User talk:NinjaRobotPirate

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

Bored? Check out User:NinjaRobotPirate/Games for a list of video games that are probably notable. I listed most of the sources, so you don't even have to find them.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2025).

Administrator changes

• DDima
• Gimmetrow
• Huon
• Johan Elisson
• Spangineer
• The Land

Interface administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

CheckUser changes

L235

Oversight changes

L235

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to determine whether the English Wikipedia community should adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and its affiliates.

Technical news

• A new feature called Multiblocks will be deployed on English Wikipedia on the week of June 2. See the relevant announcement on the administrators' noticeboard.
• History merges performed using the mergehistory special page are now logged at both the source and destination, rather than just the source as previously, after this RFC and the resolution of T118132.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case named Indian military history has been opened. Evidence submissions for this case close on 8 June.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 17 June 2025. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in June 2025, with over 1,600 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in June 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Hi NinjaRobotPirate, it's been well over four years since you placed the Vietnam article under extended-confirmed protection due to sockpuppetry. Do you really think the current protection level is still necessary to this day? The Mexico article was also extended-confirmed protected in 2019 for the same reason, but had since been downgraded to semi-protection on December last year. Perhaps it's time to downgrade the protection level of this article to semi as a trial, considering the fact that it has gained just slightly less views than Mexico in the past year (see here)? If you still think extended-confirmed protection is needed specifically for this article, then why aren't the other Southeast Asian country articles seeing the blue lock? For example, Singapore has gained nearly twice as more daily views than Vietnam in the past year (see here), but is only fine with semi-protection. How come Laos completely lacks edit protection altogether? I'm still okay if the blue lock is still necessary here, given the fact the Vietnamese edition of this article is also under its form of extended-confirmed protection. BriDash9000 (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there have been some blanking sprees in Laos, too. It looks like other people are aware of it, so maybe they'll protect the article if it starts up again. Vietnam has been troublesome because blanking sprees happen in it when the protection expires. Thus, it's set to not expire. People can still request edits at Talk:Vietnam. It looks like activity is picking up somewhat on the talk page since the last time I looked, but it's still sparse, and I don't think it would be a good idea to unprotect the article while sock puppets are still active. The last edit to the talk page was reverted for block evasion. Admins who are curious why it's protected can look at my userpage on the private CheckUser Wiki. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you blocked Special:Contributions/2605:BA00:4138:596:0:0:0:0/64 while looking though edits of Special:Contributions/2605:BA00:4138:233:0:0:0:0/64, who I subsequent blocked. I was wondering if there's an SPI you could point me to so I can maybe reference it in the future if I see more from this user? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I couldn't tell you even if there were one. I'm pretty sure that'd run afoul of the privacy policy since that's a CU block. And because of a somewhat recent Ombuds Committee proclamation, I can't even connect IP ranges to each other. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you. I appreciate the explanation EvergreenFir (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate. I am rather bewildered by your message about muting. Obviously you don't have to clarify it if you don't wish to, but I would very much like to understand. It must be something to do with my mention of the limitations of CheckUser, but I'm at a loss to understand why that would lead to your choosing not to ever accept pings from me. If you are willing to explain I shall be grateful. JBW (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Seeing as how an SPI clerk pinged me and pointed me to an SPI case, I posted my thoughts. Seeing the potential for wikidrama, I specifically said that I was not in the mood for that, and I didn't want to debate the results of my CheckUser findings. To support this, I said I would leave the whole thing alone and let other people handle the situation. I was careful to leave no reason for someone to ping me and start up an argument.

I was then pinged by someone who has not seen the CheckUser findings for the sole purpose of starting up drama with me. I don't understand why people who have not seen the CU data feel this overwhelming urge to pick a fight with me and argue that I interpreted the data incorrectly.

The fact that this wasn't enough, and you felt that it was appropriate to explain to me what the CU tool is undeniably ruffled my feathers. I've been a CU for eight years, and you know what I get for that? Nothing but wikidrama started by argumentative drama-mongers, non-CheckUsers pinging me to explain how the CU tool works, death threats in my email, and a load of pings from blocked sock puppets who say "my little brother did it". I'm getting tired of it all. I would copy-paste the most recent email that I received from a Wikipedia user, but it's highly offensive. Suffice to say that it consists mostly of about a hundred uses of a racial slur that would probably start a fistfight if you used it in real life. My mother died recently. My father is getting medical tests. My dog just fell out of a second story window somehow.

I've got enough going on in my life that I don't need shit from random people who want to fuck with me on Wikipedia. If you want to ping some CU and lecture them about how the CU tool works, pick someone else. I'm bipolar, and I think I've hidden it pretty well for the past 10 or 15 years that I've pretty active on Wikipedia. The one fucking time that I request that people just leave me alone and don't start shit with me, you just have ignore it. Because everyone knows that what CUs like most in life is not getting a "thank you" once every 5 years for their service, it's having their interpretation of the CU data challenged for no fucking reason.

Maybe, after 8 years, I've developed an intuition about interpreting CU data. Maybe I've learned to notice patterns that indicate people are editing from a workplace vs editing from their own fucking house using a fucking residential broadband connection. Maybe I can differentiate between two people using the same exact mobile device from the same exact cellular tower vs people editing from a coworking space. Or maybe it's like you've implied, and I'm just some monkey clicking buttons that could be easily replaced by AI.

At least I feel better now. What a crappy day. At least my dog is okay. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining your reasons, which make things much clearer. Unfortunately I have miscommunicated. I was certainly not trying to stir up drama or pick a fight, as you thought. I thought, rightly or wrongly, that there was a limit to CheckUser data, and it couldn't distinguish between two people editing on, for example, the same computer. I thought I was clarifying that fact for people who might be reading the thread who didn't know that. I also thought that, since what I was saying referred to what you had said, it would be a courtesy to let you know what I was saying. I saw your statement that you didn't wish to "feel like debating the CU results or getting involved in block-drama", and wondered about pinging you, but I thought that that I was just letting you know what I said as a courtesy, and you might very well he happy to just see it and leave it. Evidently I was mistaken in one or more of those thoughts, maybe all of them, and misjudged the situation. Possibly my biggest mistake was thinking that what I was saying about the nature of CheckUser was uncontroversial; I thought, evidently completely mistakenly, that what I said was something that any CheckUser would agree with, and, as I said above, my intention was to clarify a point for other people, not to lecture you about how the CU tool works.

I offer you my apology for having seriously misjudged the situation, particularly since it evidently came at a time when you had more than enough to deal with already. What you are going through must be absolutely terrible to endure, and I certainly would not have wished to add to it. JBW (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can know what any of us are going through internally. Yes, the CU tool is very limited, and it's generally useless in establishing anything except that one account is on the same IP address as another. That doesn't mean that CheckUsers are incapable of analyzing data, comparing that to users' explanations, and coming to (possibly incorrect) conclusions on their own, though. It's not video evidence of them engaging in sock puppetry, but that's an ideal that just doesn't exist. Pretty much everything related to sock puppetry is based on a mixture of technical and behavioral evidence. I frequently find many people on the same IP address. If people don't tell me exactly what to look for (eg: "the sock puppeteer always misspells 'millennium' as 'milenium'"), I have to just shrug my shoulders and say, "Can't help you." The reason evidence is required for sock puppetry investigations is not just to rule out spurious cases. It's to make my job possible in the first place. Ten people on the same IP address is expected behavior on some ISPs, and they might not be distinguishable from each other. You either work with good data, spend an hour (minimum, in my case) doing an investigation from scratch yourself, or just give up in annoyance. I take the last option more often than people would probably guess. There are always a few sock puppeteers floating around that I already CUed, but I gave up when the mountain of data returned by the CU tool was impenetrable. I don't actually enjoy going through hundreds of IP address, trying to figure out who's doing what, and which of the guys using an iPhone is making the same exact edits as someone else using the same model iPhone. I don't just click "run a CU on this person", and the tool says, "Okey dokey, that's a confirmed one!" It can take me the better part of an entire evening just for one case. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that gives me more insight into what CheckUser work is like than anything else I've seen in my 19 years on Wikipedia. Thank you for taking the trouble to explain it to me. JBW (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]