages, and that contains a post "I turn 70 today!" dated June 9, 2021. Following WP:SELFSOURCE, could we reinstate the birthdate info and maybe add a footnote to that?
Does this seem familiar to you?
"has an approval percentage"(diff)
I might be misremembering and asking the wrong person, but there's a recurring ip vandal Special:Contributions/186.115.100.56 with poor grammar back again messing up film articles.
Yes, that's someone who was indefinitely blocked several years ago. I think it's pretty safe to say that anyone editing film reception sections from Colombian IPs is evading a block. It's such a niche topic for someone in a country where English fluency is rare. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least this time there seems to be a few competent edits mixed in, but the same bad grammar and needless removing of better references persists. Thanks. -- 109.77.199.65 (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Off-wiki sockpuppetry request
Hello! I got...I don't even know what to call it. An off-wiki spam message from a suspected sock of TTF24 that was sent to a number of other users about restoring the pilot for Hazbin Hotel. Could I please email you about it? It has some cross-platform identification elements and I'd rather not share that so publicly. Thank you! Kazamzam (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean TotalTruthTeller24? It's not unexpected. You could send it to me if you want. Just use Special:EmailUser/NinjaRobotPirate. Or I guess you could forward the email (with headers and everything) to Arbcom with an explanation that it involves off-site canvassing by a sock puppeteer. I doubt they'd be excited about following up on it, but off-site collusion is supposed to in their remit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
My understanding is that alerts no longer expire, but I don't remember where to find that in the mess of policies and guidelines. I'm beginning to think it might be kind of nice if we deleted or merged a few policy pages, cut them down in size a bit, and stopped trying to codify every little thing. For example, WP:DATERET, WP:ENGVAR, and WP:CITEVAR could be combined into a single guideline that says "don't make pointless changes to dates, spelling, or citation styles". Boom, done. One sentence, one page, one link. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Myers
Does that whole "Michael Myers is regarded as one of the most recognizable and most iconic horror villains, alongside Jason Voorhees from Friday the 13th, Freddy Krueger from A Nightmare on Elm Street and Ghostface from Scream." content on the In popular culture section sound a little unnecessary? GyllenhaalSean (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean in Michael Myers (Halloween)#In popular culture? I don't know. It does seem a bit fannish, but sometimes statements like that are true. It could probably be toned down a little, and the sourcing (listicles) is kind of weak. If we cited better sources, such as academic press, we'd probably have better material to work off of, too. An academic overview of horror film villains would tell us why and how he became so popular, which is a lot more interesting and encyclopedic than citing a bunch of stupid Buzzfeed-style listicles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's what I mean but usually it would be him Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger because Ghostface isn't a true villain it's just an identity of multiple people Jason Michael and Freddy are practically a trinity. GyllenhaalSean (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Michael Myers alongside Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger the most recognizable and most iconic horror film villains been around since slasher films in the Golden age. GyllenhaalSean (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, this is an LTA (Jinnifer) who solicits other editors to proxy edit for them - the article in question is protected specifically so they cannot make this edit. MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
