Jump to content

User talk:Reaper Eternal/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

KuhnstylePro SPI

Thanks for the help here. My auto-fill-in had the wrong version. Guhh! Sorry bout dat.  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

SPI - proxy servers

Hi there. I'm writing about this. I'm not very familiar with the SPI process. With the CU rendering no evidence either way, what's next? Will an admin review for behavioral evidence of sockpuppetry, and if so how long does it typically take for an SPI to get an admin's attention? And if behavioral evidence is present, is that sufficient to impose sanctions? Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, FYI, I've added additional accounts for CU. I did some further digging and found this may be part of a much larger pattern. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swiss3312

Hi, I added some more information to this SPI, as requested. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Zyker

You blocked this user in April as a VOA; he now says he's grown up and wants to contribute productively. So I said I would run it by you. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's fine with me. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

Blade-of-the-South

Hi, Reaper, thanks for pitching in and uncovering the sleepers. I'm surprised you noticed Drmies's edit to the archive; do you have archives watchlisted? The fussy, procedural part of me would like to remove Drmies's comment as it's pretty unusual to edit an archive (I've already mentioned this to my good friend Drmies). Besides, it's had its achieved effect. However, as usual, I'll defer to your judgment. If you think it does no harm, I/we can leave it. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed Drmies' edit via an IRC feed—I don't watchlist SPI case pages. No, editing the archive should not be done since usually nobody will ever notice. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikigabriel11

You blocked some of the accounts in this SPI, but you didn't mention this there. Did you overlook this? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I was actually responding to a request on the checkuser mailing list. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

Dpleibovitz's template editor right

Hi Reaper. I just saw that you granted Dpleibovitz the template editor right; however, I don't think that he fulfils the guidelines yet. He only has 355 edits, while the guidelines call for 1000, and he does not yet have 150 edits to the template namespace. And I don't see any protected edit requests or edits to the sandboxes of protected templates at all. Could you explain your reasoning here a little? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

As he stated in his request, he runs a Wikipedia mirror that does not clean up the HTML errors in templates. Accordingly, he fixes them on his mirror and wants to help by also fixing them on enwiki. As he mentioned, that is all he intends on doing. He's a computer science post-doc, so it isn't like he is unfamiliar with programming. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it's great that he wants to help fix the HTML errors in templates; however, we already have a mechanism that allows this, namely protected edit requests. If he spots any uncontroversial errors then he can always make an edit request, and one of the patrolling admins will fix it. On the other hand, editing highly-transcluded templates doesn't just require that editors are familiar with programming or familiar with Wikipedia template syntax. It requires that they understand the disruption to the job queue that can be caused by bad edits to such templates, and how pages messed up by such edits can be kept in Wikipedia's various caching systems for quite a while. It also requires that they understand the process of gathering consensus necessary to make edits to such templates, so that they do not unilaterally make changes that they think are beneficial, when actually those changes may not be supported by other editors. From his website, Dbleibovitz seems to be a knowledgeable and trustworthy sort of person. However, this doesn't mean that he knows the standards and etiquette for editing protected templates on Wikipedia, and this is what concerns me. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, correcting syntax errors has nothing to do with "standards" or "etiquette". And why force somebody to go through the protected edit queue when he can just do it himself? The job queue length isn't really that big of an issue unless he goes on a rampage making many, many changes to very high-profile templates with millions of transclusions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Rollback

Many thanks! I am about to test it to see exactly what is does, but I know it is for vandalism only. One question though, supposing I myself made a string of errors - do I take it that it's fine for a user to use it on himself? Cheers. The Big Hoof! (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely fine (and common) to roll your own edits back. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of indigenous peoples

Do you think Talk:List of indigenous peoples can be unprotected yet? Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I really doubt it. Given the extreme level of vandalism and sockpuppetry (I deleted over 100 highly inappropriate revisions), this may well be one of the few article and talk page combinations that is never unprotected. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The talk page was protected when the article was already protected, but the article has been unprotected for nine months now and most recent edits are by IPs. Peter James (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Od Mishehu (talk · contribs) has unprotected it already. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trueman31

Hi. This has been archived now so thought best to ask you directly. Is it still worth reporting future socks at SPI if they've already been blocked and tagged? Can it still be confirmed by checkuser that all the accounts are connected? Or is it not worth checking? –anemoneprojectors– 22:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it can be worth reporting new socks to SPI (or just on a checkuser's talk page). Checkuser can commonly uncover unblocked sockpuppets. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I find SPI a bit of a pain sometimes, so perhaps I'll ask on a checkuser's talk page next time. –anemoneprojectors–

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

T: template redirects

Hi, you participated in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 29#T:, some of which I have relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November_18#T:WPTECH. Please come along and share your thoughts .. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 15:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Attleboro

Nothing good is going to come out of this, but for the record, I just blocked Meissnitzer. Thanks Reaper, Drmies (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Testing...3...2...1....

Testing done! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Request to remove protection on article

Please remove the total page protection from Transdev York so its REDIRECT can be completed. Note: A broken redirect has been in place since January of 2013. Thanks for your help. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 21:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Apology gift of BACON

Have a Bacon Sundae!
Sorry about the mass-report on WP: AIV. Making sure users are properly warned is something I need to work on when reporting vandalism, even if it's blatantly obvious vandalism. Here's a bacon sundae to make up for my mistake. Admiral Caius (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Just please be careful in the future to not bite the newbies. A number of those edits were simple tests, which warrant a welcome and an encouragement to a sandbox, not an AIV report. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Another sock

Hello Reaper Eternal, just for the record, Wiki brah has apparently created another sock: Irish Pub Creeper (talk · contribs). Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Was soll daß heißt, "Wiki brah has apparently created another sock. . ."? Nein! Why must you hound this poor man like this? Ich heiße User:Techoquat nicht, oder? Irish Pub Creeper (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if it is just for the record as you say, then it's all good brah. It's Friday! It's Friday in Miami, time to get the hot Jewish sluts out. Happy Thanksgiving! Irish Pub Creeper (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
So there is a connection between MaxBrowne and Technoquat? I actually think you are just trolling, which is something that you, after all, excel at. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That is the point?

I want to deter that foul little fuckhead from coming back to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.73.198 (talk • contribs)

Since your purpose here is apparently only to drive off other contributors, I have blocked you from editing so that they can continue editing in peace. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

Chelsea Manning

Is extra protection needed? I see some people attempting to remove or add something that doesn't seem significant. --George Ho (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser field in SPI

Hi, I missed setting checkuser=yes in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tumbleman. Tumbleman had sleepers before, so I think checkuser would be helpful. Is there a reason why "checkuser=yes" is not the default? When there is ample evidence (as in the Philosophyfellow/Tumbleman case), why wouldn't checkuser be used? vzaak (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser is not enabled by default because many cases do not require it, or it cannot be used. If the last known sockpuppet has not edited for 90 days, checkuser data will have expired. Additionally, per the WMF privacy policy, checkusers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address. If sockpuppetry is really blatantly obvious, checkusering the case is just an unnecessary waste of time. A checkuser investigation will not be run when the no abusive behavior has has occurred. (Indeed, the SPI itself should not be filed in that case.)
In this case, I had alreday run a checkuser to look for other accounts, and I found none. This does not mean that none exist (he's proven himself to be good at hiding them), but merely that checkuser could not detect them. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

This edit says it all I think

I think we both know who this is. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

{{nc}} :P Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 GA Thanks

This user has contributed to Joseph Berrios good articles on Wikipedia.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your editorial contributions to Joseph Berrios, which recently was promoted to WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

How can you determine that a user is not a sockpuppet within mere seconds???

I made a case involving sockpuppetry against user Blurred Lines and I see that within seconds of my making the case, you deleted it. This is not the first time I have brought a case of suspected sockpuppetry to the noticeboard and you immediately dismissed it before it was later then discovered that the editor in question was in fact abusing sockpuppets. The same issue happened with user Cresix in which you declined and someone else acknowledged that he was sockpuppetting. (as shown in the case involving user Cresix here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cresix&diff=530934181&oldid=530932043). Blurred Lines has abused sockpuppets in the past and has been blocked for it and has a similar editing style to Onorem, so I will thank you not to delete my case and let someone look into the matter thoroughly. If you're not going to even look into the matter and just instantaneously delete the case, that is an abuse of the position of a checkuser. AmericanDad86 (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Blurred Lines and Onorem are obviously completely different editors. Their focuses are not the same, and neither are their editing patterns or mannerisms. Not everybody who disagrees with you is a sockpuppet.
With regards to Cresix, I declined the checkuser request because, as I wrote then, checkusers will not connect an IP address with an account per the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, you might want to take a look at this, and make a decline there. Blurred Lines 17:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I've deleted it again, this time with a warning that further unsubstantiated sockpuppet allegations could result in a block for disruption. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean to brag, but could you block him now, he's been too disruptive to be exacted on the RS noticeboard, and the article The Simpsons to prove a point in which some refs he provided are not context, and the user doesn't understand which users are trying to tell him that. Also, despising the fact that he is going against you for your position because he thinks your wrong for removing it, that's just messed up. Obviously, he never had a position like that before, and he's so quick for judgmental because you declined his request. Blurred Lines 17:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Mr. Treason

You (re-)blocked this account[1] after it was used to vote on the ongoing ArbCom Elections.[2] Are you aware that the account is owned by User:Phil Sandifer, who is banned? (see here) You may want to mail the ArbCom about it. I would do so myself, but I can't. Cheers, theFace 21:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. That is a problem. See also the block log and the early history of this page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Ehm... ok, did you understand my request? I'm not saying that Phil Sandifier = Mr. Treason. I'm saying that Mr. Sandifier created that placeholder account years ago (in 2004), to prevent others from creating it. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Sandifier (then know as Snowspinner) was the one who combated Treason the most and he gave him his name. Mr. Sandifier is banned right now (see Signpost article), but apparently he still lurks, having used the Treason account as a prank. Cheers, theFace 22:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I know Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) and the IP vandals (the "treason vandal") were different people. That was really obvious. However, Phil, after being banned, proceeded to use the Mr. Treason (talk · contribs) account to vote in ArbCom elections, something that violates the sock puppetry policy. There was nothing wrong with making that account initially. However, using it to evade a ban is problematic. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Yea fully correct. Could you e-mail ArbCom about it? They banned him. As I said above, I could mail them myself, but I don't have an email address to use right now. The only address I currently have contains my real name, which I won't use here. I thought that you could mail them because: 1) You are an established user/admin and they know you; and 2) You were the one who blocked the account in the first place. Cheers, theFace 20:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Also... I just noted that you're a checkuser. I didn't knew that. Perhaps you could do a check on Sandifer to see if he has socked more? You could also ask a developer which web number he used when he accessed the SecurePoll through User:Mr. Treason, and do a checkuser on that ip? - theFace 20:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I most definitely will not checkuser Phil Sandifer. Since I am actively trying to influence the elections (see my voter guide), it would be highly inappropriate of me to checkuser someone that involved with the editor I most strongly opposed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Except for his prank, what does Phil Sandifer have to do with the ongoing elections? Nothing, I may hope. Either way... could you please mail ArbCom? Just send them a link to this thread or something, so that they'll know he's still around. That would be all. Cheers, theFace 23:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I have already notified ArbCom about Phil Sandifer. Apart from the outing of Cla68 and now the sockpuppet vote, he hasn't done anything particularly wrong, so I don't understand the urgency. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for notifying them. Cheers, theFace 13:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Northamerica1000's template editor right

Hello again Reaper, and sorry for cutting our last conversation short. About my comment on Northamerica1000's template editor right request, my concerns were with North's level of experience with protected templates in particular, not his general template coding ability or his general trustworthiness. Guidelines #5 and #6 are referring specifically to work with protected templates, not just to general template editing. Anyway, it just so happens that we are having a discussion about this issue now at Wikipedia talk:Template editor#Re-examine granting criteria: perhaps you would be interested in participating? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Mahmoud Fayed sock

Just a quick kick at the snoring horse of this sockpuppet investigation, which was closed last week as "editor is clearly running two Wikipedia accounts to edit COI articles, but let's hope he took the opening of this investigation as a warning". I questioned the closing admin and he didn't seem to think it was a problem unless Fayed continued to use both accounts, but doesn't WP:SOCK draw a bright line on this? There is no {{uw-sock1}}: if a user is running two accounts, either they flag them as explicitly connected, or we block the sock outright as housekeeping, and leave the main account active. If there's a relevant grey area, where is this defined? --McGeddon (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah! It looks like there is in fact a dusty old {{uw-sockpuppet}}, but even that starts from "hi, we blocked your sockpuppet". --McGeddon (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 GOCE drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors November 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
The November 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review.
Sign up for the December blitz!

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


The Signpost: 04 December 2013

Borbayner

Be honest Reaper Eternal, although you blocked the Borbayner account, you didn't look at the edits for a few seconds and laugh your head off first! Everyone here is wetting their pants! It will be on Youtube in about 20 minutes, the whole thing! I'll keep you informed and send you link, after all, it stars you as chief killjoy! 188.30.201.45 (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out, Reaper Eternal. It's appreciated. If history is any guide, we'll have loud, angry Evlekis-socks for a few more days, then back to subtle sleepers. bobrayner (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Cheers for setting up the account creator facility so quickly! PatHadley (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Unblock of DonQuixote

Your unblock of DonQuixote (talk · contribs) puzzles me. He was warned against 3RR on Doctor (Doctor Who) last month, and today reverted the same editor four times in less than hour. Regardless of how many editors DonQuixote was disagreeing with, there is a way to handle content disputes, and violating 3RR is not it. Regards, — Kralizec! (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I unblocked him, not because I was validating his behavior (violating 3RR is obviously inappropriate), but because the reason for the block no longer really mattered—I blocked all the other editors as  Confirmed sock puppets of each other. As such, the edit war was effectively ended, so leaving DonQuixote blocked served no purpose. Additionally, his reverts technically fell under the third exemption to 3RR: "Reverting actions performed by...sockpuppets of banned and blocked users." Obviously, neither you nor he knew that they were socks, so your block was entirely acceptable and indeed called for at the time. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

harrassed

I have been on wiki for a grand total of 4 days and this user named Calton {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Calton} is already harrassing me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2601:2:2280:773:5461:BA2:5F71:B900 forgive me if this is not in the proper format but I am still trying to figure out who to properly post links. this is what he posted:

Get bent, you illiterate jackass. --Calton | Talk 20:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Consider yourself reported not only for the racism but for this as well. 2601:2:2280:773:5461:BA2:5F71:B900 (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Really? And who are you going to report your imaginary racism to, Mr Illiterate Troll? --Calton | Talk 20:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

this isn't the sort of welcome i expected here. This started because he referred to me as "buckwheat" 2601:2:2280:773:5461:BA2:5F71:B900 (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Check this ninny's contribution history: his only edits are to lodge a baseless complaint to my Talk page about a non-existent edit, then scream "harassment" because I told him to get lost. He's trolling: the only real question is which permanent-banned troll he is. User:Nocall100? User:TruthCrusader? User:Primetime? --Calton | Talk 05:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Calton's user page is in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines on civility. This is directly from his page:

It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that. 

   The above obviously includes the various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, and crackpots -- and their enablers -- who hang out at ED and WR. I also seem to have attracted the unwanted attention of a crackpot spamming "psychologist", an indefinitely banned (for good reason) spammer, a serial plagiarist from Colorado, an egotistical publisher of a freebie magazine, and an indefinitely banned anger-management poster child socking from the Czech Republic (and his reincarnated sock). If you're one of the those various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, crackpots, and/or their enablers, welcome! Now get lost.

He also continues to refer to people as "Buckwheat". Why isn't anything being done about this? 2601:2:2280:773:5461:BA2:5F71:B900 (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

ah, so it's TruthCrusader (talk · contribs), then. So do tell, where am doing what you claim, other than the voices inside your head? --Calton | Talk 06:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Err, no

Yeah, I know I'm a pest... however [| This wasn't baseless ] this was a report made in good faith. There was no need to delete it. YOu'll note that when the CheckUser declined to check, I took no further action on it. NO, I'm not going to rant on your page about it, just a brief note that you reason is incorrect, and no, it's not an attack either. 20:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs)

That report was utterly baseless. It consisted solely of: "One editor made stub articles of a certain genre, and when he was banned from making them, another editor has made articles of that genre, so they must be sockpuppets!" Making meritless accusations of inappropriate behavior falls under the no personal attacks policy: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." The report was most certainly not made in good faith—if you had assumed good faith, you wouldn't have presumed sock puppetry on such little basis. Please refrain from further baseless accusations of sock puppetry. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Reaper, was that all you saw ? Then you didn't read the report. I had an interaction study created by a seperate report showing editing of the exact same articles, further the behavior of both editors is plainly obvious. Sorry, that's the second time you've interfered with a check user report. I'm going to ask that you step down as a CU clerk, you plainly don't get the fact that us normal users can't access what a CU can and therefore only have behavioral evidence to go on.

No, I won't repost the report, you've removed it and as far as I'm concerned that the end of it as far as I and that particular user go.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   12:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Help

Hi Reaper, could you please help me with this sockpuppet investigaton that I made two days ago? Blurred Lines 02:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the vandals. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks

Hey RE, Saw your note at the ACE2013 talk page. Very nice things you say about me on your voter guide. Thanks. p.s. I'm a "he". --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. I do think you would probably be one of the best arbitrators if elected. For some reason, I always thought you were female. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Doctor (Doctor Who):

It appears that your services are needed again at Doctor (Doctor Who) (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch. It looks like DonQuixote (talk · contribs) is up to 5 reverts in 24 hours enforcing his preferred version of the article. Some of those he is reverting are clearly legitimate editors, however these two are no doubt socks of Drwho16 (talk · contribs):

Ronaldomessirooneymourinho (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Jbeet1076 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Regards, — Kralizec! (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure about Jbeet1076 (talk · contribs). However, Ronaldomessirooneymourinho (talk · contribs) almost certainly is a sockpuppet, and I have blocked him. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
As you have more experience in this set of articles and sock issues in them, can you comment on the unblock request at User talk:Ronaldomessirooneymourinho? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to decline the unblock requests since I made the block, but other checkusers and admins have declined the unblock request as being made by a sockpuppet. Generally, only unblock requests from the master account are considered. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

IP

Hi Reaper Eternal. An IP is impersonating you and insulting you. I suggest you to take further action. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 19:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Just report them to WP:AIV. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I personally think writing here would be better. He was already blocked long ago. JianhuiMobile talk 05:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Why is here better? Legoktm (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Writing here at least he will know. JianhuiMobile talk 15:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

Betacommand, Wikinger and Arnhem 96?

Hi, your comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacommand suggests that Arnhem 96 is a sock of Wikinger. Is this the case? Is there evidence for this? It would clarify a lot of things if it was more open just who Arnhem 96 is. Looking at past behaviour, I'm not seeing Wikinger's style in these edits.

Or are you suggesting that it's user:66.55.92.18?

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't a clue who Arnhem 96 (talk · contribs) is. He is part of a series of troll accounts who have all been blocked. The IP who began posting his rant, 66.55.92.18 (talk · contribs), is definitely Wikinger (talk · contribs). Werieth (talk · contribs) might be Betacommand (talk · contribs), but, in order for a block, I need to be almost certain that the account is indeed a sock, or innocent editors will get blocked. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:ShahWC

Hi Reaper. I've just unblocked this user per UTRS ticket #9590 - given the length of time he's been blocked, and given that at least some of his prior editing could be construed as good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia, I figured it was worth giving him another chance. If you've any major objections, please let me know. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 21:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

Odd

Don't you think this edit is odd? It's the user's second edit after creating their user page. I came across this because the user has been reported at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

(tps) This -  Confirmed. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks: blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Cold?

Best wishes
for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Advice re: rangeblocks

Hi, I've noticed that you are listed in the "admins willing to consider rangeblocks" category. If you have some spare time then please could you take a look at User_talk:Writ_Keeper#IP_at_India_Against_Corruption. I can provide more detail/diffs than are present there but if it is not feasible to implement then there'll be no point. - Sitush (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a trivial rangeblock that will only cover one person (actually one house). 2a00:2381:72d::/64 is the range. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow, and thanks. It is probably the office of the organisation. - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The full range, 2a00:2381:72d::/56, is owned by Portland Aldridge Community Academy in the United Kingdom. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, not the offices then. The person claims to be a representative of the organisation, which is based in India. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays


JianhuiMobile talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

JianhuiMobile talk 07:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

GOCE December 2013 Blitz wrap-up and January Drive invitation

December Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors

The December blitz ran from December 8–14. The theme for this blitz was articles tied in some way to religion. Seven editors knocked out 20 articles over the course of the week. Our next blitz will be in February, with a theme to be determined. Feel free to make theme suggestions at the Guild talk page!

The January 2014 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in October and November 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2013. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in October and November 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there!

Coordinator election: Voting is open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January through 30 June 2014. Voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page.

– Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The abominable Wiki troll

I believe the user "Bred from heroes" is another sleeper (I don't want to link it to notify the user). The user just became active this morning since only having one previous edit, and immediately restored edits by the old sock. The name itself (several words) and the edit summaries always using a full stop is an indication of it being a duck as well. Nymf (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The user also edited The Human League Live at the Dome (DVD), an article related to The Human League, which a sock that was blocked in November edited as well. Nymf (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
It's very  Likely, so I've blocked the account. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Re : User:Alphama

Just a note that I have went ahead and unblocked his account. Findings are logged at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jspeed1310. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Hi Reaper, thanks for your help resolving my situations that I was in before this year, and Merry Christmas! Blurred Lines 15:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Cyberpower678


—cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas 22:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


Pratyya (Hello!) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Pratyya (Hello!) 14:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheMetallican

Hi, I have opened an new investigation about the IP address which may have been used by TheMetallican. Here are the following links for evidence:

Thanks! Thewikiguru1 (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

Abusefilter-warning-minoredit

Hello Reaper Eternal. I saw your edits here. The issue of marking all edits as minor came up at the help desk here. The text of MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-minoredit may be out of date since Should we remove the Preference setting to "Mark all edits minor by default" ? indicates the preference setting was removed in late 2010, but the filter reads "If you are logged in and encounter this message frequently, you may want to disable the "Mark all edits minor by default" setting under the Editing tab in your preferences." Also, is the basis for Abusefilter-warning-minoredit Wikipedia:Vandalism#Gaming the system, whoch identifies marking bad faith edits as minor to get less scrutiny or another policy/procedure. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That message isn't used anymore since the associated filter has been deleted. The reason for the filter was to prevent accidentally marking major edits as minor, not to stop vandals. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Question

As you are online I need a favour, I created an article on Female infanticide in India, but it is currently a redirect to Female foeticide in India, a totally different subject, were do I go to get the redirect deleted so I can move the article I have in userspace? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

{{db-g6}} is your friend. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Shit, I have a friend? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!

Hello Reaper Eternal, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy 2014 from Cyberpower678


—cyberpower OnlineHappy 2014 — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—cyberpower OnlineHappy 2014 00:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!


Jianhui67 talk★contribs — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Reaper Eternal

Pratyya (Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

--Pratyya (Hello!) 14:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Precious

clue and understanding
Thank you, "just an admin", for quality articles such as Cumulus cloud, for fighting vandalism, for election thoughts with clue and understanding, for "I've got thick skin and can take it", needed for missing one of the best, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A personalized New Year greeting

Hope you have a bright 2014! Acalamari 12:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Reaper Eternal, Happy New Year! I'd also like to say that I think you're an excellent admin; definitely one of the best we have. :) Thanks for everything that you do. Acalamari 12:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of edits

Could you just explain why you called this edit as placing "irrelevant tags"? The only source is Amazon, and that is a shopping site, not a review or any RS. Also, a reference improve tag was added so that additional references may be included. If you reply here, drop me a talkback. Thank you. Ethically (Yours) 16:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it because the tags were essentially duplicates and because Amazon is sufficiently reliable for the information being cited. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Tumbleman

... is back again. Callanecc has been dealing with these socks recently, but he/she is currently away. Though the evidence for the latest sock should be sufficient, I should also mention that off-site info super-extra confirms it, which includes his admission of socking and his rationalizations for it. vzaak 17:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Merging SPIs

Hi, is there a standard method of merging two SPIs? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/8i347g8gl/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Antichristos/Archive are certainly the same person, right up to the randomly-generated names and 89.110/91.122/92.100 IPs from Russia.

I also have a question regarding off-wiki information. If a person publicly identifies his socks, can that be part of an SPI? For instance on a website the 8i347g8gl/Antichristos person above admits to the socks

which are confirmed by style and content. (This is a certifiable crazy person that tried to push anti-Semitic conspiracy theories onto Wikipedia, and I noticed there is still more of the synergetic-gravity craziness that needs to be purged from Wikipedia.) vzaak 19:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"The abominable Wiki troll" again

I came across two accounts and several IPs (all Sky Network, like the confirmed socks). They have all been restoring edits by the most recently blocked socks. I am guessing that he saw my message here, as he stopped using full stops in his edit summaries. Unfortunate.

Leaving this here rather than at WP:SPI, so maybe you can blank this afterwards. I don't want to give away any more tells. Nymf (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the socks. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

GOCE 2013 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2013 Annual Report

The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations!

Our 2013 Annual Report is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Jonesey95

Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


What was the deletion for? --Rotface (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

is this kosher?

[3] Just some random non-clerk adding stuff to an archive? if not, can you fix and then trout me? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"Non-clerk"? Dude, you're a CU now. SPI is your playground. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) You're a CU, which gives you automatic clerk privileges at SPI, and even more. --Rschen7754 00:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh. right. You have both (re)scared the hell out of me. People are giving me permissions left and right, and I have no idea how to handle them. Did you know I'm now allowed to kill your dog? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I can desysop you for it, so there! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
People are just being given tools that are over their heads all over. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Filter 564

Why did you delete the filter? Especially without mentioning it to me? It had a spate of false positives before I fixed it on Dec 22, but since then it has had only one. As you can see from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog?wpSearchUser=174.254.180.69&wpSearchFilter=&wpSearchTitle= and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog?wpSearchUser=174.236.0.93&wpSearchFilter=&wpSearchTitle= it was doing an excellent job against its intended target.—Kww(talk) 00:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reaper_Eternal/Archive_25&oldid=1168307168"