User talk:NinjaRobotPirate/Archive2018-1

• 2013 archive
• 2014 archive
• 2015 archive
• 2016 archive
• 2017 archive (January to June)
• 2017 archive (July to December)
• 2018 archive (January to June)
• 2018 archive (July to December)
• 2019 archive (January to June)
• 2019 archive (July to December)
• 2020 archive (January to June)
• 2020 archive (July to December)
• 2021 archive (January to June)
• 2021 archive (July to December)
• 2022 archive (January to June)
• 2022 archive (July to December)
• 2023 archive (January to June)
• 2023 archive (July to December)
• 2024 archive (January to June)
• current

Happy New Year 2018!

Happy New Year!

NinjaRobotPirate,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Jeff Bergman

Hello, again,

I recently commented on admin JamesBWatson but since you undid the IPs edit I will mention this to you. I don't want to seem like I'm "admin shopping", it is just you are the one who undid the edits so I am coming to you. JamesBWatson recently blocked IP:2600:6C48:7C00:140A:FD23:C0D1:9DE3:6BD5 and this new IP, 75.128.128.166, is doing the same types of vandalism. I believe the IP is evading the blocks. Is there anything that can be done. Thanks, HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Nah, it's not admin shopping. I blocked the new IP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

20th Century Fox needs protection again

Take a look at the recent history. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I see you just took care of it. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to do that earlier but got distracted by some other vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This section is valuable for the page, though, under the logo section: Parodies of the fanfare have appeared at the start of the films Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (played by a small band, imitating the silent era of films), The Cannonball Run (cars drive around the logo and knock out the searchlights), The War of the Roses and Class Action (different recording of the fanfare conducted by James Horner), White Men Can't Jump (rap version of the fanfare), Alien 3 (fanfare slows down into an eerie sound), The Chase (played by the National Philharmonic Orchestra and conductor Charles Gerhardt, similar to the 1994 fanfare), The Day After Tomorrow (thunderstorm on the set), Live Free or Die Hard (where the searchlights go out as a result of a power outage), The Rocky Horror Picture Show (featuring a silent-movie piano version of the fanfare), The Simpsons Movie (Ralph Wiggum "sings along" with the fanfare; in trailers and commercials, the "0" in the tower is replaced by a pink, half-bitten doughnut of the type Homer eats), Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (with snow and volcanoes covering the logo, but the regular 20th Century Fox logo was shown on the film's DVD and Blu-ray releases instead, but is shown on the Blu-ray 3D and TrioScopics 3D DVD releases), X-Men: Days of Future Past and its sequel X-Men: Apocalypse (the end of the fanfare features an additional few bars from the X-Men theme), Rio 2 (Samba version of the fanfare), The Peanuts Movie (played by Schroeder on his toy piano) and Minority Report (where the logo alongside the DreamWorks logo appears immersed in water, similar to the film's "precog" characters). The fanfare was also used within What a Way to Go!, as the theme of "Lush Budged Productions", opening Shirley MacLaine's fantasy of her marriage to Robert Mitchum.

I think you may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater by deleting so much back in April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3020:1A0D:2D00:9CCA:E362:520F:107E (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Your best bet is to post that to the article's talk page and get consensus to restore it. The article was semi-protected primarily to stop a banned user from disrupting it. You don't seem to be that banned user (you're way too polite to be him), so I'd say there's a fair chance you could convince the other editors that you're right. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Uhhhhh.... what?

Ummmmmm...hello, there! Ummmm.... thanks for your message. But, uhhhhhh... no, I didn't make an edit to the page you mentioned, and have zero idea who "Eric Bauza" is...lol. Thank you, though, and have a happy robot holiday. Or pirate holiday. Or ninja holiday. Or whatever it is you celebrate.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.143.157 (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

You're responding to a message left on a different IP editor's talk page from over a week ago. IP addresses are routinely assigned to different people. If you don't want to see messages left for other people (though I have some difficulty understanding how you might be assigned that IP address, as they geolocate to different countries), you should create an account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

At least you didn't get cursed out by the IP. In fact, the IP went out of his or her way to wish you well. "Or ninja holiday." LOL! Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2018‎ (UTC)

I think the abusive ones are more interested in trolling Oshwah or Sro23. I mostly get the oddball ones. I think a ninja holiday sounds intriguing, but I'm not sure what it would involve. Maybe you'd jump out of the shadows and wish people a happy ninja day. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock (again)

Hi NRP. Thanks for your recent help with a rangeblock. Since then, the IP has moved from the 117.233 range and is now editing at the 49.34 range. I've logged the most recent of those here. The top four addresses under the 49 heading are doing the same thing again - mainly adding unsourced information, or in some cases, the wrong information. There are some good edits, but these are lost in the majority of poor, unsourced/incorrect edits. I'd appreicate if you could take a look and advise on what can be done. This IP range has had two recent rangeblocks for the same thing (detailed on my page). Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I range blocked 117.228.0.0/16 for block evasion. Looks like the same person, but I feel kind of helpless to understand the context of the edits. It's like when a kid starts telling you about their favorite novel, and you're like, "Uh huh, the Grand Vivibomb stole the Umbatorp? That sounds really terrible." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again - really appreicate your help with this. Yes, there's some very odd edits going on. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- ferret (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet AfD comments

Hi Ninja. I just happened to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theatre Royal: Project A, where you struck the comments of a sockpuppet and the master. This interested me because earlier today I struck a sock comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PEARL Institute of Management and Information Technology. I left the master's comment, though. Is it standard practice to strike both? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: WP:SOCKSTRIKE, which is an essay, recommends striking all votes, both from the master and the socks. If the sock master is a single purpose account and is indefinitely blocked, I suppose this makes sense to me. Still, what decided it for me in this case was that I suspected the accounts I blocked were socks of the article's creator, TheatreRoyal343. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Since the master is only blocked for a week in this case, and I myself am involved in the deletion discussion and could be seen to have an interest in seeing the master's comment struck, I will leave this one for others to judge. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Another Nate Speed sock popped up

If you're available, could you look at 154.68.5.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and its edits to Warner Bros.? This was literally less than one hour after the page's three-month long semi-protection expired. Much thanks, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I got a strange error in Twinkle when trying to protect the article, but I think I got around it by doing it manually. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick work! 青い(Aoi) (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary, NinjaRobotPirate!

Wishing NinjaRobotPirate a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Nat965 (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. There should be a few of those coming up this week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Where does the time go NRP? Congrats and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

CU quick check

Hey, would you be willing to run a quick check on Amy wamey, YesMis, 89.168.176.139? Disruptive/edit warring users, behavior suggest continuing edits that led to a block while logged out. -- ferret (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ferret: I have an appointment I have to leave for pretty soon, so I can't spend a lot of time on this right now. However, it looks like Amy wamey, Hello i am a gay, and Gaybritishcuber are  Confirmed. YesMis looks  Likely to them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I should add... the CU policy prevents me from commenting on the IP address. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked and tagged. -- ferret (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Anon sockpuppeting

The sock you blocked on the Room (2015 film) talk page, blocked also by another admin after editing the article space, appears to have reemerged in the article space as 81.156.140.38. Can we consider temp anon protection on the article? This appears to be getting out of hand. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Range blocked and semi-protected. Let me know if he comes back. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

My talk page

Go to my talk page for my response. King Shadeed 13:44, January 7, 2018 (UTC)

Antz and Science fiction Western

Okay, the info I added on the Antz article, both being a box office success AND PDI being a production company, were mentioned in the article, they were right in front of your face, so thanks for deleting for no purposeful reason. To appease you though, I added a source for PDI. I just want to know when a film being a critical and commercial success became "original research". I'm pretty sure you just assumed I was doing original research, without actually checking the edits outs, so you deleted them.

As for science fiction Western, I suppose I apologize, but I was just putting back info that had been deleted when the article had been merged into Space Western a few years back. It's such a small article, I figured re-adding that stuff would help so, I apologize Dpm12 (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)]

@Dpm12: what is your source that Antz was a a "financial success, and it received positive reviews"? Is that your own personal analysis? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Antz was produced on a budget of $40 to $60 million, was #1 in the box office for two weeks, and grossed $170 million worldwide. In the entertainment industry, they call that a "success". The box office numbers are IN THS ARTICLE. It has a 96% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which is also listed IN THE ARTICLE. 96% is not "positive reviews"?

Dpm12 (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dpm12: You are interpreting the raw numbers and coming to your own conclusion. See Talk:Young & Wild (2012 film)#Intro sentence in Critical Release for another very recent discussion about this. You can't add your own views to Wikipedia articles, no matter how obvious you may think they are. Once your edits have been challenged, you must provide a citation, per WP:BURDEN. Wikipedia does not pronounce whether something is a "success" (for one thing, this is puffery), and we don't interpret Rotten Tomatoes scores. What we can do is report the Rotten Tomatoes score without interpreting it, report the box office gross without interpreting it, and say that it opened at #1. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Were Dreamworks "making raw conclusions" when they were working on a sequel? The sequel was ultimately cancelled, but it was planned. I am truly at a loss for words. I guess Citizen Kane and The Godfather are considered amongst the worst films ever made because, come on, they're only "looking at raw numbers and coming to conclusions". I can't believe we live in a world where facts are RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE, and I'm accused of "coming to conclusions". And btw, Antz is a so-so film to me, so for you to accuse me of putting in my OWN views, is fricking hilarious

Dpm12 (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

And here's my "burden of proof":

On review aggregate Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 96% based on 89 reviews and an average rating of 7.7/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Featuring a stellar voice cast, technically dazzling animation, and loads of good humor, Antz should delight both children and adults." Metacritic gave the film a score of 72 out of 100 based on 26 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews". Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B+" on an A+ to F scale.

Roger Ebert praised the film, saying that it is "sharp and funny". The variety of themes, interesting visuals, and voice acting were each aspects of the film that were praised. Ebert's partner, Gene Siskel, greatly enjoyed the film and preferred it over A Bug's Life. Siskel later ranked it No. 7 on his picks of the Best Films of 1998.

The film topped the box office in its opening weekend, earning $17,195,160 for a $7,021 average from 2,449 theatres. In its second weekend, the film held the top spot again, with a slippage of only 14% to $14.7 million for a $5,230 average and expanding to 2,813 sites. It held well also in its third weekend, slipping only 24% to $11.2 million and finishing in third place, for a $3,863 average from 2,903 theatres. The film's widest release was 2,929 theatres, and closed on February 18, 1999. The film altogether picked up $90,757,863 domestically, but failed to outgross the competition with A Bug's Life. The film picked up an additional $81 million overseas for a worldwide total of $171.8 million.

According to DreamWorks, the film's budget was about $42 million, while the number $60 million was also reported at the time. According to Los Angeles Times, the first figure was doubted by the film industry, considering that other computer-animated films at the time cost twice of that amount, and that the budget did not include start-up costs of PDI.

References

Dpm12 (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dpm12: this has nothing to do with Dreamworks or whether they made any sequels, and everything to do with whether your statements are properly sourced. If you want to say that the film received positive reviews, you need to cite a source that says it received positive reviews. If you want to say that the film is a success, you need to cite a source that calls it a financial success. You can't decide on your own that it was. At any rate, as I said before, I believe that calling a film a "success" is puffery. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Even if a film WAS A SUCCESS. Why do you need everything spelled out to you? Should we delete List of films considered the best and List of films considered the worst because they're "making conclusions"?

Dpm12 (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary =

A year ago ...

cult film
... you were recipient no. 1549 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for remembering. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you! Beauty School Dropout (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

One editor demeaning another editor in an article talk page

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

---

Hello, NRP. I would appreciate some guidance on how a situation like this is handled in Wikipedia: what's the recourse when an Editor A talks about an Editor B ("in her mind", "her") in a talk page in which Editor B is involved in an on-going discussion, Editor A accuses and predicts negative behavior by Editor B ("if she attempts to WP:BLUDGEON"), and Editor A advises a third-party editor on how to deal with Editor B ("tell her")? Thank you. Pyxis Solitary talk 09:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: if it were me, I would probably try to ignore it because anything else is likely to cause even more drama. I guess a request for comments could work if you're stuck in a debate that isn't going anywhere constructive. That would bring in fresh editors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

My dial is set on ignore and I don't respond to comments by said editor when they are direct replies to one of my comments, nor when I am pinged by the same editor when he has posted a reply. I guess he's trying the back door to see if he can get a reaction from me. Thank you for your response and advice. Pyxis Solitary talk 11:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Pyxis, I would appreciate being notified when you come to the talk page of a random admin to badmouth me, as it gives the strong impression that you are asking for me to be blocked. At least last time you did it, it was an admin who was actually familiar with the case and was just as likely to block you as me. (The fact that I quite directly stated my discomfort with this behaviour back then should have told you that you should stop doing it; the fact that it is still happening is very troubling.) Given that you have in the past repeatedly and unapologetically attacked me for engaging in "accusatory behavior in ANIs" by not notifying editors I was "talking about" on ANI (when I hadn't mentioned the editors in question or requested any kind of admin action against them) this kind of action comes across very poorly.

Anyway, nothing in my comments was meant to "demean"; I simply think you are wrong on the policy, as you are arguing (and have been arguing for a very long time now, in the face of almost unanimous opposition) for the inclusion of inaccurate content based on unreliable sources. And it is simply a fact of history that you did WP:BLUDGEON the previous CFD entry to the point of effectively filibustering it, so there should be nothing wrong with offering advice in case of the event that you do so a second time. What you really should be asking for advice on is whether you are actually right to continue arguing for this: I am fairly confident NinjaRobotPirate would agree with me that a category for "gay-related" television programmes, with the definition of "gay-related" being that one or more characters "is gay" (when said programmes usually portray said fictional characters' sexuality inconsistently) is problematic.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: like you said, I'm not really familiar with the debate or anything that's going on. I guess I'd suggest that people try to leave the past alone. Someone might accuse you of poisoning the well or casting aspersions, which would mean a long, drawn-out case at WP:ANI. It's best to stick to discussing content issues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Gonna need some help here...

After hearing that production companies in film infoboxes need sources, I made an edit to the Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (scratch that, THREE edits, all from seperate dates) page citing the production companies (once again from Sony!). But then the citations were removed. The kicker? The source I used was from Variety Insight! (In other words, the complete opposite of the Peter Rabbit and Hotel Transylvania 3 pages.) Is there anything you can do to help so I can prevent an edit war from taking place? IceWalrus236 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Left a message on the article's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

clown your revert in editing

Hi, NinjaRobotPirate, If you revert something again on a page I reverted don't reply back seriously.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantico 99100 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like I reverted you because you added an unsourced country to the article. The problem is that we require that we require contributors to add a citation to a reliable source for that kind of claim. To say that the film is Canadian, you need to find a source that calls it Canadian. AllMovie calls it American, for example. You can see an incomplete list of sources that WikiProject Film considers reliable for this kind of information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Module:Convert request 2

Similarly to #Module:Convert request above, I need to do some Module:Convert maintenance (described here). However, I can't edit the module due to cascading protection from the main page and I'm hoping you will help. Would you please edit Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 15, 2018 to insert "subst:" into each of the three {{convert}} templates ({{convert|...}} → {{subst:convert|...}}).

I'm hoping that editing Main Page would then not show Template:Convert in "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page" at the bottom. FYI I put the wikitext resulting from the above subst in my sandbox (permalink) to try it. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked yesterday. Please subst the one convert at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 14, 2018. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Also done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 14, 2018‎

I don't care much, but this is off the Main Page so it now serves as an archive of what was on the Main Page yesterday ... did you mean to edit an archive page? - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see from above that this was by request ... okay, it's not an issue. - Dank (push to talk) 04:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

CU?

Hi NRP, Happy New Year! (Can't remember if I've wished you that yet...) Could I please trouble you to see if this guy is evading his block? I think he's doing it via 109.150.94.64. The latter IP has found a sucker willing to edit for him. The IP posts requests on the guy's talk page and the guy basically just does the IP's bidding in various locked articles. I have my suspicions about who the master might be, but I don't want to put you in a weird position. Thanks man, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: unfortunately, I can only connect logged-in accounts with each other. But, on the plus side, you already know half of the information that I would get from the tool. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The_Shape_of_Water_(film)

Has the same edit dispute about the lead, spoilers, etc. with the same IP address user. The solution (whatever that would be) should be the same. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Halloween (2018)

Since you were the last administrator to edit Draft:Halloween (2018 film), can you move the page into article mainspace? The film has begun filming, is set to be released in less than a year, has an entire cast, and IP editors have already tried to crudely copy-and-paste the draft into the mainspace. DarkKnight2149 21:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: it looks like that might need a history merge. Those are kind of complicated and become messy if you don't do it right – and I don't remember how to do them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I just received a notification from GeoffreyT2000 (who, I imagine, probably saw the edit summaries or this post) that the draft was accepted into article space. Should I notify a noticeboard regarding the suggested history merge? DarkKnight2149 03:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Probably not necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info

Will try to build a plot under 700 words long that retains the significant information on Straw Dogs. CodeInconnu (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Done, I think it's smoother, 675 words now. Thanks for the indication about the 700 words, I think I'll take a break from this plot for a while. CodeInconnu (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

NS

Hello NRP. I wanted to let you know that Nate has returned as 192.169.76.205 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). You will see that I added the IP to your list. I hope that I put it in the correct place. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: are you sure that's him? That looks suspicious, but usually there's a lot of whiny, profanity-laced edit summaries mixed in. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

It is the adding in (in violation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Categorization#General categorization) of film distributor categories that I had removed previously. The same thing that 76.75.43.8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) did a few weeks ago. When I caught the edits the IP had already stopped so that is why the usual escalating edit summaries hadn't occurred. I have no problem waiting to see if they resume. Also since Nate likes to IP hop he may not edit from this one again. Thanks for taking a look. MarnetteD|Talk 03:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

There's some interesting overlap between those two IP addresses. Cyphoidbomb, you seem to have some experience dealing with these two IP editors at List of former child actors from the United States. Do you think they're the same person? The geolocatioon is different, but they seem to share similar interests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

These two don't ring any bells with me. As for whether or not they are the same, they very well could be. The geolocations are different, but maybe they're VPNing? One guy has edited several items related to Seventh Day Adventists where the other has made a lot of edits to 20th Century Fox Fanfare, though the other hasn't. They both seem to be into adding categories. The editor interaction analysis is pretty intriguing not only for the article intersection, which is very telling, but for those long patches where they're editing 92, 93 days apart exactly. What's that about? Very fish-odor-y. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's all definitely very suspicious. Maybe if we watch the new IP for a while it will do something even more obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Adventures of the Little Koala

It's happening again at Adventures of the Little Koala, my friend. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't really tell whether the edits are disruptive or not, but 188.225.76.181 was on a webhost, so I range blocked it. They can log in and use their account, assuming they're not evading a block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Webhosts are the worst. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Plus, it was already bad enough that the user made mean "Go Away!" comments to me. I would be happy if people learned to just ask people nicely and politely to stop. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

168.9.213.0/24

• 168.9.213.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

There's nothing but vandalism from this IP range/school network. Could you perform a long-term block on it? I know that some of the more recent IPs used are alraedy blocked, but the vandalism seems to go back for ages, and having this rangeblock in place will probably save a lot of time for admins and anti-vandalism patrollers... Thanks. 99.116.25.22 (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and I just noticed that you've blocked this range in the past.... 99.116.25.22 (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You mean Jalapeno peppers aren't a species of animal? Range blocked for 6 months this time. Maybe I should have an automated system that alerts me whenever a range block expires. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

article created

Hello, I was wondering if you could help me.

So, I accidentally created a page Matthew Highmore which I then moved into draft space as I did not mean to create the page right away. However, now that I am done the draft page I accidentally moved it to Move:Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Matthew Highmore) instead of to Move:Article because I just didn't realize my mistake. I did not see article at the top and I thought Wikipedia was the same thing. This is the first article I created without using AfC so I am not used to this. However, I now cannot move my article to article space without an admins permission because there is already an article created under that name. That was the article I didn't mean to create in the first place. There should be no content on that page, only maybe a redirect. I hope I am explaining myself well, the full conversation is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk.

Would you mind helping a very confused editor out? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will be more cautious with moving and creating articles in the future. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: I wouldn't worry about it too much. There are very few errors that can't be easily fixed, and the only ones I can think of are admin-only. Some of them are kind of funny; check out WP:STOCKS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh boy, guess I can do without sleep tonight. Now I have to read all of these.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting Drama novel category :-)

But doing nothing about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Drama_video_games there are no drama novels but drama games exist lol. Deloop82 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

IP block evasion

It seems Special:Contributions/94.204.102.234 is evading their block through Special:Contributions/37.245.182.25.--Bijanii (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Let me know if more show up. I'm sure they will. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, here’s another one: Special:Contributions/2.48.70.54 --Bijanii (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

This Bijanni guy is the very definition of tendentious. He is is trying to insist Andre Aggasi is an Iranian expat. And tagging articles about Libyan oil companies with the Persian name dispute. It is Iranian nonsense and it needs to be stopped— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.48.72.246 (talk) 3:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I've done a few range blocks that should help a little. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Possibly another one: User:Maxvermillion--Bijanii (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's him. I did a quick scan with the checkuser tool and didn't see any more sock puppets, but it's possible there are more. It's a big ISP, and the checkuser tool is rather limited. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. One thing that might help would be a speedy rename of the couple categories that are up for renaming which they seem to be focusing on.--Bijanii (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not following this stuff closely enough to know anything about that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

And yet another: Special:Contributions/5.38.29.229.--Bijanii (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's possibly another: User:UCaetano. Similar action of baseless warnings on my talk page and reverting edits in regards to the Persian Gulf naming dispute.--Bijanii (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please don't make false accusations. You're edit warring and pushing your POV. But don't worry, it isn't my first rodeo and I've been editing here for over a decade. You were warned, now you'll be reported. UCaetano (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

And you've been reported for edit warring here. Have a nice day. UCaetano (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

68.33.88.0/21

Hi NinjaRobotPirate. I hope you don't mind, I've gone ahead and rescinded your block of this range. I understand there was a sock master on it, but as your able to see now, I don't see any evidence of them being active. I also have three ACC requests that are held up by this block, and someone else had another request that had to go to CU on this earlier this month. To me it suggests the range getting more use than previously of about 1 per month for the past 4 months. If you think the block is still necessary, I trust your judgement and don't mind if you restore it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No, if you think it's for the best, that's fine with me. The sockmaster is persistent, occasionally disruptive, but not particularly destructive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Leslie Thompkins from Batman

Hi again Ninja. I have a quick question about a character named Leslie Thompkins in the Batman universe. A character credited as "Sister Leslie" appears in the Gotham by Gaslight film that just came out. Is this considered too ambiguous or can it be assumed that this IS Leslie Thompkins? I asked this because I thought it would be cool if I added something to the Leslie Thompkins page and stated that she appears in that film voiced by Grey DeLisle and in another classic Kellymoat situation, my posts keep getting reverted. If being credited as "Sister Leslie" is not enough even though the Sister Leslie character behaves the same as Leslie Thompkins, then it is what it is and the article should be left alone.

Now I will admit that I didn't cite my source when I first tried to edit the Leslie Thompkins page. However, even after I got my source, the person continued to delete everything. Do you think Leslie Thompkins and Sister Leslie are too different? Like I said before, if it's too different, then it should be left alone. But if you think it's enough, then I do not want my post reverted if I do cite my sources properly this time around. Thanks.

Frank.chan1983 (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you added a source to the article in which the creator identifies the character explicitly as Sister Leslie. That should be good enough for Wikipedia. What I've found is that it's easiest to include a source with my first edit instead of waiting until later. It takes longer to make the edit, but it causes less problems in the long run. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much once again! Frank.chan1983 (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

More of the same

• Prestige2149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The vandal has returned, as has unfortunately become routine at this point, and they are back to spamming my inbox with disingenuous Thanks. DarkKnight2149 02:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Blocked. Let me know if more show up. Now that I'm a checkuser, it's a little easier for me to deal with this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

113.210.34.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) recently surfaced at Batman: The Enemy Within. The Malaysian address and edit summary both indicate it's the same user. DarkKnight2149 01:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The IP is getting a little stale now (it's been almost 24 hours since it was last used), but I blocked it anyway. This troll is pretty annoying, and anything that helps is probably worth a shot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Batman: The Enemy Within was already having problems with uncited material as it is. However, not only is the Malaysian IP address troll continuing to target the page but two other disruptive IPs decided to join in. I think the page is in need of temporary semi-protection. DarkKnight2149 18:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• 113.210.199.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 73.50.17.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Seemingly different vandal)
• 113.210.173.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 27.5.159.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Also joined in)

I'm not sure what's up with the other IP editors, but I semi-protected the article for a few days and did a short range block on 113.210.0.0/16. I can extend them if necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ninja, mind protecting Halloween (2018 film) for a short while? Sro23 (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Also range blocked 2001:e68:6c00::/42 for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The rampage continues. It would appear that they are simply following me everywhere I edit. For that reason alone, it shouldn't be difficult to spot them. I'll let you know if they pop up anywhere else. DarkKnight2149 04:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I did a slightly longer range block on 113.210.0.0/16 this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Here’s another one: Brightknight2419 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DarkKnight2149 17:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

They also just threatened to resume all vandalistic activities on 26 February 2018 06:21 UTC time. Not very subtle. DarkKnight2149 17:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Empty bluster. Account is blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ninja, think you could semi Thing (comics) for a time? Sro23 (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if there's other disruption. I'd like to get in some range blocks if possible. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The latest account is Darthvader2149. Sro23 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

IPs evading block

Hello, I see you recently blocked 2600:387:0:809:0:0:0:75‎ (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) however another IP 2600:387:0:803:0:0:0:92 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is making similar disruptive edits on Detroit Dragons. Another IP making similar edits was 2600:387:0:803::9c (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). It is most likely the same user. This has become a persistent problem and I was wondering if you could range block? Or page protection if you're worried a range block will hurt good contributors. Thank you, HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Another admin has protected the page. Thank you anyways for your help in this matter earlier. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Also seems to be range blocked already, too. Let me know if the vandal returns. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Another IP 68.37.40.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). [1]. Edits looking similar to [2] HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

And another IP 2600:387:B:F:0:0:0:75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They're back at Detroit Dragons. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article, which should help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The IPs struck again however 47.44.90.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked by another admin. I know IPs can not get blocked indeffintly however is it possible to create an LTA for them? They seem to be here for a while HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I made one, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Martial arts vandal. After that, I just started creating them in my own user space, though. That way, I could do whatever I wanted without worrying about whether it was "proper". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try doing that. Thanks, HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

An annonymous user keeps trying to change the lead sentence from listing the film as a Drama to a black comedy. Could we get some page protection help? --Deathawk (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't be getting so involved in admin tasks on that article, given that I've edited it a few times. I made an exception earlier because it was obvious that protection was needed, the edit warring was getting pretty bad, and the alternative was to block people. I'd prefer if you filed a request at WP:RFPP and let another admin handle it this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

YGM

YGM. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary red links

Hi, I have unnecessary re links to my user profile and talk page. Why is that? Laundry Machine (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Until your user page and talk page are created, they appear red. For example, I posted a "welcome to Wikipedia" message to your talk page just now, so it is no longer red. If you posted "My name is Laundry Machine" on your user page, it would no longer be red. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Laundry Machine (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind semi-protecting Entertainment Studios?

To prevent damage from a Nate Speed sock. Please see this edit. Much thanks, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a month. His socks always come back repeatedly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Like I always say, you gotta love a guy who's a ninja, a robot, and a pirate! With regards for your kindness, --Tenebrae (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

im sorry

Augie Grohman (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, don't worry about one mistake. If you want to edit constructively, you could always take a look at the Wikipedia article for your favorite song, film, or video game, and see if there are any mistakes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

oym an editorial staff admin

plzplzplzplzplzplzplzplzplzplzplzpzlzplzplzpzlzplzpzlpzlzplzlzzlzplzlzlzplzplzpzlplzpzlpzlpzlzplzpzlim ssssssssoooooooooooo sooorryyyyyyy Augie Grohman (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:CBAN for My Royal Young. Iggy (Swan) 00:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Den of Geek

Would you consider Den of Geek as a reliable source? I had come across a source review in a FAC questioning its "high-quality reliable source" standard. Slightlymad 07:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: I've wondered about that, too. Everyone else seems to consider it a reliable source, so I've come to accept it, too. I usually try to find a better source than that for news, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

RE: Archived version of IMDb external links

For this reason. It's better to maintain links with Internet Archive, or what? Tajotep (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tajotep: if the links are all dead now, an archived version is probably better than nothing. An edit summary would be helpful, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Derek Smart - The successful game designer? No.

Hello I'd like to dispute your revoking my editting.

As detailed in the further information panel I qouted "Gamespot gave it a score of 2.6/10, writing that "it will go down in legend as the most bug-ridden, unstable, unplayable pieces of software ever released."".

Before publisher Take-Two Interactive released Battlecruiser 3000AD in September 1996, it had generated one of the longest and largest flame wars in the history of Usenet. This flamewar lasted for several years, garnered over 70,000 posts, and yielded a series of sites that documented and parodied its history.

Derek Smart has never had a successful game & has been seen in the consensus of game developers as a fraud. His claims to have neural net learning AI in a '92 PC game is frankly ludicrous & hes main claim to fame has been self aggrandisement blaming his publisher for his game failings. Keith Zabalaoui, former NASA programmer and one of the designers of the Close Combat series of strategy games, was quoted as saying, "I have a hard time believing it's in there... the concept of training [neural nets] to do the complex tasks required in a game is inconceivable. It's mumbo jumbo. I guarantee you that if there's a neural net that does anything in [BC3K] this man would be in the Computer Science Hall of fame."

Based on this criteria would we say he was succesful or failed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LewisBenzie (talk • contribs) 23:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

References

@LewisBenzie: Neither. Wikipedia doesn't label stuff as "successful" or "failed". These are non-neutral terms. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

It is SoDak-Kid here, I know that what i edited for Brandon wrong, I was putting my name on their because I live in the city of Brandon, South Dakota — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoDak-Kid (talk • contribs) 00:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It's generally a bad idea to add yourself to Wikipedia articles. See our inclusion criteria for more information. If we listed every people who lives in a town, the articles would be unreadable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Problem returns

Hello NRP. You recently blocked 174.236.9.166 (talk · contribs) well they are back as 97.47.192.217 (talk · contribs). Ah and I see that you've already blocked them. Many thanks. While it is fun to think of Boromir and Scrooge in the same film it doesn't belong in a WikiP article. Maybe they should be directed to Unencyclopedia :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 05:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly when this started, but it's been going on since at least January 2016. I doubt it's going to stop. It gets pretty tedious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Tedious is a kind word for it. Your vigilance in this (and so much else) is appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 05:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. This one 97.40.129.209 (talk · contribs) just appeared. The articles are different but the nonsense is familiar. I've added a warning so we can wait and see if they pay attention. MarnetteD|Talk 03:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. It looks like the same vandal to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! MarnetteD|Talk 05:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

172.91.91.69

Hello, NRP! Since February 25, 2017, IP-only editor 172.91.91.69 has vandalized the Carol (film) article with the same edit (5 times). The most recent was today @ 02:24, February 19, 2018. A review of his history shows that he's made same-vein edits to other articles. Carol is a GA article. This IP editor has a one-track mind. Is whack-a-mole the way to go? Or should the article be protected with a {{pp-pc1}}? Thanks! Pyxis Solitary talk 10:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The IP editor certainly seems zealous about word choice, but I'm not sure it's disruptive enough to warrant admin action. Maybe warn for edit warring with {{Uw-ewsoft}}? Then, if it keeps up, I guess the editor would at least have a heads-up about the proper way to resolve a content dispute. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I doubt an IP-only editor that doesn't bother to explain their edits even cares about reading messages in the talk page associated with them, but your suggestion is worth a try. Oy! Pyxis Solitary talk 12:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I took a look at the {{Uw-ewsoft}} template and others in similar category. Uw-ewsoft doesn't precisely address what this editor does. Is there a way to edit the template to exclude "reverting" and "edit warring"? Because this editor waits for time to pass before making the same edit. Is there a template for just "undoing other editors' contributions" and continuing to change content to "their preferred version"? Thanks. Pyxis Solitary talk 13:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think you can adjust the wording. The standardized templates don't always work perfectly. Sometimes a personal message works better, either in addition to the template or instead of it. I know it occasionally feels pointless, but it never hurts to try to engage with IP editors. Sometimes they're willing to talk – or, even if that doesn't work out, sometimes they'll say something that makes it clear that they're just trying to screw with people. Either way makes it easier to resolve the situation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, then. I'll post the template and also add a message to explain the reason for it. Thank you for your response. Pyxis Solitary talk 12:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

163.232.200.0/22

• 163.232.200.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

It's time to perform yet another rangeblock here. The vandalism reoccurred just a little over an hour since the last block was lifted. I would feel sorry for the fact that a bunch of school kids are ruining it for everyone else, but in this case, I don't think there's a single constructive editor here at all... 49.142.62.17 (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow. You have to give them some credit for being industrious, at least. I blocked it for a year this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible new sock of Brendar

Looks like Bar 123 is another sock of Brendar, as evidenced by their edit history and creation of more (rejected) non-notable rapper drafts. She's not even trying at this point. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, same IP range and behavior. I can't really do much about a range block, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm...

Hey man, so this guy looks funky to me. Another user brought him to my attention on my talk page. Editor has been active for about 2 weeks, and has 330-ish edits. He's using Twinkle, he's setup some javascript tools at common.js, he's written some articles, he's nommed some for deletion and has participated in other AfDs and he's nomming articles for speedy delete. Something doesn't smell right. I don't presently have time to get into researching this, but I thought I'd drop it disrespectfully at your feet. If you have any time to look into this, I'd appreciate it, otherwise, I'll look into it later. Thanks man, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: looks like we got beat to it by a more observant checkuser. The editor has already been checkusered. That makes me feel a bit pessimistic about my chances of finding anything. I agree it looks suspicious, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like this turned out to be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mohammedjaseem66/Archive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh. I guess I should have given it a go, though I'm still not sure I would have found that. It can be difficult to find something when you don't know what you're looking for. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite: I got your email, but if you don't mind, I'd prefer to talk on-wiki. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite: At times, Wikipedia can be rather frustrating, especially when you get caught in lots of arguments over minor content issues. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that you're obviously right, and the other person is obviously wrong, which generally leads to edit warring. To avoid that, what I try to do is get into the habit of leaving an explanatory message on an article's talk page whenever I make a major edit. That way, people understand where I'm coming from, and it gives me practice in explaining myself. I think I still sound a bit too stubborn in my messages, but getting into that habit makes me more open to discussion and compromise, I think. I also use a trick that I learned a while ago: write an uncensored message that says how you really feel, but don't save it. Instead, delete that, and rewrite it from scratch. Now that you've gotten the irritation out of your system, you can be much more polite. I don't know, but it seems kind of like this stuff works. People called me civil and calm in my RFA, which I thought was a little surprising. I thought I was still being somewhat stubborn in content disputes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I appreciate it. I'm also going to New Orleans in a couple days, so some time away will do a lot of good. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Does this ring any bells?

Hello again NRP. This IP 95.93.160.191 (talk · contribs) has continually added language categories to silent film articles in spite of being asked to stop. Back on Feb 3 they made an edit that made me think they understood the situation but then they resumed their usual edits. I am wondering if this editing is one of the LTA's that you have encountered in the past? If not no worries. As ever thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 01:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: no, I don't recognize that editor. This tool can be useful in trying to figure out who someone is, though. You list a few obscure articles in the form, and it pops out a username for you. Very useful. I can block that IP if it continues to make disruptive edits; just let me know. Hopefully, the IP will respond to your latest message, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate the tool link :-) As yet nothing has stopped the IP so I'll probably be back in a day or so. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. Well they held off for a few days but resumed the problem editing here. It is only one edit so if you want to wait that is okay by me. OTOH they just can't seem to help themselves so a time out might be a learning moment. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I did a 12-hour block, which is hopefully enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 21:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi again NRP. Sadly, they've gone right back to adding the cat. I hope that you have a pleasant Sunday. MarnetteD|Talk 14:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Semiprotect main film award articles?

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, User:Michael 182 also blocked as sock User:TwentySteps is editing by IP, which gets reassigned regularly by the provider, as does mine BTW, so they appear variously as 181.170.26.9, 190.19.10.99,190.19.7.207, 190.192.75.96, 190.192.78.159, 190.19.18.73, and even argue in WP Film as if these are other users, and in spite of all explanations I have given, they keep on splitting the sortable table of the main film award articles in decades. User:Ponyo suggested "reverting and blocking as they pop up, combined with semi-protection". Is this possible in Golden Lion and possibly other such articles as Palme d'Or and Golden Bear? Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 23:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I see Palmne d'Or is already semi-protected. Hoverfish Talk 23:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I did a few range blocks. I didn't see much else but edits to awards articles, so it looks like there's minimal collateral damage. That probably won't stop him, but it will make it more difficult for him to sock. I semi-protected Golden Lion briefly (can extend it if he comes back), but I didn't see any recent edits to Golden Bear. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess 3RR applies, as the original account is not blocked and they are using it again, so I will be careful. Hoverfish Talk 03:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi could you temporarily semi-protect the Death Wish (2018 film) article? An IP has been adding unsourced content both in lede and infobox, and there's an instance of copyvio from one of the revisions. Slightlymad 03:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: I could probably get away with it, but I think it'd be better if a different admin did that. Copyright infringement is definitely a problem, and I can clean that up now, but for lesser issues like unsourced content, it might be best to find an admin who hasn't edited the article. WP:INVOLVED makes taking admin action a little tricky sometimes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

EmmyExpert

I'm close to calling DUCK here, could you check Xylophonia? Created after EmmyExpert block, same sorts of edits. Image changes to various awards/year lists and white space adjustments, very rapid fire. -- ferret (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Confirmed to The Noire Kid and SoraRikuKairi. I probably should have run a checkuser last time this came up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, you might also want to check on Special:Contributions/Film_Enthusiast. Nothing done wrong, just the same pattern.Hoverfish Talk 01:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hoverfish: much different geographical location but same country. I'd probably call this  Unlikely at best, bordering on  Unrelated. The behavioral evidence does make that result look a little confusing, though. I'm not really sure what to say. @Ferret: do you have any opinion on this account? Both have changed images at List of number-one DVDs of 2009 (UK): [3], [4]. That seems a bit unlikely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Tough call. Operating in the same general article space. Edit note style is (somehwat) different though, and the white space behavior is absent. -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a rather odd situation. I guess the best thing to do is keep an eye on the user's edits and see what happens. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

So I'm helping to round up a sockdrawer with evidence mostly behavioural and article overlap. These accounts also have connections back to Emmy Expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since you did the checkuser on EmmyExpert I was wondering if you would take a look. The recent discussion is here but it is archived now. These are the accounts

• Higher Ground 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lucky For You (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Metcalf89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chitt66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We are also looking into UtDicitur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) currently. The behavioural evidence seems to be similar (refusal to engage on talk pages, inserting outdated research, etc.) and fairly strong. I'd appreciate the help. --Mark Ironie (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mark Ironie: I don't see the connection to Emmy Expert, who has focused primarily on a singular type of disruption lately – changing images in awards shows. You may have stumbled upon a different set of sock puppets who have crossover with Emmy Expert. I've run a check on most of Emmy Expert's suspected sock puppets to flush out accounts that I miss and facilitate range blocks. I haven't seen any of these names come up in the checkuser tool. Beyond that, it's kind of hard for me to tell exactly what's going on since I'm unfamiliar with the topic area of tribal nations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

OK. I'm pretty sure the group of four I detailed above are connected. The editing patterns are just too similar, particularly stop and start editing for different accounts in relation to being discussed on ANI or SPI. When Metcalf89 showed significant article overlap with EmmyExpert, I and others figured it might be a connection. Yeah, the tribal nations can be complicated but the main editing issues are 1) talking about tribes in the past tense, 2) copy-vios, 3) using very outdated texts that aren't online to hide the copyvios. Plus the refusal to use article talk or their own talk pages to interact with other editors about these concerns. Thanks for checking them out. You've obviously been thorough with the CU on Emmy but I thought there was a connection to these others. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Untitled complaint about Makwan Amirkhani

Hello I see you keep editing Makwan's page from Kurdish MMA Fighter to Iranian. The guy is a Kurd not Iranian, could you please stop before you get reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabanEditor2018 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't care if he's Iranian or Kurdish. What I care about is that you're using sock puppets to change this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- ferret (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for emailing that, wanted to be sure without tossing names around. What's your thoughts on 151.48.212.111/16 ? Clearly looks like our guy, at least for the last couple weeks. -- ferret (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ferret: I can't really comment on IP addresses – it could constitute outing on my behalf to connect checkusered accounts to IP addresses. Sorry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope, my bad, I forgot you couldn't comment. Behavioral evidence looks solid, but I'll monitor to see if they continue. -- ferret (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Range blocked for 2 weeks, they came back to my talk on the IP. -- ferret (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Your previous experience with an editor

Two or three months ago you issued a block against User:23h112e as a sock. Presently, I am trying to do GA assessment which has been disrupted twice by this same user requesting page moves on a related page for WTC here [5] while the assessment on the related page for the old WTC is in progress. After his 1st page move request was dismissed as approaching a SNOWBALL, this same editor has returned a second time to initiate a repeat SNOWBALL performance. I was about to close this 2nd move request as a SNOWBALL opposed by all responding editors to his request, when I noticed your previous block against that editor. Could you possibly save the other editors their contribution time and return the page to normal without User:23h112e and his odd page move requests since you have previous experience with his past edits. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure exactly what you're asking me to do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me on this. This is your previous block on the editor I mentioned here: [6]. That same editor is now distracting a group of other editors from their contributions, in particular one who is currently going through a GA review which I am assessing at this time. That same editor is sequentially posting page move requests which appear to be completely pointless, though using up other editors' time without benefit here: [7]. That editor's edits and page move requests are wasteful of other editors time at a level beyond my simply closing his Move request discussion under WP:SNOWBALL. If I do this simple close of the Move request, then it appear that User:23h112e will sequentially create another pointless move request which would again be wasteful of other editors time. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: If you really want this to get resolved without drama or wasting more time, I think it would probably be better if someone else closed that discussion. Someone could say that I'm biased against the editor and challenge my close. Then things would just drag on even longer. If it gets out of hand, you can always leave me a note, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hey NRP, Would you mind redvl copied content on Clare Rojas? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Looks like it was copy-pasted from an art gallery's website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Is it okay that I added the copied link in my edit summary? I added it to show it was a copy violation. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I do that sometimes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

On the topic of copyvios...it's appear that almost all of the content on Aline Lahoud is copied from [8]. I don't really have the time or probable access to resources (since most of the sources are in a different language) to fix this. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm so sorry about all this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.77.97.96 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Joe Egender

Hi thanks for your help. The reason for the removal is that all the reviews seem to me to be unnecessary. Why inject reviews of each performance into what could be a factual summary of the actor's film work? The TV section in this wiki page doesn't do this. Checked out some actor's wiki pages and they don't have reviews quoted for each performance (look at Elizabeth Olsen's page for an example). The reviews are cluttering and I believe even show some bias (selected quotes are often poorly worded and a little amateurish). Agree? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmartigue (talk • contribs) 23:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kmartigue: if you look at Saoirse Ronan, you'll see that there's commentary on her performances. On Joe Egender's article, it maybe gets a little excessive. When I created the article, I was trying to demonstrate notability, which is how Wikipedia determines whether people should have an article. Someone else then came in and added a bunch more quotations because they felt the ones I found were too negative. I don't know why that person thought this, but I just left it alone. Also, some of the sources cited didn't strike me as very professional, but I let it go. We could probably scale back some of the commentary, but I really don't think we can remove all of it. This is what Egender is known for, and we have to show that reliable sources have shown interest in his work. Part of that is reporting what those sources thought. If there were coverage in other sources, like interviews and career retrospectives at Entertainment Weekly and The Hollywood Reporter, that would work, too. However, Egender mostly acts in independent films, so he's unlikely to get their attention. In short, I agree that maybe there's too much going on, and it's too busy. But I disagree with removing everything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

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

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

I am grateful for your support vote at my WP:AN#Topic ban appeal. It is much appreciated. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: I'm sure you'll do fine, but if you have any trouble, you can leave me a message. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, many thanks. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This guy

Hey man, re: this guy 1) I've never seen an edit summary that long, so I'm impressed and confused. 2) "I speak this time here truth!" Reminds me of REPARADOR, although Reparador and Gabucho181 are sometimes similar in terms of dickishness. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I already checked him. I'll check him again to see if anything new has shown up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I can't find anything. I also checked back in December, so that's six consecutive months of edits that are squeaky clean, for what it's worth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks man. I guess sometimes shit is just weird and coincidental. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, but any idea how he left an edit summary that long? Should I ask at VPT? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The WMF recently upped the edit summary limit to 1000 characters. There's an RFC about that at one of the village pumps, but I forget which one. Look for the angry people, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Insight

Hey man, any idea who this guy is? I see a few intersections with Prab Toor, who was mostly into sloppy copy/paste moves. Not 100% that it's him, but very likely. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It's Prab Toor (talk · contribs). I could probably do something more about him if he shows up again, but it would require a bit of finesse to avoid collateral damage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this. He's been a real pain, and there doesn't seem to be a way to communicate to him how problematic his edits are. Frustrating. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Quack, quack, quack

The anonymous sockpuppet appears to be back attacking Room (2015 film); 86.166.153.232 and 2405:204:332d:8329:feb1:ba7e:284f:3463 and 2405:204:332d:8329:c650:e81b:4208:79d5- the latter two ring to a completely different place as the other sockpuppet IPs; he may have changed his IP fraudulently, but it's clearly the same person per WP:DUCK. I hope this can be semiprotected again, because this is exhausting. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I recognize Special:Contributions/86.166.153.232. That's someone evading a block. I think Special:Contributions/2405:204:332d:8329::/64 is someone else, unrelated to the first IP editor. If that person is evading a block, I don't recognize who it is. I'll semi-protect the article if there's any more disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Alice Gainer

WHY ARE YOU CONSTANTLY ON THE ALICE GAINER PAGE? YOU'VE TAKEN FACTUAL INFORMATION OFF THE PAGE. NOT SURE WHY YOU'RE ON THE PAGE OR PROTECTING IT. IF YOU'RE TRYING TO DO A SERVICE- YOU MIGHT ACTUAL CHECK INFORMATION OUT THERE, BEFORE DELETING IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMMYWINNER (talk • contribs) 00:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I take it you're another sock puppet of Ilovenewss (talk · contribs). The article is currently semi-protected because of your disruption. Stop using multiple accounts to disrupt the article, please. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

she's been nominated ten times for an Emmy now. If you actually want to check it's on NYEMMYS.org - so you reverted the edit to say 8 ,which is incorrect. Do you actually fact check edits you reverse or nah?

Please run a user check...

I think this guy in this link is a troll. He added "Rey Mysterio" as a name on his user page and edits suspiciously like what a troll would do as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cutespry

Chocolaty coffee joy (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chocolaty coffee joy: you haven't really told me anything about him except that he edits like a troll, which is kind of vague. I need to know specifics to justify running a checkuser. If you think this is obvious trolling or vandalism, you could report the editor to WP:AIV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you run a 'check user' on him to see if he has alts? I could be exaggerating. I just thought him adding "Rey Mysterio" on his user page was odd.Chocolaty coffee joy (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Policy restricts when I can use checkuser. I have to have a specific reason why I'm doing it, backed up by evidence of sock puppetry or vandalism. I can't just do it out of curiosity. That's called "fishing". If the editor isn't doing anything disruptive, but you still suspect sock puppetry, I suggest you simply wait and watch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Six years of editing

Happy First Edit Day, NinjaRobotPirate, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Slightlymad 02:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it's 11 years, but if I get to be five years younger, that's not such a bad deal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right. I failed to notice that your earliest contribution occured, indeed, in 2007. My mistake. Btw, I was just reading the plot summary for Dawn of the Dead (2004 film) and noticed it's a tad bit long. Will you prune it without losing important details? Slightlymad 03:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I gave it a go, but it was taking too much effort to trim – it was essentially a scene-by-scene breakdown of everything that happens. I found an older version of the plot in the history and worked from that, instead. It's difficult to compress down those scene-by-scene summaries because if you remove anything, it leaves unexplained gaps in the narrative. It can take a lot of time to rewrite it so that it still makes sense. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Problem returns again

Hello NRP. This one 98.190.13.62 (talk · contribs) is back at it. Have we labeled it the "bogus credits vandal" :-) I can't remember. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like NeilN already got him. That's someone I've been chasing around for more than two years now. I call him the "animation hoaxer", but I don't know if it ever caught on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah that jogs my memory. Thanks to you for checking and to Neil for the block. MarnetteD|Talk 03:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Response to User talk:Peacenik162

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, I have tried reasoning with User:Freikorp however their vendetta against Y&R ANZ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) dates back to 21 May 2011 and has continued over 40 edits since. Please aim your attention towards him as I am the most recent in a long line of editors who have tried to update the Y&R ANZ page with accurate information, only to be thwarted by the misleading and libellous statements of User:Freikorp. User:Freikorp has been reported to administrators' noticeboard for incidents for repetitive and disruptive editing.

Yet again

Hi again. 95.93.160.191 (talk · contribs) is adding language cats again. Laser brain kindly applied the last block. I wanted to make both of you aware that they just aren't paying attention. MarnetteD|Talk 03:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I blocked for 48 hours this time. I was really hoping that a short block would get the point across, but I guess not. I guess it's possible this is one of those IP editors who have no idea their talk page exists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

That or they just don't care what messages are left there :-( Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 03:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

TGIF (my time anyway) NRP. They are right back at it after the block expired. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 19:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Persistent sockpuppets

Hey there – thanks for blocking that sock (I was also going to recommend revoking talk page access, but you got right onto that). This one's turned out to be much more persistent than the other one that you blocked for me a couple of times – if you could please add Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Vixion and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LukaRuckels to your watchlist for a while if you haven't already, that would be much appreciated, as a lot of the disruptive activity by both socks tends to be overlooked/go relatively unnoticed until someone finally blocks them. Hopefully they'll both get bored of it soon – thanks for your help. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks – I just thought it might be easier to stamp this out quicker if I report something straight away (as I try to do) and an administrator is actually watching the pages. I'd say there's a little bit of going through my user page/contributions by the former as well (though I know it's obvious now) – I mean, who else knows about Prototype? 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Mobabansos sock puppet

Hi, NinjaRobot, I see you have changed the Makwan page from Kurdish MMA Fighter to Iranian. I believe this is incorrect. I have many sources which show Makwan saying I am 100% Kurdish. Simply putting an Iranian MMA Fighter is incorrect. He isn't from Iran nor is he Iranian. He was simply born in The Kurdish region of Iran which is all Kurds. Also, you put 'Iranian with Fin national. This makes no sense. You don't put the nationality there, you put it where you would put the ethnicity. Many people are upset because, every time it's changed, you block the person and abuse your power. Makwan himself said this page should say Kurdish, not Iranian. Thank you and I hope you listen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealEditingMachine (talk • contribs) 15:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Right. And all you guys just happen to be editing from the same IP range, of course. I'm sure that's just coincidence. Make an unblock request from your first account, User:Mobabansos. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Weird talk page characters

Hey NRP, I don't have time to look into this at present, but WikiWithMe and EditMeSOOOCrazy seem to be leaving weirdly non-specific and slightly incoherent posts on talk pages and it just sounds like one guy talking to himself.

EditMeSOOOCrazy

• "Um.... Bee and Puppycat is a web series but it has no network? Another mess–up."
• "As the state of Georgia has this place name too, this state cannot have the same name (Funkhouser) derived by Georgia." WTF does any of that mean?
• Here's a comment from EditMeSOOOCrazy in response to one from WikiWithMe. "Exactly....what's the point of this series having many songs if it‘s NOT a musical? They're messing up now... "

There is a lot of focus on "messing up".

WikiWithMe

• "This series is not devised as a musical, but it has many songs in most episodes? That's a mess–up...."
• "The 1st season table said there would be 12 episodes, but there's only 6? That's a mess-up"

Anyway, there's a pattern here that should be scrutinized. I don't see a huge amount of interesection though. If you have time, I'd appreciate an adminly eye. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you stumbled onto a sock farm.  Confirmed:

• DarwinandBrianEdits (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cici Huang (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Editville (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• EditMeReallyCrazy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• EditPerfectionist11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• EditMeCrazy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• WikiWithMe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wiki4Ever (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wikibot 11.11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gigi Hadide (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• EditMeSOOOCrazy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• TheStoopidDude (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Some are already blocked, and I'm going to indefinitely block the others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, what can I say? When you got it, you got it. Should I create an SPI on this since it's so dirty? If so, can you tell me the oldest account? Thanks man. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought about creating an SPI case, but I was too lazy. If you felt like doing so, it might be helpful. The oldest account I found is DarwinandBrianEdits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

SPI created at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DarwinandBrianEdits in case you want to drop your comments. Thanks man. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Exuse me.

Hello I was making some edits to List of British comedy films, A Room for Romeo Brass, Superman III, List of Canadian actors and actresses, List of accolades received by Brooklyn, The Kid Who Would Be King and Film4 Productions. Now I would like to talk about this if that's alright with you, because I am here to help make useful edits and some of them I gave a source. So why are you undoing my edits?86.169.217.127 (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

You know exactly why. You're evading a year-long block on 86.157.161.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Any edits you make will be reverted, and any IP addresses you use will be blocked. Your disruption is not helping Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Well I am sorry but I cant make an account, and if other people see these edits as constructive and that you have undone them, then they will turn on you. So can we please start over?86.169.253.66 (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Quick check

I'm already on the edge of a vandal-only or at least NOTHERE block, but would you check Ericisunknown21 against Troller010101001? Seems pretty ducky, especially this. -- ferret (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

They're both socks of Ericisafacinass (talk · contribs). Should be all cleaned up now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

They're back

• 113.210.168.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The Malaysian vandal just reared their IP vandalism at Sofia Falcone Gigante, albeit subtly. They disguised their revert with random edit summaries, but the location and range of the IP and the reference to Christopher Nolan's The Prestige gave them away. I'll check my contribution history to see if they showed up anywhere else. DarkKnight2149 02:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the IP address, but it probably won't accomplish much. There hasn't been any activity in 12+ hours. I can semi-protect the article if he comes back. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

We should make a wiki on all the different vandals on Wikipiedia. Just the name, "The Malaysian vandal" sounds funny.--Paleface Jack 03:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

There was a proposal for that, but I'm not sure what happened. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Ogden Gavanski page

Hello, concerning your removal of Gavanski's producing credits from several info boxes, is it possible to leave his name on the "My Life Without Me page"?  : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Life_Without_Me Gavanski won an award for this film. You can verify the credits on imdb and in playback :

• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314412/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast
• http://playbackonline.ca/2004/06/07/leos-20040607/

Thanks! Abonzz (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Abonzz: Executive producers, when notable, should be credited outside the infobox. See, for example, Crime Zone, which describes Roger Corman's involvement in the lead and article body. If cast or crew won awards, that's usually put in the reception section. You can see Terminator 2: Judgment Day, for example, includes a chart of all the awards won. Some of the people who won awards don't have a place in the infobox, but they get credited elsewhere in the article. Some executive producers are so notable that it would be undue emphasis to ignore their contributions to a film. That doesn't mean that they go in the wrong place in the infobox, though. You wouldn't list the visual effects supervisor as a director just because he won an award. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

DOAWK Film reasons

Color Force are the main production company responsible for the movie, as the Color Force page lists the movie and the opening credits say "Fox 2000 Pictures Presents" and "A Color Force Film". Luigitehplumber (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@LTPofficial: as I said, that doesn't necessarily make them a production company. It means they were involved somehow. The American Film Institute does not list them as a production company. Per WP:BURDEN, you need to properly source this content. Interpreting primary sources, such as the film itself, is original research. As I keep saying, please see {{infobox film}}, which indicates this content should be properly sourced. Infoboxes are not exempt from WP:V. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Then why are they listed on the other films, but not this one? This is the same Color Force who made The Hunger Games, by the way. Luigitehplumber (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It's getting pretty difficult now because you cannot make up your mind. Don't block me for the correct "unsourced content". Luigitehplumber (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@LTPofficial: I don't know why a company might be credited on some films but not others, and I don't care why. I just go by what the reliable sources say. I am not going to block you myself, but the next time I see you add unsourced content, I am going to report you to WP:ANI and ask for you to be blocked. I have offered to assist you in locating and adding citations, but you apparently don't seem to care about following Wikipedia's policies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay then. Luigitehplumber (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Quick scan

When I blocked Noodleness2255 earlier (Vandalism with self reverting), I noted their first edit was to mark themselves as an indef blocked editor. Just spotted a report on AIV (Widr got it) for Edar181, who started with the same first edit. Could you scan for others? -- ferret (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything else, but this is a big ISP. There could be hiding places I don't know about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Appreciated. -- ferret (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion

by David Adam Kess - see Master node crypto currency. Sro23 (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sro23: let me know if more show up. Looks like he's got a new obsession. The new extended edit summaries make his edits stick out a bit more, which I suppose is good. It makes me wonder if an edit filter could be crafted around his idiosyncratic edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Ninja, it's me mobaban. Wikipedia is one of my passions and whenever I make an edit it's not to be a sock puppet or be a troll. There are reasons which I can validate. Please, don't take my passion away by blocking me. Just tell me what you don't want me doing and I will stick to the rules. You said you don't care if makwan is Kurd or not, but to me it really does. So please I am willing to stick to the rules, so tell me what I can't do. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobaban100 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

As I keep saying, you need to stop creating new accounts and file an unblock request at User talk:Mobabansos. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this AH?

Hello NRP. The edits by Xdcool123 (talk · contribs) looks to be the animation hoaxer. I thought I'd check to see what you think. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 14:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Good eye, but I think that's probably an unrelated vandal. I can block him if he keeps up. The animation hoaxer usually focuses rather tightly on restoring the same few hoaxes. His favorite one is probably hoax crossovers, such as adding characters from Rugrats to The Lion King. Those are usually easy to spot. He also loves adding hoax songs to the soundtrack and expanding the cast list with famous voice actors. Those edits can take a little more work to identify unless you're already familiar with the film. Unfortunately, he's going to be showing up soon, as most of the range blocks I did last month have expired. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me these details. I had noticed the adding of Justin Beiber to various articles recently and thought that might be a new trick for an old dog :-) Enjoy your week. MarnetteD|Talk 15:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Question

Is this a personal attack as defined by WP? I feel maligned by it and don't think the statement is true, but does it actually constitute a personal attack? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is not a personal attack as defined at WP:PA but I believe it constitutes uncivil behavior as defined at WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL, particularly 1-D. Most admins won't enforce the CIVIL policy unless there is an extreme violation, but it's still abuse IMO and you shouldn't have to put up with it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that civility policy itself has a section that advises against blocking editors. I agree that diff crosses a line, though, and I'll warn BattleshipMan. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

My thanks to both of you. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

148.253.160.0/19

Regarding utrs:20966 (Special:Contributions/148.253.160.0/19), it appears that Aspire Tech Solutions appears to offer connectivity as well as colocation hosting. I do see some hosting IP's in that range, but not in the /27 mentioned in the request. It's a pain (but possible) for me to block around it. There's another concern that I mentioned at the ticket as well. Would you be able to take a look at this request please? SQL^{Query me!} 16:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@SQL: UTRS has always struck me as unnecessarily complicated, but that's probably because I don't use it much. It seems like it'd be a nice system once you figure it out. Ignoring the potential issue you raised, this seems like a reasonable unblock request. Maybe there's too much collateral damage to warrant this range block. I don't have a problem with lifting it, if you think that would be best. There were some serious issues involved, but they were fleeting and likely resolvable through other means. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I've unblocked the range, and noted my concern directly to the requester. SQL^{Query me!} 23:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Need some help

This guy is changing Warner Animation Group again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.77.121.246 (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks like Oshwah took care of it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The Hotel Transylvania 3 page...

After the link claiming Columbia Pictures co-produced Hotel Transylvania 3 got added yet again by a random IP, shouldn't the page get locked for unsourced content? This was practically the fourth of fifth time this has happened! IceWalrus236 (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, the IP editor seems to have a stable IP address, so it's probably best to add warnings to his/her talkpage for now. After that, we could request an "uninvolved" administrator block the editor. I can't really do it myself, nor can I semi-protect the page. It would look like I was trying to win a content dispute by misusing my administrator tools. I've been trying to explain to the IP editor that we go by what sources say, but it doesn't seem to be sticking. I dunno. Maybe someone else can explain it better. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

More block evasion from User:Mobabansos

Ninja it's getting really boring now! mobabansos account is gone completely banned! I can't get it back! so just leave me alone and let me edit! Kianoush is of Kurdish descent! I have so much proof! I am not editing for no reason. I am not a sock puppet so stop banning me. I will report you if you keep abusing your power. I am getting sick and tired of you.This is the final warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjastyle2010 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Creating more sock puppets to claim that you're not a sock puppet is hardly a winning strategy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

User:TheMovieGuy

Simply a misguided newbie? I just reverted unnecessary and messy-looking blockquotes he added to Avatar (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A blockquote for a single sentence? Yikes. From what I've observed of his talk page and edits, he is likely to revert. Regardless, he needs guidance. Editors like this one drain the community. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

He's been around for a little while now. I clashed with him back in 2017, but I guess things smoothed over between us; he's been off my radar for months now. I still see him get into arguments with other editors sometimes, but it seems to be over minor issues, not anything outright disruptive. Maybe he doesn't know about WP:DRN? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Makwan Amirkhani

NRP, thanks for that RBI recommendation. I was not aware of them previously and I probably over-extended AGF to their edit requests. Looking at the contributions of Mobabansos, I agree it is obviously the same editor.

One thing has be somewhat confused, however. According to the sock puppet template on Mobabansos's page, it says they are a sock of Grace Saunders and the SPI is part of the Grace Saunders SPI archive. This is confusing because the GC identity seemed to mostly focus on gaming and music articles and stopped in 2012. The Mobabansos identity started recently and focuses on Kurdish nationalism. The Mobabansos page notice says that CheckUser has found a link but that's a very weird pattern or, rather, change in patterns. Are we sure that link is correct? I'm not asking for any diffs or evidence since its almost certainly non-public anyway. I just wanted to check if I noticed something wrong. Thanks again for all your work. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: No, I think it's entirely possible Mobabansos is telling the truth when he says he's not Grace Saunders. Mobabansos was initially blocked because he claimed to have 10 sock puppets that he was using to disrupt Wikipedia. So, there's certainly evidence that Mobabansos was engaging in sock puppetry even before I blocked him, but the behavioral link tying him to Grace Saunders doesn't really match up in my opinion. I thought about saying something, but, in the end, it doesn't really change much. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

He's now confirming socking in his block appeal for socking. This doesn't bode well. Thanks for the reply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

82.0.93.231

• 82.0.93.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Would you mind looking into the edits of this IP address? They appear to have a peculiar interest at the Theatre Royal: Project A article, which they have been extensively editing for several months now. I saw that you CU-blocked them a couple of months ago and was just wondering if this is the same user (whomever they are) that was the target of your previous block, since the edits from then to now are very similar. Thanks. 115.36.55.45 (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's almost certainly the same person, and creating more sock puppets, too. I blocked it longer this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Indian film editors

Hi: I was just adding a detailed welcome template and a note about the need for sources and for care in English to :User talk:CBJJI E when I edit conflicted with your block template. I've looked at Sheru Singh's contribs page and I'm not seeing it. Sheru has no edit summaries; CBJJI E has lengthy, incoherent ones, and a final one that is such gibberish it may be them touch typing in their native language on a Latin keyboard. Sheru was blocked for falsifying figures; CBJJI E has been adding them and other unsourced material of a fanboyish type. I doubt CBJJI E would find it easy to become a good editor on en.; I was writing them a personal note because I am not sure their English competence is up to decoding the warning template they'd been given. But I don't see evidence of them being anything but a beginner. You may of course have further information of which I'm unaware, such as interim accounts associated with Sheru since he was blocked in January, but if not, I think the block may be bitey. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Sheru Singh socks sometimes use edit summaries, usually in reference to "real", such as 1, 2, and 3. This editor doesn't mention "real" in edit summaries, but this edit is classic box office gross/budget vandalism from a Sheru Singh sock. Compare to 1, 2, 3, 4, and, especially, 5, which is almost the same exact edit. It seems unlikely someone completely unrelated would show up in the same articles and make such similar edits. I haven't run a checkuser on any of the newest socks, as the results typically are not easy to interpret. You can read a little about the background at User talk:Cyphoidbomb/Archive 22#Roadside Romeo box office. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me that; that helps, since those are indeed the same kind of edits, adding numbers out of nowhere rather than changing cited numbers, and there have indeed been other accounts in between. Based on the variation in bad English edit summary vs. no edit summary, I suspect meat. Pity they can't just find some source to cite. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi NRP, this guy and this guy are probably the same person. Do you think they're both Sheru? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Vakermartie and CBJJI E are very  Likely to each other. Aiyarry is  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) but referencing "real" in edit summaries. I'd say they're all Sheru Singh (or meat puppets). It's difficult to say for sure exactly what's going on, but they're all coming from the geolocation and IP range. It could be someone who recruited his/her friends to help out, or it could be someone who's technically adept. I'm going to indefinitely block the two new ones. I don't see anyone else, but there's a bit of logged-out vandalism. I think it's all been cleaned up, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring War with User

Hey, long time no talk. Wanted to bring something to your attention before I possibly get flagged for it. On the Ready Player One (film) page I’ve gotten on the brink (if not past the Rubicon) of an edit war with User: Mabromov. He keeps reverting my review summary up top despite me having two sources, and I have to imagine it’s due to personal feelings about the film since he doesn’t seem to care about erasing review roundups on any other film page. I see he’s had issues going against sourced edit consensus’ before and was warned by yourself a few months back. Hoping for a quick and peaceful resolution here. Cheers. TropicAces (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@TropicAces and Mabromov: you've both violated 3RR on that article. I suggest you guys settle this dispute on the talk page. I can start a discussion at Talk:Ready Player One (film)#Consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Refs on talk pages

I know there's a way to format refs on talk pages so that they stay in the desired section, but I can't seem to find it. Can you point me in the right direction, please? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite: you mean {{reflist-talk}}? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes! For some reason, I cannot keep that template straight in my head and end up mangling it. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

When common sense (aka original research) is inevitable

Hey there Ninja. First of all, let me say thank you for adding a reference to my edits in Wrong Turn. Of course, I'd appreciate it even more if your comments were more... appreciative over my reasoning, but there was no point arguing over it there.

I'm against original research myself, and we can all agree that most fields of information are clear cut; there is data to be filled and a source to be provided. And yet, there are a few cases where the very same definition of the field is debatable, let alone its value. A film's country is one of those cases, per wikipedia, where the subject invites original research and discussion where applicable. Even the reliable sources - BFI, AFI, Lumiere, Cineuropa, Unifrance, Variety etc. - disagree among themselves in tons of cases, they're not even consistent with their own rules (they probably don't care all that much to tell you the truth), and there are hundreds of discussions on wikipedia talk pages and elsewhere over what is and isn't suitable criteria for determining the country, but you're an experienced editor, you're not new to this.

In order of importance, I would say that the criteria taken into account, if we were all inclusive, would be;

1. the production company/producers nationality (even that is debatable; where are their offices? which is their founders nationality? where were they founded, or where they have moved their offices right now? do branches count? if there is not a company on paper, would the producers themselves count? if they do, do we take into account where were they born or where they started their film careers as producers? and so on) - usually credited as a ___ production
2. the executives/financers/backers and associates - those who call the shots because they provide the money, without participating in the creative process, or associate producers who have less input - usually credited as (1) ____ presents, (2) in association with ___, (3) with the support/participation/collaboration of ___
3. the companies that provide production services - if shooting takes place in other cities/countries, which brings us to
4. filming locations
5. the directors/writers nationality
6. the cast/crew's nationality, the spoken language, the source material if it is cultural, and other criteria

That said, I'm a journalist myself, and have been working on a film pedia project for a very long time, part of which is determining more consistent rules for things like that. I've researched over 3000 films, particularly on box office and country data and I've come to the conclusion you all have; until there is a common rule agreed upon and with all parties involved, it will always be a matter of common sense and subjective ruling. We, as users and editors, have probably done a lot more research than the sources we're depending on. As far as I'm concerned, only #1 counts, the production company should determine the country, it's the most important factor. For some it's also #2, otherwise they'd just call all Nolan films British, since Syncopy -his company- is British (I know, I do). But it's an interesting discussion. For example, Scott Free Productions is a British company, at least it started as 100% British, its founders were both British, the last two decades they make films with the Hollywood's backing, but to me their films are still British, what if they have offices in Los Angeles too? Stanley Kubrick called all the shots for his movies, he was the producer despite what his companies may have been named at times, he was the only person behind them. He was constantly shooting films in England solely for tax purposes and it was closer to his estate etc., does this make his films British? I wouldn't think so. Anyway, these are just a couple of debatable examples that can still go one way or the other, which is why sites like AFI and BFI list both countries, to avoid engaging in any debate. Most cases are much clearer than that.

As for our example, Wrong Turn's official credits, BFI and Variety all state four companies as the production companies; Constantin Film, Summit Entertainment, McOne and Stan Winston. Constantin and McOne are German, Summit and Stan Winston studios are American. There's no Canadian involvement anywhere, other than the film was shot in Ontario. So if we're adding Canada just because of filming location or production services provided there, then I guess we should change a good chunk of wikipedia to include the filming location's countries. I have no intention of reverting your edits, I've more often than not stayed clear from engaging in debate over countries cause opening a delicate issue like this, let alone for a couple of thousand movies... who could keep up with all the discussions that would follow? I think sooner than later we should, as editors, set a universal rule, since neither AFI nor BFI or other institutes got one.

Tldr; don't be so typical over original research when there is no clear cut rule, even if sites like AFI and BFI magically agree with each other. There will and are cases when they do not. Sometimes common sense serves better. Cheers :) Punkalyptic (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Punkalyptic: we go by what the reliable source say, not original research. It's pretty much that simple; see this essay for an explanation. If sources disagree, the template instructs us to include the countries that are listed in common. As far as production companies go, we also use reliable sources for this. Primary sources, such as posters, list many companies. Some of them may not necessarily be production companies. Per this consensus, we prefer to source the production companies from a site that explicitly identifies them. Variety's review replicate the poster's billing block, which isn't much help in this circumstance. This is why I often check the AFI Catalog of Feature Films, which does explicitly label the production companies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Apparently it's not that simple, in this case at least. There are always exceptions ;) Seriously, I don't disagree with what you say. But why do you think that AFI is more reliable than BFI (if Variety just replicates production notes and you don't want to go with that)? Would you consider AFI more reliable than the end credits too? And in this particular case, why is the film Canadian? Do you find it representative of Canadian cinema to be listed under the Canadian films category? Anyway, as I said, I'm not going to argue over this, the "reliable" sources you just mentioned don't have a clue themselves on properly determining the country, and you keep quoting them. I'd like to use a little more brain over such decisions, but that's just me. You don't want to examine the criteria, you just want to pull data from sources unquestionably. Fine by me. Punkalyptic (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Punkalyptic: I don't care why a reliable source labeled this film as Canadian. All I care about is their conclusion. If other reliable sources have come to different conclusions, their conclusions can be raised on the talk page, or, as the template suggests, the shared countries listed in their analyses can be listed in the infobox. When determining the film's nationality, what production companies were involved in the film are irrelevant – by policy, all we care about are the conclusions found by reliable sources. We don't examine primary sources and come to our own conclusions. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, has by consensus forbidden the sort of personal analysis that you want to engage in. There are many sites on the internet where this is welcome and encouraged, but Wikipedia is not one of them. I am more of a hardliner on policy compliance than some other administrators, but this is not really an ambiguous situation. If you really want to debate this sort of thing, I would suggest something like Facebook or Reddit. I'm not really interested in debating the nature of Canadian cinema or whether any specific film has Canadian hallmarks. One of my current projects is to remove this sort of original research from film articles, so I would ask that you please observe our core content policies. And, no, we don't make exceptions for editors who believe they are right. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

By "exception", I wasn't referring to me or my case, but to what I pointed out earlier about the ambiguity of the country issue in general, for which the infobox template states that it often involves original research - but apparently you did not actually read me either. I don't care about the specific movie, I care though about being consistent within our own rules. If the reliable sources are not consistent themselves, we should NOT follow them by example. If we don't examine primary sources validity, then how do we know if a source is reliable in the first place? See where I'm getting at?

We shouldn't have to wait for different conclusions and discrepancies from (theoretically) reliable sources, in order to examine which one is right; we should be able (to have the right) to do that ourselves - when there is well-grounded doubt - with minimal effort and policy to retain consistency. Consistency is not copying data on blind faith. We should retain our own reliability. Anyway, apparently there's no point tackling the issue with you, cause you're not in any mood to open it in the first place. I was just trying to point out flaws out of pure good will and prevent any future wrongdoings. I respect your position to follow policy, so perhaps we can debate it in another time and place in the fashion of an open discussion. Regards Punkalyptic (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Trolled by an LTA via their talk page

Hi there. Can you please revoke the talk page access for 2600:8805:2400::/46? Tamara787 is now using the range to troll me, since his socks were Globally Locked recently. You might also want to extend the rangeblock as well. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: It might not work, but I disabled talk page access on a subnet within the /46. That should keep anyone from pinging you for at least a few days – maybe even a few weeks. If possible, I'd like to keep talk page access open on the /46 itself so that I can see unblock requests from potential collateral damage. I checked for this when I made the block, of course, but such a wide and long-lasting range block is likely to cause problems eventually, even if it's fine now. I'm not sure why you want the range block extended. You'd have to explain that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

My rationale for extending the rangeblock was primarily due to the Long-term abuse, and likely continued abuse of editing privileges while blocked (trolling via locally-blocked sock accounts and IPs). However, I guess the rangeblock can be renewed later on if needed. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, if there's any more trouble from this IP range, we can probably hit it with an even longer block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Now it's this IP, 2600:8805:2401:800:310B:D178:FD84:FAD6, that's trolling. Can you please remove the talk page access for that subnet as well? By the way, if he managed to actually evade his rangeblock (since he moved a sock account from the Spanish Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia today), then his current range (if it has changed) needs to be blocked as well. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: I disabled talk page access for the entire range and extended it for a month. I'm getting pretty tired of dealing with this. I thought my previous action would be enough to stop this pinging. Unfortunately, this range block won't affect Spanish Wikipedia or any other Wikipedia. The range blocks I do only affect English Wikipedia. Stewards can do global blocks. If there's a lot of cross-wiki abuse, you might consider looking into proposing a global ban. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much abuse needs to be demonstrated in order to merit a Global Ban, but this user's sock accounts are pretty much all Locked (or soon will be) at this point, so he's pretty much under some kind of de facto Global Ban. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I filed another report on Meta, in any case. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much disruption is required, either. I could look into it later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Back at it

Hello NRP. The IP 95.93.160.191 (talk · contribs) held off for a few days but is now back at adding language cats to silent film articles. Seems they have no intention of ever abandoning this disruptive editing. MarnetteD|Talk 21:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for three days this time. I don't understand why the IP editor keeps doing this. Maybe there's a language problem? It geolocates to Portugal, so maybe he/she doesn't speak English. I wonder if we could find a Portuguese speaker to leave a message. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That is a possibility NRP and worth a try. For me the fact that they stop for a few days and then resume the pattern makes me think they just don't care about the various MOS's involved. Apologies for the negativity of that sentence. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 22:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi one more time. They didn't even wait a full day after the block expired to go right back to the same editing. My thanks to you and Alexf for trying. I don't know that they care about the problems they create. MarnetteD|Talk 22:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I should add that they have a new edit they like making. As seen here they are removing "death date and place" templates from infoboxes. While not necessarily as disruptive as adding language cats it still violates WP:NOTBROKEN and I have tried to explain on their talk page that the fields will be used eventually and there is no reason to make future editors have to search for and copy/paste those fields down the road. As ever thanks for taking the time to read this. MarnetteD|Talk 22:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I would personally consider that more annoying than disruptive. But the IP has gone right back to adding inappropriate categories, so I blocked for a week this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for your actions. MarnetteD|Talk 23:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

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

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

• Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
• Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
• The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
• The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

• A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Quick check

Blocked Scott Bell-Moss earlier for disruption, which quickly was taken up by obvious duck Maximmarch. Does this match any patterns you are aware? Worth any deeper checks? -- ferret (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't look familiar to me. My guess is that this is just some random, disruptive editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Another Nate Speed sock

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, if you happen to be around, would you be able to look at Special:Contributions/197.226.222.87? Looks like another duck of a Nate Speed sock. Much thanks, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, another admin took care of it. Please disregard. Thanks again. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that I was going to stick around and block his other socks when they showed up. I got distracted by something and wandered off for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

RoboCop (2014 film) (Because I got another Source warning from you)

MGM is the IP holder for the RoboCop franchise and their logo appears in-film and on the official poster. I'll change it back when you agree with me so I don't get blocked...

And plus, what's the perfect reliable site to find production company sources? Also, Spyglass Entertainment has been dormant since 2012, so they don't have anything to do with RoboCop 2014, even their official site doesn't display it, and nether does the Spyglass page. I don't think the end credits say ether. The only reason why Spyglass is listed to begin with is because the current CEOs of MGM are also the CEO's of Spyglass.

Luigitehplumber (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@LTPofficial: we have a source for the production companies in the article. It lists Spyglass and Strike Entertainment. MGM is not listed among them. Per this consensus, production companies should be cited to a reliable source that explicitly identifies them. That means something like the AFI Catalog of Feature Films, which is cited in the article. Looking at primary source and drawing our own conclusions based on them is original research. A company can be involved in financing or other work yet not be classified as a production company. They may also be classified as a production company by sources despite not being on posters. Having your logo on a poster (or not having it there) does not necessarily mean anything; we don't know what contracts are in place, nor what what the level of involvement is for each company. This is why we go by what the reliable sources say. You can see a list of sources at WP:FILM/R, but I usually use afi.com for American films. For British films, the British Council often labels production companies. Some trade magazines also list the production companies, but Variety's reviews typically just reproduce the billing block without labeling any of them as production companies. If you don't understand any of this, just stop adding unsourced content to Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Just why exclude a company that owns the IP and has their logo the movie to begin with? Luigitehplumber (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@LTPofficial: because it's not listed in the source (AFI.com). If it were listed in the source, it would be included. That's how we determine who to include. Please see this essay for an explanation. We go by what the sources say, not what we think is true. If the sources say there are two production companies, and the other companies do not count, that's what Wikipedia says. The sources identify the production companies for us. This is because there are a lot of people who want to argue over this stuff, like saying that the copyright holder should be listed. I have no idea whether the copyright holder should be listed. AFI doesn't list them, so that essentially settles the matter for me. If AFI listed them, then I'd say they should be included. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, what you said is what we'll go with. Luigitehplumber (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Double-check?

Hi NRP, I recently indeffed Vidhee2 and Neelmandhub as socks of one another, because they were both making weird edits at Kaal Bhairav Rahasya, and when Vidhee2 participated in discussion at Talk:Kaal Bhairav Rahasya, Neelmandhub showed up to show support. Neelmandhub is claiming that Vidhee2 is his sister, which naturally sounds like a phony defense. I'll also note that Vidhee2 blanked another user's user page out of anger, as did Neelmandhub to me, so the behavioral similarities are there. Anyway, to the chase: assuming that it is a possibility that a brother and sister might be interested in the same article and participate in discussion together in good faith, would a CU be able to determine whether these were likely two different people? They both use mobile devices to edit, and most people don't share mobile devices. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I don't think the checkuser tool would be useful in a situation like this. Policy doesn't differentiate between sock puppetry and collusion between family members, so it's probably academic, anyway. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

School rangeblocks

• 209.66.192.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 204.137.64.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Would you mind blocking these two recently active and abused school IP ranges, which have both been blocked several times in the past? Thanks. 150.246.59.176 (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I gave them each a three month block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

NinjaRobotPirate, I saw that MASTUHOSCG8845 added Touchstone Pictures to the article, War Horse (film) which was unsourced. It was also added by MovieFan85 which was a suspected sock puppet of the user Alma Fordy back in July 2017. You saw what MovieFan85 did and blocked him indefinitely. Since MASTUHOSCG8845 added Touchstone Pictures to this article just like what MovieFan85 did, I definitely think that MASTUHOSCG8845 is also a suspected sockpuppet of Alma Fordy. I think that this user should also be blocked indefinitely for that, what do you think, NinjaRobotPirate? Evil Idiot ^(talk) 12:22, 8 April (UTC)

That's suspicious, but I don't think it's suspicious enough to warrant blocking someone outright. A lot of editors seem interested in editing this kind of information these days. Back then, it was easier to spot sock puppets. I think we'd need more evidence before blocking someone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, I now looked into MASTUHOSCG8845's controbutions and I saw that he has persistently added unsourced content for instance production companies to articles. Some of the Alma Fordy socks have also added the unsourced info of production companies to articles. Because all of this evidence, I now am deciding that this user should be blocked for further notice so that he will learn that he is supposed to add an article and have a citation to it. Otherwise, it is vandalism. Evil Idiot (talk) 11:10, 13 April (UTC)

@Evil Idiot: it's probably best to post your evidence to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alma Fordy. Adding unsourced content isn't vandalism, but it's disruptive. Typically, we warn people before blocking them. You could use {{uw-unsourced1}} through {{uw-unsourced4}} to give them templated warnings, or you could try to communicate in freeform text (which is usually friendlier and more helpful). If someone has been properly warned, I can block them for adding unsourced content. Sock puppetry is a little more complicated, and it requires clear evidence, usually in the form of diffs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Untitled comment from Sundevilemily

I am sorry that I have been editing to much, I will take a break and not edit anything for a very long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundevilemily (talk • contribs) 02:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sundevilemily: if I remember correctly, the problem was that you added unsourced biographical content about a living person. All you really need to do is cite your sources. You certainly don't have to stop editing Wikipedia. Try not to worry too much about minor mistakes. Wikipedia can be very bureaucratic and has grown to have many rules. It takes a while to figure them out. Nobody was born knowing how to do this stuff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I need help on the Steve Trevor page, I messed up on the DC Extended Universe part and I am having trouble trying to undo the problem.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundevilemily (talk • contribs) 05:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Let me know if that didn't do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The DCEU part of the Steve Trevor page looks like it's back to normal, thank you very much for helping me fix it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundevilemily (talk • contribs) 06:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sundevilemily: let me know if you have any other problems. Wikipedia isn't actually all that hard to figure out once you get used to it, but there can be a steep learning curve. You could also post to the teahouse if you wanted. That's a forum for newer users to ask questions and get help. I like to post there sometimes when I'm not busy. The people are usually very friendly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Duck check

Would you check The Crossword Puzzle Enthusiast against AlexanderHovanec? Registered after last CU block, same article area. Quick guess would be the user moved to mobile device after dedicated residential IP got a 72 hour block. Geolocate should be close. -- ferret (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ferret: it's a little difficult to say anything here for 100% certain, but I'd say that The Crossword Puzzle Enthusiast and The Linquistic Mill are  Confirmed to each other. From looking at the behavioral and technical evidence, I'd call them  Likely to AlexanderHovanec. I've blocked both the suspected sock puppets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I missed the Linguistic, who's talk page matches evidence from previous UTRS requests by the user. Thanks, I'll do some reviewing of the edits tomorrow. -- ferret (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Edits reviewed. Most of Linguistic's edits were to insert apparent self-photos of the sockmaster into articles. The Crossword Puzzle Enthusiast focused on traditional favorite bands of the sockmaster. -- ferret (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

12 Monkeys

Do you feel a visit to ANI is warranted at this time, or should we continue to give them WP:ROPE? DonIago (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Doniago: I don't know; hard to say. That argument is exhausting, even if you're uninvolved. I'm so tired of seeing it constantly popping up on my watchlist. At the same time, an ANI complaint probably wouldn't result in any sanctions – maybe just a warning to let things go. It's not easy to walk the line between tendentiousness and merely being argumentative, but some editors are competent at this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hm...alright. I know another editor opposed to it, but also one strongly in favor, so my inclination is to support anyone who wants to build a filing, but not initiate on my own. I do think that even if a warning was the only result, it might build a precendent, especially if the dead-horse beating were to continue (and frankly given how far the envelope has already been pushed, I suspect they intend to continue until they're given no option other than to stop...I know, I know, AGF...). DonIago (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

If the drama doesn't end by itself, I guess I can file a report at ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Please do let me know if you decide to do so. Off the top of my head, besides the Talk page discussion itself, there's the RfC, the improper (or at least dubious) attempt to self-close the RfC, the slow-motion edit-warring, the accusations of ownership from those who disagreed with them (may or may not be NPA) and the ensuing discussion initiated regarding article ownership. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hasn't ended yet. At this point I'm not intending to address them further, since it seems whether I try the velvet glove or the iron fist, nothing changes. That they have no consensus for their edits appears obvious and by my reading was reinforced by the RfC, so one would think there wouldn't be anything else to say on the matter in any case. DonIago (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not planning to respond to the most recent comment on that Talk page unless anyone specifically expresses a feeling that I should, but I will note that another editor felt it nudged the situation closer to a point where ANI may be appropriate. DonIago (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The "willingly ignorant" comment crosses the line, in my opinion. I guess we can see if the community agrees. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I might have been willing to let it slide in isolation, but between their other behavior and the fact that they were specifically warned about attacking other editors previously... I may not be around a whole lot over the weekend, but can catch up on anything significant when I return. Or feel free to ping me to catch my attention. DonIago (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

...well, that escalated quickly... Thanks again for your help with this situation. DonIago (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Columbia Pictures films

Doesn't Columbia release all of Sony Animation's films? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifier220 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pulsifier220: I don't know. There seem to be constant arguments about the depth and nature of Columbia's involvement in various Sony films. I gave up trying to make sense of it a while ago and raised the issue in this discussion. The consensus was that citations should explicitly label companies instead of editors guessing at them or making assumptions. That means a reliable source should name Columbia Pictures as a production company or distributor before films are added to List of Columbia Pictures films. This makes everything easily verifiable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I see. I'm really sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifier220 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pulsifier220: don't worry too much about it. It's not like it's a major problem; it's just that this seems to come up fairly often, and we've had some trouble figuring out how to resolve it. If you have a better idea, or you can find a source that says Columbia Pictures does distribute every film made by Sony Animation, we could simply change it back. That's one of the nice things about Wikipedia – anything that's wrong can be instantly fixed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I’ll be sure to let you know.

I found it. All of its theatrical releases are currently distributed worldwide by Sony Pictures Releasing under their Columbia Pictures label. If that works for you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifier220 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pulsifier220: you found it where? Can you link it so that everyone else can see it, too? You also changed the production companies for Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. What is your source for this change? The citation in the article doesn't say this. You're changing sourced content to say something that's not in the citation, which is part of the problem that I've been trying to fix in this article. We need every production company listed to be properly sourced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_Animation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man:_Into_the_Spider-Verse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifier220 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pulsifier220: Wikipedia's content is user-generated and not a reliable source. You can't source stuff on Wikipedia to other Wikipedia articles – anyone can edit Wikipedia to say anything they want. What you can do is look at Wikipedia articles, look to see if there's a citation attached, and determine if the source cited is reliable. Then you can use that source. But just because some random person added "Marvel Entertainment" to a Wikipedia article doesn't mean anything. It could be a hoax. Or maybe it's true. Who knows? But we currently have a citation for the production companies in list of Columbia Pictures films, and Marvel Entertainment is not listed in that source.

Verifiability is one of our core policies. That means that all content added to Wikipedia needs to be sourceable; however, we are generally pretty choosy about what sources are allowed. WikiProject Film maintains a list of vetted sources that it considers reliable. One problem that a lot of new users make is thinking that Wikipedia is here to catalog the truth (usually as they see it); in actuality, Wikipedia is written according to what sources say. I know it seems kind of confusing at first, but this stuff really does start to make sense eventually. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the debate regarding Columbia's involvement may have started because the Spider-Man: Homecoming page merely listed Columbia as a distributor while listing Sony Pictures Releasing as the distributor, both (ironically enough) without sources. IceWalrus236 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Has "Clash of Clefairies" ever used an international IP address?

• 5.151.28.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 94.185.189.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.16.30.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Has the "Clash of Clefairies" vandal/stalker/impersonator ever used an IP address from outside the Malaysian area? I ask because a sock puppeteer with the exact same modus operandi has surfaced, but is using United Kingdom IPs. I thought this might be a copycat or meat puppet, but I wanted to get your opinion on this first, since opening an SPI on the actual COC vandal would be rather pointless due to their ability to hop IP ranges. A copycat, however, would be more manageable. DarkKnight2149 15:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: unfortunately, you're getting into territory where the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy applies. I think it would be difficult for me to respond to this line of questioning without revealing private information that I saw using the checkuser tool. I'm sorry. Sometimes, being a checkuser makes things easier, and sometimes it adds an extra layer of bureaucracy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

That's perfectly understandable. My apologies. DarkKnight2149 04:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: I suppose you might consider looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SlitherioFan2016/Archive. That was an SPI case where I looked at some IP sock puppets from different geolocations. That was from before I was a checkuser, so it was easier for me to freely speculate on this stuff. Direct questions, like "is this sock puppet from such-and-such country" have now become minefields for me. I now have to sound like some government bureaucrat: "I can neither confirm nor deny that the government even exists." You know, that sort of thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured you might have remembered using the public geolocation at one point, but since you're a checkuser, it's better to be safe than sorry by not asking for further elucidation (especially when privacy matters and the like come into the fold). I'll probably end up filing a standard SPI to see if there is any connection. Best case scenario, it's just a separate user who saw what the COC vandal was doing, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same sock puppeteer. DarkKnight2149 19:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Unprotection for The Simpsons and Family Guy

Could you remove protection from these pages, so I can add details. They were protected for a long time. 71.202.112.200 (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You're not kidding. They were both indefinitely semi-protected. That means they'll never time out. You can make edit requests on the talk pages, though. Use {{edit semi-protected}}. You can also create an account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sock/meat check?

Breadboy52, Detnellub76.4, Balgruf, Llgamble00. Probably meat but could you look? All registered around same time, user talk interaction between them, each editing a different high school, with a bit of vandalism mixed in other articles. -- ferret (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ferret: They all edit from the same physical location occasionally, in which case their edits are  Technically indistinguishable. Otherwise, they're all from the same general geolocation but sometimes vary in their technical data. This is likely to be a case of WP:MEAT, as one might suspect from their user pages. There are also about a dozen others who edit from this same physical location who are similarly indistinguishable, but it's probably not worth listing them. However, Breadboy52 previously edited as Bobbybukkake007, and Detnellub76.4 is  Confirmed to Detnellub, Detnellub1234, and Tedbullen25, none of which are actually breaking any policies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! I suspect they'll earn vandalism blocks before long but can monitor for now... :) -- ferret (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

And @Beeblebrox already hit Breadboy52 with indef. -- ferret (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, most of the accounts look pretty harmless. Hopefully, that's the end of it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Untitled comment from Terry W. Griffin

Film Study said Fake news also Christian Sylt from Forbes are not reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry W. Griffin (talk • contribs) 19:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Terry W. Griffin: you need to stop blanking sourced content. You're likely to be blocked for this soon. You can't just blank reliable sources and call them "fake news". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, it turns out you're a sock puppet of Carlo Galanti (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The right noticeboard

Hi NinjaRobotPirate. Re this, I noticed the apparent socking after I'd already begun writing the ANI complaint. Since there was also edit warring and (I think) vandalism involved, it seemed kind of unclear where to go so I figured ANI was safer. I do appreciate the advice. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: it's not really all that important, but it can be useful sometimes to have all the evidence in one spot. For example, spotting behavioral patterns. Also, I agree that it's not always clear exactly where a report should go. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #21397

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #21397 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, 5 albert square (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

174.235.136.210 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: May 02, 2018 09:15:33

Message: Hello, can you please take a look at this request? It's a CheckUser block and you're the CheckUser that blocked them, I just want to see what we can do.

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@5 albert square: is there any documentation on how to use UTRS? It's not very user-friendly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I only know of WP:UTRS. I can maybe email you if that is easier?--5 albert square (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@5 albert square: I got in alright, but it's kind of a pain to figure this stuff out. I clicked on "reveal CU data", but it logged me out instead of revealing anything. Maybe you should ask Berean Hunter. He handled the most recent CU case, and he's probably more competent at UTRS than I am. I probably need more time to figure this stuff out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No idea why it would do that. It maybe has a bug in it. Not to worry though, thanks for looking anyway. I have asked Berean about this on their talk page just in case they don't get your ping.--5 albert square (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Never refresh the page at UTRS after you have made a comment or it will repeat your comment again. :)  Done That appears to be the sockmaster making that request with a 100% technical match. They have been making several anon unblock requests on that range which has now stopped.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Berean Hunter--5 albert square (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

As per usual

• Darkside2149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sixty notifications this time. They probably noticed that I mentioned them at a recent investigation indirectly related to them, though this is routine regardless. They'll obviously get bored at some point and move on from their continued vandalism. DarkKnight2149 03:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, kind of obvious. Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Alice Gainer

Why do you keep removing information from Alice Gainer's page? It was updated to say she's been nominated for ten emmys- you removed it. And it was updated to reflect the movie she is now in. You removed that as well. Why? Please put the correct information back. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.11.16 (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Because, as usual, you're engaging in sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

So let me see if I have this correct. You keep reversing factual new edits leaving up outdated old information. Why? What do you have against Miss Gainer? This is bizarre to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B815:96E2:91C3:8BCD:C51:EE6D (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Instead of repeating your question, maybe you should read the answer I gave you. Clearly, you have contempt for our policies and rules; do not expect us to allow you to edit here while this is the case. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Move over redirect

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, while all Venive festival awards have articles with the English names ("award" or "prize"), the Marcello Mastroianni Award article has the italian name "premio" instead (Premio Marcello Mastroianni). I tried to move, but it's a redirect and it won't let me. Should I start a formal request? I think it's plainly technical & uncontroversial for a request. Hoverfish Talk 20:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hoverfish: it sounds uncontroversial to me, but it might be best to go to WP:RMT to give people a chance to object. It looks like the reason the move is impossible is because someone tagged it as a policy compliant redirect! That's kind of amusing to me, considering this seems to be a textbook case of a WP:COMMONNAME, but apparently someone out there disagrees. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I see, thank you. I'll go the RMT way then. Cheers. Hoverfish Talk 20:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

List of Universal Pictures films

If you look at Comingsoon.net's web page, you will see that Universal Pictures and Amblin Partners released dates for 3 films coming out in the next 2 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifier220 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pulsifier220: when you add content to Wikipedia, it is your burden to add a citation. You can't expect other editors to go searching for citations to see if it's true. Sometimes I do this, but I've got around 5000 articles on my watchlist. I can't do it for every edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. I’m really sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsifier220 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

4TheWynne

Hi NRP, I’m rather aggravated regarding Joshua ‘4TheWynne’ Wynne’s unfounded accusations and, short of confronting him at the next rail related event, just want his rubbish to cease immediately. I’m a well known photographic and content contributor to Railway Digest and in no way linked to some sock puppet account. Can you assist pls? Thanks in advance, Mick. Jamesmp1184 (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jamesmp1184: 4TheWynne has been subject to a lot of online harassment from a troll who edits similar articles as you. We certainly value contributors with expertise, but it's very difficult to establish credentials on Wikipedia. We don't have "verified accounts" like some social media websites, mostly because this is supposed to be "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". This can make it difficult to convince people you are who you say, and it can lead to misunderstandings – especially when they think you're a recurring troll. As far as this goes, though, I closed the sock puppetry case, so that should be the end of it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks mate, can you please revert the article so that my photo re-appears? I'm working really hard on this article (it's a technical one) and really don't appreciate his efforts thus far. Jamesmp1184 (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jamesmp1184: I don't really know anything about that topic. Probably, the best thing to do is make your case on the article's talk page, Talk:New Generation Rollingstock. Wikipedia is very decentralized, which means there isn't an editorial board to resolve these kinds of issues. Instead, editors are encouraged to establish consensus through discussion. If you can't convince the editors there to see things your way, you could raise the issue at the dispute resolution noticeboard. There, a volunteer can moderate the dispute and hopefully find an amicable solution. Wikipedia does things a bit idiosyncratically, but it mostly works out in the end. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance sir :-) Jamesmp1184 (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Talkbalk

To NinjaRobotPirate Ohh, thank you for telling me I'm gladJhoven Sulla (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I went to AIV, but...

The situation here could use some admin assistance. Many thanks in advance for any assistance you can offer! Scr★pIron^IV 20:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like @Courcelles: just handled it. Thank you very much! Scr★pIron^IV

Yeah, looks like I was a little too slow. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You were fine; Courcelles handled it while I was writing the request. I probably should have asked sooner. I don't see such persistence from a vandal very often, and figured they'd get sick of it after a final warning. This time, it just intensified their desire to continue... Anyway - Happy Editing! Scr★pIron^IV 20:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

List of 20th Century Fox films

But Joel Silver and Lawrence Gordon aren’t producing The Predator so it would make sense to get rid of them. Pulsifier220 (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#In general should we be listing when projects were announced and when cast members joined

Hello, I was wondering if you could intervene and nip a problem in the bud before it escalates. You have had to issue a warning on a talk page where myself and another user were involved before reminding us that you have the ability to block for certain behaviours and it helped to diffuse the situation immensely. The warning was not directed at either one of us, but was a fair and impartial general reminder. Anyway, the same user has taken an opportunity to take a jab at me [9] and I got sucked in so I expect the same old tired back and forth unless somebody steps in. Would you mind? Or, would you see if one of your colleagues would be willing to issue a general warning to that section of the talk page? Thank you for your assistance. Huggums537 (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I could try posting a note, but the community would probably say I've been too "involved" in these related discussions to act as an admin. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't "take an opportunity" to "jab" at anyone. I have no idea why Huggums got so defensive when I pointed out to him the difference between NOTEWORTHY and NOTABLE, since an AGF reading of his comment allowed for no interpretation except that he had misunderstood it. I bear this user no ill will, but I would appreciate not being badmouthed on other people's talk pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, NRP, if you are going to "nip a problem in the bud", could you consider doing so by closing this discussion and telling Huggums to drop it already? The relevant background is here, here, here, here, here here, here and here. I have no idea why, but every time I have interacted with this editor, they have immediately escalated a civil content disagreement to a violent dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes people just don't get along. I guess try to avoid each other? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm willing to take the suggestion of Hijiri 88 and just drop the stick because he seems like he truly has no ill will at this point. Huggums537 (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for attempting to mediate though. I appreciate it very much. Huggums537 (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

IP range block

Hello! I see you put a rangeblock for this IP address back in April. However, I have been noticing a similar IP address editing the same related articles. I want to assume GFE but it does look like another block evasion. – TheGridExe (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheGridExe: Good eye, but that's not the editor I was targeting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Please Stop Your Threatening Behaviour

You seem to confuse actual sources with no original research policy why is that when the citations are there for all to see? Please refer to the Thorn EMI article or any number of sources regarding the financing of Highlander_(film) they all categorically confirm that EMI financed the film, ergo the UK is the country of origin and why threaten with blocking? That makes no sense from one well-meaning edit and worse makes Wikipedia administration look ridiculous.DNA Cowboy (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@DNA Cowboy: as I've told you several times now, it doesn't matter who financed the film. We have a source that says the film is an international co-production, and you are using your own personal analysis – aka original research – to determine the country based on who financed it. On Wikipedia, we don't determine things like this ourselves. We look up what sources like the British Film Institute say, and we quote their analysis. We do not invent rules on how to determine the country. This is the only way to determine the country. You need to stop insisting that your analysis is better than that of a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: We have discussed this once before and you failed to reply to my previous comments on my talk page where I tried to explain the issue. You are going against consensus that the film’s country of origin is the UK, why? And why do you keep suggesting that I am attempting to analyse the issue over reliable sources? I am referring to reliable sources that’s my entire point. Look, I think we need a Wiki Policy guideline as nearly all US film and TV rely on the descriptor ‘country of origin’ as a result of financing and NOT production otherwise film amd tv articles like Game of Thrones, Guardians of The Galaxy, Indiana Jones, Star Wars would be listed as ‘British’. Editors cannot have it both ways when it suits them so I suggest we request a policy guideline from senior administration as currently ‘country of origin’ for American film and TV is confusing. Why? because opposite rules are applying, in that, when it suits an editor they can choose either the argument: ‘the production is American’ when produced in the UK by UK production companies or elsewhere while at the same time ‘the financing is American’ ergo the film’s country of origin is America when financed by the UK or elsewhere which is hypocrisy and makes Wikipeia look US-centric. We need a policy guideline as the future of film and TV is international co-productions as many more films and tv series are made outside America yet incredibly seemingly have a ‘made in the USA’ label. DNA Cowboy (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@DNA Cowboy: you don't have to use the {{re}} template on my own user page. I am an administrator on Wikipedia, so I don't know what you're looking for. I'm telling you right now that if you continue to add original research to Wikipedia, you will likely end up blocked. Wikipedia doesn't care who financed the film; what it cares about is the conclusions that reliable sources come to. The sources that you added did not label the film as British; instead, they just said that EMI financed it. As I've repeatedly told you, who financed the film is meaningless when determining the film's country of origin. There are no opposite rules; there is only the requirement for a source to say "this film is British". None of the sources you added did that, yet the sources we have currently in the article clearly say it's a British-American co-production. This is the consensus, not your original research. If you can't understand this, I'm not sure what to tell you. You need to drop this whole "But X country financed the film!" schtick, because it has absolutely no weight on Wikipedia. You can not simply ignore the BFI citation simply because you don't like their analysis, and you can't replace it with your own personal analysis based on who financed the film. So, please, just drop it and move on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I never said I didn't like the BFI analysis and stop stating that I am pursuing original research when I am not, I am referring to well-sourced articles no synth, just hard fact. Remember, you yourself admitted the NYT states the film is British. So perhaps we need to accept that on balance the largest number of sources confirm the film is made in the UK and leave it at that. What we do need to do for the future is request a policy guideline as to the country of origin regarding all tv and film because at the moment some editors use financing as confirmation for Country of Origin and others production, we need clarity. DNA Cowboy (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@DNA Cowboy: I am not interested in debating this any further. If you all you want to do is argue, please just go away. I've explained to you what our policies are and how they apply. If you want to propose some kind of policy or guideline, that's done at WP:VPP. If you want to get opinions from uninvolved editors, that can be done at WT:FILM. You seem to mistaken me for someone who cares about the British film industry. I don't care about this topic at all, and I'm not going to continue arguing with you over this. We have a citation from BFI, but you apparently don't like this. Too bad. You need to move on and find something else to obsess over. Instead of arguing with me, you need to be looking for better sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I have to say your response to one well-intentioned edit is telling, if you have ‘no interest in British film’ why were you so insistent on clinging to one citation when the rest of the sources claim the movie is British? Also, if you describe an attempt at improving the quality of Wikipedia articles ‘obsessing’ then we have nothing more to say and if this truly represents the quality of Wikipedia administration then the website is in deep trouble.DNA Cowboy (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd recommend taking this back to the article's Talk page, given that another editor has now weighed in in favor of listing the film as a co-production. As this seems to primarily be a content dispute, I believe the article Talk page is the more appropriate place to discuss. DonIago (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Archive 2017 Months 1-6 and 2017 Months 7-12

I see that you archived your talk page 2017 seperately. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.198.85 (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I became an administrator in 2017, and my talk page suddenly became significantly more popular, which means a lot more messages to archive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you - I am trying to learn. I obviously need to do more reading. I appreciate your help. Most people in Florida refer to Tampa Bay Florida as the area around Tampa similar to Area but much more popular. I was just trying to show this while also contributing to better organic results. I apologize for causing issues and thank you for reaching out. Shiggidy (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Shiggidy: some of this stuff can be a little confusing, especially when it gets to more complicated areas, such as templates. There isn't much room for error, unfortunately. That means you sometimes have to be careful of what you change. If you want to rename all the articles, that'd be best done through one of our official processes. It's a little bureaucratic, but it prevents some of these problems, like images and templates that don't load. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Assistance editing Telluride Film Festival entry

Hi. Thanks for your notes.

I joined Wikipedia yesterday (15 May 2018), so I'm trying to learn how it works. I would like to make a positive contribution to your 900-word entry on the Telluride Film Festival, drawing on the 44,000-word book I wrote about the festival, published in 2016. (I'm not trying to sell the book and didn't know about not providing links to Amazon, etc. I will not link to online stores in the future.)

I don't have a COI (Conflict of Interest) with Telluride. I am a professor who wrote a peer-reviewed academic book about the Telluride festival.

However, in your current entry, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telluride_Film_Festival, the Academy of Motion Pictures/Academy Film Archive may have a COI with Telluride, as it provides *FUNDING AND SPONSORSHIP* to the festival. Wikipedia might consider removing its reference to the Academy Film Archive, which reads "The Academy Film Archive houses the Telluride Film Festival Collection, which consists of conversations with iconic filmmakers, tributes, symposium and seminars dating back to 1978." and the note "Telluride Film Festival Collection". Academy Film Archive."

All best wishes, Jeffrey Ruoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey K Ruoff (talk • contribs) 10:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jeffrey K Ruoff: You certainly are more qualified to write an encyclopedia article on this topic than anyone else here. But before you add more content, please read our conflict of interest guideline completely, especially the part about citing your own work. This is allowed within reason, but it must not be done in a way that promotes you or your work. This would include linking to online stores where people can buy the book, prominently name-checking yourself, etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

User:NinjaRobotPirate/How to streamline a plot summary

Hi, read this essay and its very good. Would you mind if I moved it to wikispace so its more accessible? Personally i disagree with popcorn duff about mentioning precredits or after credits as some broadcasters cut these out so readers may think its inaccurate, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: sure, I don't care that much if it gets moved or not. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser for Alex

Could you check user for AlexanderHovanec and Ramello jay? Ramello jay was created and used while Alex was claiming to be waiting 6 months for standard offer. It only had one edit so I hadn't caught it yet. After he block evaded on IPs twice, I rescinded my offer to review his SO in 6 months. He ended up with his TPA removed by Oshwah, and then used Ramello jay to post a manifesto type rant and declare his intention to continue socking now, which linked Ramello back to him. -- ferret (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I was asked to look at this globally. From Meta I found Botany and Art as a  Confirmed sock of Ramello jay but don't have any data on the main account. Would you mind posting the results from here to the CU wiki or list so I can see the cross-wiki implications, NRP? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll post the results to cu-l. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

User talk:24.233.185.149

No objection from me if you want to blank my comment with the rest of that junk. Meters (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Nah, probably not worth giving him the attention he craves. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Another proxy

• 213.133.141.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Another proxy from the Clash vandal has surfaced. The random reverts, the United Kingdom geolocation, and the edit summary "Your SPI does not even qualify as futile!" all give it away. DarkKnight2149 16:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked as a webhost. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's another one:

• 92.40.248.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) DarkKnight2149 02:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That's a troll haven. Range blocked for a year. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Clearly a sock, buuut...

Hey NRP, what do you make of this? This person has typical indicators of sock behavior. Earliest edits create user page with useless content, then delete. Now they're no longer redlinked. They blow into town and create an article on Neel Bhattacharya, a Bengali actor. Cite news template was employed, promotional language "shot to further fame". Here they add information about the subject's parents, though I don't find any Google hits on this. Then, when the article gets AfDed, they seem to be an expert on our notability criteria and can argue effectively. This is not passing the stink test for me. There's something clearly promotional going on. Any thoughts? The article was previously created in 2015 by sock operator Vamsiraj, but I don't have any clear info to suggest there's a link. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: it's suspicious, but I don't know if I could personally justify running a CU if someone challenged me on it. The edits were done with the visual editor, so that could explain the apparent competence in editing. The initial "keep" vote was pretty shallow ("he has a verified Facebook account, so this article should be kept"). It's only the most recent edit, after a bunch of people linked policies and such, that shows any real understanding of deletion discussions. You might try asking someone more experienced in identifying paid socks, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello there

I have been sent here by TheOldJacobite. Now I would like to say I am that user who made all of those edits but now I am willing to have a rational conversation. BTW here is my conversation with TheOldJacobite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheOldJacobite/Alternate#Question 86.171.41.156 (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

A rational conversation? You have demonstrated an utter contempt for our policies. Besides the fact that you've been edit warring, changing sourced content, and removing citations, you have been repeatedly evading blocks, including a one-year block at 86.157.161.110. That means that you're not allowed to edit Wikipedia until October 2018. Even then, your behavior has been bad enough to easily warrant the equivalent of an indefinite block. Stop editing Wikipedia until October 2018, when that block expires, and maybe we'll see what happens. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with everything NinjaRobotPirate says above. As I said on my alternate talk page, the only way anything was going to happen is if NRP agrees, and he clearly does not. We have a policy here of assuming good faith, but that ran out a long time ago. If you can control yourself 'til October, you might have a chance. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The series of edits made here: Talk:The Kid Who Would Be King indicate you are not willing to keep your word. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Three more

• 131.111.5.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 131.111.184.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 131.111.5.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Here are three more proxies. Also, you may want to keep an eye on Hellraiser: Judgment and Leatherface (2017 film) (frequent hotshots for the troll). DarkKnight2149 17:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• • (talk page stalker) I've run my usual checks/scans on these 3 University of Cambridge IP's, and I don't see any of the 3 operating a proxy/vpn (at least, at this time). SQL^{Query me!} 17:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm no checkuser but, even if it isn't a proxy precisely, the usual edit summaries, indiscriminate reverts, and United Kingdom geolocation give away that it's the same vandal (either that, or we have an unforeseen WP:MEAT situation). This user's geolocations and all-too-specific modus operandi are the obvious giveaways. DarkKnight2149 19:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Neither am I, saw "Here are three more proxies", figured I'd look + block. SQL^{Query me!} 01:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
      • @Darkknight2149: This is probably a student at the University of Cambridge, but I guess you never really know. I did a short range block on 131.111.5.0/24, which may help. If it keeps up, I guess there are other things we can try. One possibility is for you to file a complaint with the University. I have no idea what their policies are like, but there's probably something about cyberbullying or online harassment. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
        • If it isn't the Clash troll themselves, I believe this is far too big of a coincidence not to be a meat puppet or copycat. They made their edits at articles heavily vandalised by the Clash troll, and the edit summary styles are identical, as are the reverts. DarkKnight2149 02:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Same stuff, different instance

• Lightknight2149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Another impersonation account intended only for vandalism and spamming my notifications.

I'll be investing in some more doppelganger accounts soon to slow these "2149" vandal accounts down. I actually tried to create one yesterday, but it (ironically) triggered an abuse filter when I did it. At least some of these "2149" usernames are off limits.

A title blacklist request is also probably nigh, something I have considered since April 2017, because it doesn't look like this user has any plans on stopping. I keep a full list of accounts that I have registered at User:Darkknight2149/Alternative accounts. Any others aren't me. DarkKnight2149 22:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Darkknight2149: Blocked lightknight, and rd3'ed the diff where they were messing with your userspace. SQL^{Query me!} 01:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

 Confirmed to Darthvader2149 and Darkforce2149. I'm not really sure what the policies are around blacklisted usernames, so you should probably make a request there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Cartoonist 101

Hi NRP, Cartoonist 101 (talk · contribs) is continuing to add unsourced information to articles despite multiple prior warnings and blocks. Their last warning was in April, so I doubt a report at AIV would go anywhere, and I'm not sure there's enough here to merit going through ANI, but they certainly don't seem to be learning from their mistakes. Not sure whether this merits taking any action, but figured at least a heads-up was in order. Reaching out to you as you imposed their last block. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been a constant issue with him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Even more

• 128.240.225.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Here's another one. Also, Leatherface (2017 film) (a Good Article candidate) is completely under siege from this troll, who said in an edit summary that their goal is to have it protected. DarkKnight2149 18:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

All of the troll's IPs have been from the United Kingdom lately, instead of Maylasia. I'm starting to think that they either moved or they're just traveling. DarkKnight2149 20:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Range blocked 24 hours and article semi-protected. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Please do not block the University of Cambridge again

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, In the last few days you seem to have bocked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/131.111.5.0/24 twice, as a “school block”. Unfortunately this IP range differs from a school in that it is the IP address of Cambridge students in their accomodation, researchers in their departments, etc. As such, you have actually blocked students, and probably the entire university, from editing on their home PCs, which is not the usual intention of a school block. This is disproportionate; I’d like to think the university has more good to contribute to the wiki than bad. Reading the contributions for this IP range seems to support that view. Please do avoid blocking us again unless there is some dire need for it. Many thanks, User:GKFX^talk 07:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC).

@GKFX: it's not a hard block, so students and researchers are quite able to edit. It's only unregistered IP editors who are stopped, and, yes, students are the intended target. There has been recurring vandalism and trolling coming from this IP range, and I'm trying to deal with it as lightly as possible. A 24 hour IP-only block is not a major inconvenience. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Persistent defiance of WP:COPYVIO on Disobedience (2017 film)

Hello, NRP. The Disobedience article needs to be protected from copyright violation vandalism. An obstinate IP-only editor has been adding plot summaries that have been copied from websites. A section expansion template was eventually added to the article referring editors to WP:FILMPLOT and WP:COPYVIO for guidelines on how to add a description of the plot, as well as a hidden message. The problem continues regardless. As of this time, copy vios have been reverted 5 times: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

After the first revert, editors were made aware on the article's talk page of the policy regarding copyrighted text. Doesn't matter. The person doing this has a one-track mind. Please protect the Disobedience article (and Wikipedia) from this on-going problem. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary talk 06:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. I can do it longer if it keeps up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Pyxis Solitary talk 08:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

More potential trolls

• ChristopherNolan2149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Darkkknight2149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GoodNight2149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Darkbishop2149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Darklord2149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These accounts just surfaced mimicking my username and doppelgangers that aren't me. DarkKnight2149 07:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Probably the same nuisance as usual. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep, there's more

• 113.210.224.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• ADarkknight2149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here are some others that just showed up as well. Curiously, the IP address once again geolocate to Malaysia. DarkKnight2149 14:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• 2149ADarkknightStory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Another one. DarkKnight2149 16:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I feel like there should be an edit filter or something for this. Surely there is no need for a new account to thank someone 50 times in one day. Sro23 (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It might be worth exploring, but I think any major changes to how sending "thanks" works would probably need community-wide consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

fair enough

thanks for your response. very simple, adding unverifiable material... JarrahTree 07:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Mind taking a look

Would you mind looking at Küñall (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). They’re a sleeper of a community banned user who is requesting an unban after years. I’m somewhat willing to copy the appeal to AN, but given that this one is an admitted sock, I’d prefer to be sure there aren’t others hiding. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Clash troll is back again

• 2001:D08:2001:A549:4D85:65B:6A0:9A92 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The usual. DarkKnight2149

This IP, like most of the others, is from Malaysia. They said in this edit summary that the UK and Malaysian vandals are the same, though it's difficult to tell if they are telling the truth. DarkKnight2149 18:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• 2001:D08:2000:AEB5:3946:3C92:72C6:F44B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Another one. DarkKnight2149 18:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about SPI

Re Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nate Speed. When I submitted the SPI, the IP wasn't banned or even rev-deleteted, but regardless I'm wondering whether filing a SPI is a good way to document and archive the sockpuppeting even if the the sock may be obvious and handled by a vandalism-patrolling admin soon anyway? Or is that just adding unneeded work for the SPI people? Seems like in this case there's long-term abuse by the sockmaster. --Pudeo (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pudeo: sure, it can't hurt to report to SPI. One advantage is that people who are familiar with the case will probably have it watchlisted, which means the case will get prompt attention and proper cleanup (such as revdeletion, range blocks, checks for multiple accounts, etc). I keep quite a few SPI cases on my watchlist (including the Nate Speed case), but I don't necessarily watch other forums. For LTA vandals, WP:AIV is a useful alternative when it's so obvious that no evidence is necessary. SPI sometimes gets pretty backlogged, and we don't always block obvious vandals quickly enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

A question about MGM films

MGM's distribution arm (well, until around 2010 or whatnot) was known as MGM Distribution Co. (or MGM/UA Distribution Co.) so do you think that should be the distributor used in the infobox for all MGM movies that started to use the name? (It's a bit like Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures or Sony Pictures Releasing, as they are the distribution name, but they use brand names for their releases). Luigitehplumber (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

A few of their films released during this time just have the logo at the end with no text, and I think this applies to co-productions. If so, i'd say the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer name can remain in co-productions, but films that have the "Distributed by MGM Distribution Co." text with ether the MGM or United Artists logo can have "MGM Distribution Co." in the infobox. Luigitehplumber (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I usually go by what the American Film Institute says, because they're reliable and perform their own analysis. Box Office Mojo is also another very good source for distributors worldwide. The most important thing, I think, would probably be that the name we use is verifiable somewhere. I try not to worry too much about particulars, which I think annoys some people who think we should be more stringent about using the "correct" name. The problem becomes, which one is the correct name? You start getting involved in dozens of discussions over whether it's Columbia, Sony, or whatever. In my experience, these discussions go nowhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay then. Luigitehplumber (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

My edit

I won’t mess with Scott’s bio page again. I’m sorry! Fattabbycat1991 (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fattabbycat1991: I wouldn't worry too much about it. Just make sure you source your edits when you add content about a living person. That's the important thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Baffling reverts on Everybody Wants Some!!

Not sure if you're new to Wikipedia but focusing on just Rotten Tomatoes to sum up the reception just isn't done, especially not unsourced. Movies with a reception mention in the lede always tend to have if it "received favorable reviews, received negative reception, received critical acclaim," etc. As per Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, it has received critical acclaim. Metacritic itself states it recieved universal acclaim. See most other articles on a film on Wikipedia and you will see the same format. Your edit summary was highly misleading in any instance. Not only does neutrality have nothing to do with the format we use here, but focusing on just Rotten Tomatoes alone makes it less neutral, by focusing on one source. R9tgokunks ⯃ 21:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: No, I'm not new to Wikipedia; I'm an administrator. "Critical acclaim" is less neutral than simply giving the raw numbers. Maybe instead of edit warring, you should take your reasoning to the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about Mall Cop 2

I was just editing the page because there were some film pages that shows what people thought of this film. 208.59.147.254 (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I think it's generally best to let the review aggregators speak for themselves, though. They already tell us how critics felt. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

More of the more

• 2001:d08:2181:1e67:4cc4:3fca:fceb:f527 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Here's another one from my Talk Page. Pretends to be a good faith user in the edit summary of their revert but the Malaysian geolocation and highly coinidental timing give it away. DarkKnight2149 14:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I semi-protected your talk page again, this time for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Wyatt oleff

Wyatt oleff is related to irish rugby player mark sheahan Jameskennelly7 (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You should find a reliable source, such as a newspaper article, that says this, and then you can add it to the Wikipedia article. If you're having trouble finding a source, you could always ask for help at the teahouse, a forum for new users. They might be able to give advice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Eagles hard rock vandal

Relative to this and this, a new IP range has started doing the same things: Special:Contributions/2600:8805:AA02:2E00:0:0:0:0/64. FYI. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I range blocked the new /64. Let me know if more show up. I could probably do a wider range block if necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

IP sock block

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, you recently blocked User:86.56.207.16 and rolled back its edits as a sock. Since it's an IP, I'm not aware of who it is who might be socking. However, it looks to me like User:212.95.8.232 and User:212.95.8.220 are also the same editor, hitting the same articles (Paleosiberian languages, Australoid race, Koreans, Japanese people). This is duck level, but I don't have time to take care of it at the moment, and I was interacting with the IP on a content level at Japanese people, so it would be helpful to me if you could verify and take care of this. Perhaps semi-protection is also warranted on some of these articles. Best, Dekimasuよ! 16:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: yeah, it looks like the same person to me. It was a checkuser block, so policy restricts me from discussing it, unfortunately. I did a one-week range block on Special:Contributions/212.95.8.0/24. I'm not sure that's wide enough to stop the disruption, so I also semi-protected the articles for a week. That should hopefully deal with it for now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Dekimasuよ! 03:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I know you're not able to discuss who might be behind the IP; I was able to get a handle on it after a little more time looking at the situation, so hopefully I'll know what to look for in the future. Dekimasuよ! 03:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

How can the Interaction Timeline be useful in reporting to noticeboards?

Hi NinjaRobotPirate,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team built the Interaction Timeline to make it easier to understand how two people interact and converse across multiple pages on a wiki. The tool shows a chronological list of edits made by two users, only on pages where they have both made edits within the provided time range. Our goals are to assist users to make well informed decisions in incidents of user misconduct and to keep on-wiki discussions civil and focused on evidence.

We're looking to add a feature to the Interaction Timeline that makes it easy to post statistics and information to an on-wiki discussion about user misconduct. We're discussing possible wikitext output on the project talk page, and we invite you to participate! Thank you, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Help with move

Hey there – some dickhead (likely the sockpuppet we've been fighting for a while, who's since been blocked again) has moved my user/talk pages, and I need help moving it back... could you please help? That would be much appreciated – thanks. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, looks like I'm a bit late to the party. Yeah, that vandal is  Confirmed to LukaRuckels. I don't see any sleepers. It looks like everything was already cleaned up, but let me know if there's more to do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

All good – Gnangarra took care of everything. Thanks anyway – I'll let you know if anything else happens. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Plot sum.

Could I ask you to prune the plot summary for Cabin Fever (2002 film) a little bit further? Apparently, my effort wasn't enough. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Vivek Chourasia

Hi NRP, I've happened upon this guy a few times, but I can't remember what his earliest account is, and I don't think there is an SPI on him. User:Chrissymad/VC has a list of some of the accounts. I ran into one again today, but I accidentally closed the window and I can't figure out what the new name was. Anyway, this guy is kind of a problem and I think we're in CU territory with the sheer number of accounts. I have to run out for several hours, so I can't really dive into this at present. Thanks (and sorry!) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Vivek Chourasia, Ivc4137, and IVCofficial are all  Confirmed to each other, but there's not much surprise there. I'm not sure exactly where to look for sleepers, but I don't see anything obvious. If you have a more recent account, I could check that. It looks like a couple other checkusers have run checks, too. I don't see any clues about a case history or anything, though. I guess the salted article, Vivek Chourasia, is pretty much the best case history we have. Have you seen the new "advanced search"? It's sort of interesting. I'm not sure if it returns anything different than the classic search, but I just tried it with "Vivek Chourasia". Turns up a few hits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Reedited content about O Brother, Where Are Thou? (2000 film)

I only change data for the distributors, because i remember that the film, in North America, is distributed by Touchstone and in International, by Universal. Also, there were more producers than Working Title. You can check by yourself to make sure that's correct and you can re-contact me by my IP address. Thank You! Anonymous— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.19.188.148 (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, we can't really go by your memory. We need a citation to a reliable source, which is what we have there right now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

American productions with outsourced animation

I'm sorry for my actions that you users don't like in the details about The Land Before Time III: The Time of the Great Giving (1995, Universal). I was only trying to get the world to know that this movie was animated overseas for Universal Studios by a South Korean studio called AKOM. The point is despite being produced by every film and television companies in the United States, their animation was outsourced to different studios in other countries including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan or the Philippines, even for international co-productions. You know for example that many of Rankin/Bass Productions' stop motion ("Animagic") and hand-drawn animation works were subcontracted to the Japanese studios after completing their pre-production including scripts, concept arts, voice-acting (especially in Canada) and sound effects, just because we saw the names of production supervisors such as Tad Mochinaga, Kizo Nagashima and Akikazu Kono in the opening or closing credits. We even thought that we could add all production companies and production countries that all American animated films and television programs were originated. Don't you understand that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.57.136 (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Per this consensus, production companies should be cited to a reliable source. Countries should also be cited to a reliable source. We shouldn't make "best guess" assumptions on this; this is original research, which is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. AllMovie is a better source for finding the country of a film, but I usually prefer the AFI Catalog of Feature Films for mainstream American films. The AFI catalog is also good for citing production companies. For British films, the British Film Institute is a good source. I'm not quite sure if there's a good catalog for Canadian films, but Library and Archives Canada seems useful. Sometimes trade magazines, such as Animation Magazine, will discuss Asian animation contracted by Western studios. That would be a good source to cite if you want to discuss who animated a film. I really don't know all that much about this topic area, however, and I mostly just try to keep the articles from accumulating massive amounts of unsourced information. Some of it is undoubtedly true, but who can say what parts, when it's all posted without a source? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Fronticla

Hi I left a ping at User_talk:Fronticla#Bold_Edits_Reverted_Discuss but sometimes they don't work. What do you suggest I do? I reverted a few dozen edits by this user who is IMO on some kind of mass campaign to purge certain words from Wikipedia (popular, iconic, etc) and is editing without regard to context or the specifics of an article. I asked them to explain why they are doing it on a per-article basis, before restoring the edit, but they ignored the request and engaged in a mass edit-revert war. [10][11][12][13] etc.. they are not only reverting me, but other users as well: [14][15] etc.. -- GreenC 13:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@GreenC: next step would probably be filing a report at WP:ANI, unfortunately. I can't really take admin action here because I was involved in a similar content dispute with Fronticla earlier. The previous ANI complaint scrolled off without any sanctions, but this is the third time he's edit warred over this stuff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks. -- GreenC 14:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

A block evader returns

See Special:Contributions/V-Cube 6x6x6. Same editing pattern as other socks editing combination puzzle articles. I don't know whose block is being circumvented, though. Hellbus (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hellbus: that looks like YuRi YuZi (talk · contribs). Let me know if he returns. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Disobedience (2017 film). Again.

Hello, NRP. I think Disobedience might need to be protected again. IP-only editor defying guidelines (judging by the one-track mind about it, it's probably the same person as before but using different IP address).

Words to watch deletion: 1.
IP-only editor re-adds sentence: 2, 3, 4.
Puffery is edited by User: 5.
IP-only editor restores puffery: 6.

Pyxis Solitary 14:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection looks a little iffy based on the current level of disruption, but I still did it for a while, given that this looks like the same person as last time, just branching out to different forms of disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Some day, some time, he/she may realize all they get out of it is just hitting a wall. Pyxis Solitary 14:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion?

What block are you accusing me of evading? I am a fantastic editor whose biggest block has only been for two hours and I have abstained from editing during that time and has long expired--Harmony944 (talk, Twitter) 15:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Harmony944: I'm not sure what you're talking about. I never accused you of block evasion, but I see that you've twice restored edits made by a block-evading IP editor. I don't know why you did that, but it does seem a bit suspicious now that you've brought it up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)