User talk:Reaper Eternal/Archive 20

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

possible impersenator
User Talk:Eeaper Rternal

looks like you have a fan

Lerd the nerd wiki defender  12:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Omg! Its not Jon Daker?! THE Jon Daker! I just read his sock page this guys had loads of sock accounts-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  13:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, John Daker is a blatant troll and serial sockpuppeteer. I've blocked him for obvious reasons. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you did it.So nevermind. Could I send you additioanl evidence?I sent some more to Tim I don't know if he shared it with you?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright. But I've already looked at every edit made by the suspected sock, and I didn't see enough to block, so I'm not too certain how much more you can tell me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Rodent detected
I saw you closed the case at Sockpuppet investigations/WWEJobber/Archive noting that it did look very suspicious. Now even more suspicious stuff has popped up. Special:Contributions/Nomelck edited twice again, supporting WWEJobber on a wrestling talk page within thirty minutes of WWEJobber's posting to the talk page. This is at the best blatant meatpuppet-ry or IP-dodging sockpuppet-ry. Starship.paint (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * umm hello? Starship.paint (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the behavioral evidence is just too strong to ignore. Following a discussion with a checkuser, I have decided to block both users indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for resolving the matter! Starship.paint (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
For reverting that massive vandalism to our BRFA. Much appreciated! Vacation nine 18:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

ACC Barnstar

 * Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset
Hi, As you amy (or may not) have spotted I have nominated List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset, which you did loads of work on ages ago, at FLC. I hope that is OK with you & if you can spot anything else which needs to be done on the article please let me know.&mdash; Rod talk 20:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's definitely fine with me. Good luck, and I'll watchlist the FLC page and try to help deal with any issues as they pop up. (I've been working on other stuff recently, like meteorology-related articles.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you help with the whitelist, please?
Hi RE. Hope you had a good holiday. Related to the CAPTCHA issue at VPP, could you please set up the initial MediaWiki:Captcha-addurl-whitelist to help with this problem? I left a message at MediaWiki talk:Captcha-addurl-whitelist with the full details. I'm coming straight to you instead of using a sudo as this is a specialized area of Wikipedia and you're an EFM and one of our foremost experts on regex that we have on the project. You've also participated in the related discussions and therefore have a background on the issues involved. Please let me know if you'd rather have somebody else do it and I'll add a sudo.

And since I'm here, I just wanted to thank you for all the hours of time you've donated to the project. I think the project is very lucky to have the few technically minded users that we do have and I appreciate all the help you've given in these areas. Thanks for the help. 64.40.54.93 (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, and thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 64.40.54.93 (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision Deletion.
Probably there is strong need of RevDel here. Please handle this. Thank you. Forgot to put name 13:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks and no problem! I've also just protected your userpage since the vandal returned with another IP. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool! I hope it will blow over soon. - a boat   that can float!   (watch me float)  13:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Another barnstar

 * You're welcome! Unfortunately, he keeps on returning with massive, unblockable ranges. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Belated Happy New Year with a Toast!


~TheGeneralUser (talk)  — 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.

A Very Happy (belated) New Year to you Reaper! Enjoy the Whisky ~TheGeneralUser  (talk)  23:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

International Christian School (Hong Kong) - Protection needed again
Hi - Back on 11 December you protected the above article following massively repeated attempts to add unsourced, peacockish content from multiple IP addresses. Well, it's happening again, from yet another IP address.

Want to do another protection please? HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Kudpung has already re-protected it. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Appreciation
Thank you for taking the extra step of RevDeleting the attacks at User talk:MadGuy7023. I made a half-hearted effort to find out how to ask someone to do just that, but didn't quite get there. Much appreciated, First Light (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation
I think you are completely off base deleting the page on Literal Linguist. If they admit sockpuppetry the other offending accounts should be checked and labeled as such for a record. It does seem that they do intend on becoming a prolific sock and it would be good to acquire the names and habits they have used thus far. WP:DENY in my opinion is a poor application in this case. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's just a troll attempting to get attention by randomly claiming other vandals and users as his socks. Please give it any attention. (Of course, if it returns with more usernames, a checkuser would be called for, but until then, it should just be ignored.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In any case, those other accounts haven't edited in over two years, so checkuser wouldn't be able to see anything. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, just wasn't sure if they had looked into the full history. No worries nice to see ya around Mr. DoRD, been a while! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Help Please
I have a question about how to request getting an account checked to see if it is connected to another account that was recently issued a ban because of disruptive and inappropriate conduct. JonnyBonesJones (talk) was banned and almost immediately after his ban, another account JadeSnake (talk) picks up exactly where the first account left off. The second account even went as far as almost immediately remoninating an article for deletion that was closed out (nominate by the first acount). It just looks way to suspicious to ignore, and I'm not the only one noticing it. Can you help explain to us how to request a check or an investigation? Willdawg111 (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (talk page luker here) You can submit a request for Checkuser at Sockpuppet_investigations. If you have obvious evidence of similarities in editing, and editing the same articles, that can sometimes be enough by itself for a block. First Light (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It worked, and they have already been able to confirm that it was a sockpuppet. Willdawg111 (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

plz help :(
plz help!! dragonfly67 has deleted a page that was really important to me :( it was for my friends birthday and I dont think she/he understands how important it is for me to get it back :( Plz somehome contact him/her and tell her that I really, really need it. I dont wanna pour all this drama on you but my friend is sick and this might just be her get well present. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomepossum20 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, see the response on User talk:DragonflySixtyseven.  Zappa O Mati  23:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you considering it?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked. As before, I don't see enough evidence to block yet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have sent you another mail.thank you--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you still not sure may I ask for 2nd opinion of another CU?Or you would consider it a forum shopping?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can ask other users' opinions. But I still don't see enough evidence to block. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx
Hi, I've provided the diffs in the page. Would you mind having another look at it? &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  05:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done so, and it appears that the new user is from a different country. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Won't there be any chances that he might have migrated to some other location. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  13:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is very, very unlikely. Furthermore, as Elockid pointed out before, he would be reverting his own sockpuppets. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He has been hardly for a month here. If you look at the edit summaries it would be very apparent. I also remember him saying that he is an NRI. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  08:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Cotten134
Tag on his userpage says he's blocked, but he isn't. Buggie111 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He is now. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sock
Hi Reaper Eternal,

The sock of HerutJeram that you blocked on 6 January came back the next day : User:Wolfgang Fontaine...

He is particularly tiring... Sorry for this.

Pluto2012 (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, would you mind semi-protecting the article so that we have at least 4 days rest between each intrusion ? Pluto2012 (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems that has already dealt with it. Sorry, I didn't notice this earlier, and now I have the flu. :( Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned you
Thought you might be interested in WP:AN. — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 00:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for letting me know. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikihounding by possible sock
I was indirectly referred to you by User:Coren, because I have an issue with which I need some assistance. I believe I am being wikihounded by a sock, and I have dozens of diffs to provide. My questions here are, 1) are you willing to help, and 2) should I post these diffs on-wiki (your talk I presume) or would you prefer I e-mailed them to you privately so as to not tip-off the sockmaster/troll? Thanks for your time. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  01:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've got the flu right now, so I'm not the best person to go to. :( Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry to hear that. Please let me know when you feel better. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Attack pages at AfC
FYI: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2013 6. You got to some of these before I did, but I have earlier zapped a good many others like this that SuperMarioMan tagged, and tonight's crop made me think something shold be done. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Last report
I added another report here after your last reply! --Tito Dutta (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked by another admin! --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, no problems then! Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
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) 13:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter
Hey all; another newsletter.


 * If you're not already aware, a Request for Comment on the future of the Article Feedback Tool on the English-language Wikipedia is open; any and all comments, regardless of opinion and perspective, are welcome.
 * Our final round of hand-coding is complete, and the results can be found here; thanks to everyone who took part!
 * We've made test deployments to the German and French-language projects; if you are aware of any other projects that might like to test out or use the tool, please let me know :).
 * Developers continue to work on the upgraded version of the feedback page that was discussed during our last office hours session, with a prototype ready for you to play around with in a few weeks.

That's all for now! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblock request
Hello Reaper; on Sockpuppet_investigations/121.54.54.37 you stated that you rangeblocked 121.54.54.32/27. I am not sure what that means, and can't tell if it means that most of these wacky IPs will be blocked? Thankful for clarification, yours,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Basically, it means I blocked a group of related IP addresses with one block. Hopefully, this will mean he cannot evade the block anymore. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hahc21
What's up there? Automatic Strikeout ( T  •  C ) 20:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * User request. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment
Hey - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

from sensei2004
I received a similar message from User:smallguy and answered on his page. Thank you for your message but I protest against the actions of the editors of the entry Leonard Oprea trying all they can to prevent the production of an accurate article and involving me un-neccesarily in an investigation just because I want to set things right.Sensei2004 (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

WWEJobber
I'm a little bit confused on a block you made. On 27 December, on Sockpuppet investigations/WWEJobber/Archive, you say that you are not going to block the accounts because CU showed WWEJobber and Nomelck to be Unrelated. However, on 3 January, you did indef both accounts. Did the couple of edits by Nomelck in that time period change your mind? Are you now thinking that it's the same person on two different computers, or that it's meat puppetry? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on the evidence provided, I would definitely have blocked if a checkuser had not initially said ❌. However, because a geolocation of Nomelck's and WWEJobber's IPs revealed that both were in the same area, and hence it was that they were the same, I blocked them. It looks like he was attempting to bypass the checkuser tool by not using the same computer on both accounts. (Checkuser is very easy to avoid if you know what you're doing.) Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info; I'll pass it on. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Appeal to an Eguor
Reaper, you may be one of my last stops on the Wiki train, because I'm not enjoying the ride, as it were. I'm going to be brief, because I don't want to waste you time or mine. I see that you been hiding offensive posts on talk pages, such as the Germans and List of indigenous peoples pages. The most recent user turned out to be a sockpuppet, and I have dealt with at least one other user User_talk:Dixy_flyer that was the same. The crux of the issue at hand is that I feel I've been dealt an unjust topic ban, and when I have tried to have the scope of that ban clarified, I get a non-answer, or warnings about "Wikilawyering". I've recently received harassing comments on my Talk page, and am about to file an AN/I in an attempt to clear these issues up. Pertinent references are:

User_talk:Ubikwit

User_talk:KillerChihuahua

User_talk:FiachraByrne

User_talk:Deskana

User_talk:Deskana



Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive780

Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive780

I've tried to list those in an order that would facilitate an understanding of my concerns, and would imagine that those refs are more than enough, though there are more.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's taking me a bit to read through all this&mdash;I'll get back soon. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm rather preoccupied with pressing real life affairs presently, so please take take your time.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, sorry for the late reply, but I've been rather busy! Basically, there is little advice I can offer you other than what others already have. You did edit in a disruptive manner on Arab-Israeli conflict articles and thus were topic-banned. My recommendations to you, based on what I saw are as follows:
 * Take the talkpages of Evildoer, Moxy, and anybody else who gets under your skin off your watchlist.
 * Find another topic to contribute to without edit warring or disruptively editing. (And by another topic, I mean one that is entirely unrelated to Israel, Palestine, or even the whole Middle East.)
 * If you show that you can contribute collegially, you could possibly appeal your topic ban in a year. Personally, I'd recommend just staying away, but that is your decision to make.
 * I hope this helps. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree that I've edited in a disruptive manner, which is basically the basis of my gripe.
 * I am of the opinion that there is something of a cabal of pro-Israel editors and administrators, perhaps a number o Freemasons among them. I find that to be a rather offensive and obnoxious scenario, frankly.
 * Perhaps you care to point to edits I made that you judged to be disruptive, considering that you have read through the material?--Ubikwit (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I gather that edit warring is disruptive, so you can ignore that. I suppose my position boils down to a complaint against what I perceive to be a group of reactionary editors with a type of covert pro-religion agenda that are opposed to edits that expose the pernicious use of religion at different points in history by certain groups. Cheers.--Ubikwit (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Looks like Reaper Eternal is blocking users with little evidence and expecting people to clean up the rest after him again."
I don't know the background that led to the above comment being made, but I do think that the block of was a bad block. Yes, it's clear that it's not a new user, but that's not against the rules. Your assertion that the username is inappropriate is, frankly, bullshit and "hail masem" does not justify a "G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP" deletion. Yes, the user was being a goof, but I think that there is a difference between a goof and a troll, and I think that you overreacted in the block itself, especially since you made no effort to engage the user beforehand.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  17:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't "hail masem", it was "heil masem". Given the obvious Hitler parallel, I'd think that's a plausible G10. Not incontrovertibly so, I guess, but enough to fall within admin discretion.  And I dunno, kinda looks like a troll to me. I mean, this? Really?  But, you're right in that the FP comments look fine (though I don't know anything about FP)... *shrug* Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's only a borderline case, going straight for an infef without making any attempt to speak to the person seems overboard.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  18:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really consider it a borderline case myself, I think it definitely is a G10. It's just that I guess I could see how some others would disagree. But more importantly, it's not just that; that plus the Al-Qaeda flag in the Wikicup application, plus the weird username (not policy-breaking in and of itself, but still weird, and suggestive that it's not as who should say a serious account), plus the obviousness that it's an alternate account, plus the interest in subjects like "Butt plug" and "File:Poolside anterior view of mons pubis.jpg" all add up to a not-unreasonable conclusion that it's a troll. Again, I can see how others would disagree, especially given the unproblematic edits, but I think it's a reasonable enough conclusion to draw, and thus it's not an objectively "bad" block. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What I meant by 'borderline' was that it's a borderline case as to whether or not he's causing any harm. By not speaking to the user at all, we have no way of knowing if the person stands any chance of being productive or not.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  21:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The account is almost certainly a sock, and I'm waiting for a second opinion so I can wrap up my investigation. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'm posting the evidence below for everybody to see.

I initially noticed, who had a disruptive username. His first action within 60 seconds of creating his account was to create a userpage consisting solely of "heil masem", an attack on. Since his later edits, including signing up for the WikiCup with the al-Qaeda flag, demonstrated that he was here to troll, I blocked him indefinitely. Enter, who, within two minutes of creating his account, is able to perform an intricate template time update on a nomination by. Note the interest in Featured pictures shared by all three accounts. Nick then posts to Masem's talkpage, linking this vandalized version of Sockpuppet investigations/Wagner and identifying Pirated as a sock of Wagner. In that vandalized revision, note that the vandalism included references to Montenegro, "heil masem" texts, and explicit pictures. Pirated, after being reverted for attempting to use the al-Qaeda flag, requested to use the Podgorica flag. Podgorica is the capital of Montenegro. At this point, H.W.C. complained that I am "blocking users with little evidence and expecting people to clean up the rest after him again" (emphasis mine). Note the use of "again", when I have never interacted with him under that account before.

Additionally, note that H.W.C. created his account and immediately started making featured picture nominations centering around video games. Wagner has occasionally talked about being a video gamer to his own socks. Additionally, H.W.C. signed up for the WikiCup with a Montenegro flag, which he later changed to the Podgorica flag. He clones 's userbox and adds another of Mason's userboxes to his userpage. Mason Doering is a known sock of Wagner.

Nick's modifications to the template were on a nomination created by H.W.C. On, H.W.C. showed up in twenty minutes to comment on Pirated's nomination. H.W.C., Mason Doering, and Pirated use similar edit summary styles.

Finally, checkuser identified that H.W.C. also had the account. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, my apologies.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  01:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's alright. It can be highly frustrating when you see someone blocked and don't have all the evidence. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk:IMPraveen
Hello. Would you be so kind as to block that account per user request? For transparency, I recommended it at IRC. I know it's not a username vio like the others, but he's made a clean break as and is doing well. Best if he's not tempted to use it. Plus, I'm keeping an eye on him, and would also prefer not to have another account he might decide to use and slip back into old ways. Many thanks if you can help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked that account per his request. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly. I'll do my best to get him addicted to editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Pirated windows 7 install disc
This user, whom you username-blocked and whose unblock request I refused, appears contrite and has applied for username change. I would be inclined to grant this except for the sockpuppetry allegation. Would you care to give some input here, please?--<b style="color:red;">Anthony Bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 19:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. You might want to take a look at Sockpuppet investigations/Wagner and the evidence noted a couple sections up, especially the part how Pirated created his userpage linking to Hitler within 60 seconds of creating an account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops. I had not realised that he was Wagner (I failed to see an identification in th sock puppet accusation). Obviously he should stay blocked. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony Bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 11:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of rollback rights of the user who you blocked,
Will you remove this user's rollback rights due to abusive use of one or more accounts?  Eye snore  (pending changes) 01:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no point in kicking him while he's down. There wasn't any abuse of rollback. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Request
Could you please remove the reviewer and rollbacker flags from my account? I do not foresee needing those permissions in the near future. Thanks! -- No unique  names  05:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 06:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal at WP:SPI
Reaper,

You removed my request for a sockpupet investigation  | (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unkown User) from SPI. I disagree with this removal, but yes, I saw your reason. CU's don't reveal who's behind a username or an IP. The IP in this case was a generic AT&T IP, not connected to an individual, so there would be no way to identify that individual except to a check user and the check user wouldn't reveal that information anyway. More importantly, your allegation, that it would reveal an individual wasn't proven, and actually couldn't and wouldn't be done by a CheckUser. Therefore, this person would never be revealed by name and thus no real world reprisal. Yes, I understand that it would be pretty crappy on Wikipedia's part to do anything that would cause someone harassment in real life, and I understand wanting to err to the side of caution, however, there's no proof anything like that would happen, we have only their word on it, and again, to repeat myself, a check user wouldn't reveal their name anyway, nor any identifying information about them, so it's a moot point. I would ask you in light of that to re-consider your revert. <font style="color:blue;background:white"> KoshVorlon .<font style="color:white;background:blue;"> We are all Kosh ... 17:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You requested checkuser to tie together accounts that apparently have been used to evade government retaliation. The master account(s) are, according to them (him?), registered under their real names. Given the topic matter that was covered, it is quite possible that the Chinese government would retaliate, and, given their human rights abuses, potentially imprison or even kill the contributor. Accordingly, this investigation will absolutely not be conducted in a public forum, and the case page has now been suppressed. "Yes, I understand that it would be pretty crappy on Wikipedia's part to do anything that would cause someone harassment in real life...." I don't think you fully understand: This is not a game&mdash;this is real life! Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I requested a CU because it appears someone's using multiple ID's.

1 id made 1 post on a Chinese American living in the USA ID #2 made posts about Sherif Joe Arpiao and stated they were afraid of retribution from him. ID #3 made posts about Sherif Joe Aripiao. Do you know for a fact this is going to be retribution to the user at this point ? You have only their word on it, and that's like saying " It wasn'nt me socking , it's my brother." all due respect let's let the CU's. make that determination if the CU's believe that that information needs to be supressed, then by all means that's their call to make not yours. Neither you nor I have the tools to make that decision. once again I stress that the check users will not make any information about that user or users  public, so nobody else other than the check user will know who it really is.your reasoning would be spot on IF a check user was already run and it was determined is this individual really had that threat of retaliation .Right now neither I nor you know that  so please don't  censor  the check use report. <font style="color:blue;background:white"> KoshVorlon .<font style="color:white;background:blue;"> We are all Kosh ... 18:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Kosh, it's been oversighted. It's not going to happen. Anyway, do you really want to run the risk of bringing real-life harm on a real-life human being, just because they may have used a few different user IDs on a website? I think you might need to take a look at your priorities... Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "I requested a CU because it appears someone's using multiple ID's." Fine, I already knew that. "1 id made 1 post on a Chinese American living in the USA[.] ID #2 made posts about Sherif Joe Arpiao and stated they were afraid of retribution from him. ID #3 made posts about Sherif Joe Aripiao." I never denied that there may be sockpuppetry, although your evidence was rather flimsy. I told you to email ArbCom with your evidence due to the apparent risk of real-life retaliation from either the Chinese government or from Joe. "Do you know for a fact this is going to be retribution to the user at this point ? You have only their word on it, and that's like saying ' It wasn'nt me socking, it's my brother.'" No, I don't know, but the potential might exist. And are you really willing to risk another person just because he or she might have violated some policy on a website? Please get your priorities straight. "your reasoning would be spot on IF a check user was already run and it was determined is this individual really had that threat of retaliation .Right now neither I nor you know that so please don't censor  the check use report." The information will not be restored for the reasons mentioned above. I will not put another human being at risk of retaliation over a website. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Reaper no reason to get so defensive you and I are just talking at this point you know you no doubt have seen that I haven't put the check user request back.  you answered my questions thank you I appreciate that you are apparently suppressing  the information because they said so. I'm sorry if you believe my check user request  is flmsy but quite honestly your decision to suppress as far as I'm concerned is even flimsier . This person is claiming threats of retaliation from 2 different people in 2 different countries I'm sorry but that pushes  agf to the max.

just so you're clear I will drop this matter completely and will not reposed this request back as a check user request Nor will I take it up with Arbcom <font style="color:blue;background:white"> KoshVorlon .<font style="color:white;background:blue;"> We are all Kosh ... 00:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

HellboyDisney1
Hi Reaper. FYI, I've just indeffed who was quacking in the manner of. See also the edit summary at his userpage ("hello again"). Since you've been dealing with the SPI I thought I'd leave you a note. De728631 (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

ACC
Do you think I can be given the flag. I've been running into the barrier quite a few times today including the limit restriction.— cyberpower <sub style="color:red;font-family:arnprior">Offline <sup style="margin-left:-6.6ex;color:red;font-family:arnprior">Be my Valentine 05:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
I appreciate the pre-emptive protection of my user space. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm triggering an edit filter
Hi RE. I was hoping you could help me. I've been triggering an edit filter lately, but don't know which one. I checked my filter log and it thinks I'm a spambot, but it doesn't say which filter I triggered. I was going to look at the filter to see if I could figure out what was going on but I don't know what filter it is. Can you help please? Thanks very much. 64.40.54.103 (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add that it first started happening in December when I tried to edit WP:AN. Here's the link for that one. Thanks again. 64.40.54.103 (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be Special:AbuseFilter/271 or Special:AbuseFilter/499, which are both private so I can't see them. Can you tell me what I'm doing wrong or possibly tweek the filter? If not, I can report it to WP:FALSEPOS. Thanks for the help. 64.40.54.103 (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * . Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahh, it was 271. Thanks very much. Thanks also for the watch list sudo. I appreciate all your help. You're a great benefit to the project. You're always quietly working away, fixing things. You know, there are a handful of Wikipedians that are critical to the smooth operation of the project and I expect your at the top of that list. You work in the most technically demanding areas and always find a solution. We are very lucky to have your help and I thank you very kindly for all your efforts. Best regards. 64.40.54.59 (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

New Article Feedback version available for testing
Hey all.

As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).

A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

User:174.92.226.201
Just wondering: How were you able to tell that this user was a long term abuser with a static IP? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * By looking up the IP records, I was able to find that this is a staticly-assigned IP, and with this edit, he not-very-subtlety identifies himself as the GNAA troll Zalgo. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

John Lundstram article
Please restore the John Lundstram article. He is now eligible for an article as he has played an official club game. TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

JtV
Thanks for your help! So, if I'm reading this right, JtV lost *six* well-established "good hand" accounts because he couldn't restrain himself from pulling the same stupid and easily detectable vandalism against, among other things, administrators who haven't been active for years? All I can say is [http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Ha_Ha! this]. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh. You're welcome. :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Is revdel needed
here? Also is removing the edit summary required. I am bringing this to you as the ip was blocked by you. Thanks! Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 01:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
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) 07:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!
<div style="border: 2px solid #484898; background: #FFF; background-color:#98FB98; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; font-size: 90%"> WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out! Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Sorry for the bad revert! — <font color=#088A08>nerd</font color=#088A08><font color=#0489B1>fighter</font color=#0489B1> 18:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit filter disabled
Hey Reaper. You recently [|disabled filter 525]. A day after it was disabled, some vandalism resumed that the edit filter would have stopped, and someone let me know about it on my talk page. When you get a chance, pop over to my talk page and join the conversation on the subject, and let's see if we can find a way to re-enable that filter, and perhaps make it less of a resource hog, and have less false positives. The alternative is range-blocking 163k IP's. Thanks. <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#772277;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#777777;">| spill the beans _ 00:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEAT Proxy Editing
It is considered meat puppetry proxy editing to recruit others to post material that the person is prohibited from doing. is blocked from editing his talk page. He recruited another user to post his words on that talk page. That is an meatpuppet edit by proxy. Admins shouldn't be assisting meatpuppets proxy editors that are being used to circumscribe talk page blocks. If you think cla68 should be able to edit his talk page and post his own words, unblock his talk page and he can add it himself. I suspect you will realize what would happen if you circumscribed arbcoms block that included the talk page. Enabling meat puppetry proxy edits is the same thing. Arbcom can add that material to his talk page if they believe it is not disruptive. cla68 can request ArbCom to add it. As it stands, it only prolongs the drama if you help blocked users circumscribe the block (i.e. his block from editing his talk page). I suggest you revert your edit and refer it to ArbCom for inclusion. --DHeyward (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I won't self-revert. Instead, you should re-read WP:SOCK and tell me exactly what part of that policy I am violating. Furthermore, in contrast to your rather unsubtle insinuations, I rather doubt that I and Kablammo would qualify as meatpuppets considering that we have over 75,000 edits between us. Additionally, I contest that we were recruited to Wikipedia solely to support Cla68, given that we have been here for years prior to this incident. You don't even know whether I disagree with Cla68's block&mdash;I don't. Posting content at the request of a blocked user is indeed allowed; however, the poster needs to ensure that what he is posting is following all applicable policies. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I pointed you to WP:MEAT. Here is the policy in the sock block section.  There is no reason to haggle over whether meatpuppets are established or new editors.  It is policy not to allow other editors to post material of blocked editors.  I reverted that per policy.  You undid that revert with no policy explanation.  Please self-revert as your action is outside of policy. --DHeyward (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.
 * That was a rather disingenuous change to the wording. (I hope it was accidental.) If you look at WP:BAN you will see that it actually says: "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor" (emphasis mine). Cla68 is not banned in the first place. Furthermore, as I have mentioned before, there is nothing wrong with said edit. If he had requested the removal of a BLP violation, would you restore it because he is proxy editing? From the next paragraph: "sock puppetry policy defines "meatpuppetry" as the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia...." Again, the emphasis is mine, but it does indicate that experienced editors are not meatpuppets. Therefore, I will not self-revert. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently you didn't click the link or go read section 2.6 of the Blocking policy (emphasis mine). No words were changed and it applies to blocks, not bans.  WP::BAN does not apply here as you said so I don't know why you would be referring to that.  Click the link I provided and you will see the exact quote in the blocking policy that prohibits proxy edits.  --DHeyward (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh. It seems NE Ent copied WP:BAN over to WP:BLOCK less than a month ago. Accordingly, I've stricken my first objection. However, the very first sentence of that section still states: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a block." Cla68 is not evading his block. Furthermore, as Kablammo mentions below and I have mentioned above, the posting in and of itself does not violate policy. Indeed, it is helpful in that it explains that Cla68 will not return while Kevin is desysopped. Finally, WP:IAR applies when policy wonkery occurs. Is anybody harmed by the posting? No. Does it out anyone? No. So no, I will not revert. If you have an issue with this, take it to WP:ANI or WP:ARBCOM; however, by so doing, you will generate far more drama than the posting currently does. Indeed, you have created more drama here than the posting incited on Cla68'd talk page. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't policy wonkery. cla is blocked.  His statements can be removed by any editor per policy and it is clear that the statement posted is by proxy (i.e. "Will someone post this for me because I am blocked" is an edit by proxy).  You reverted that removal even though policy explicitly allows that removal and your justification for defying policy is to say IAR.  His statement about conditions for his return is only fueling drama and has no intrinsic value as it has no bearing on whether he should/shouldn't be blocked.  Since you haven't cited a policy reason for my in-policy removal, I presume you will have no issue if I remove it per section 2.6 of the blocking policy.  Unblock his talk page and he can post anything he wants and he won't need proxies.  --DHeyward (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal, thank you for notifying me about this discussion.

I posted Cla's comments after a public appeal was made by him at Wikipediocracy. I was not directed or recruited to do so. Neither the content of the post nor the act of posting violated any Wikipedia policy, including those discussed above.

Kablammo (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please show how they are verifiable or productive and your reason outside of cla's request that you do so. He already sent them to arbcom according to the title.  There is a reason he is blocked from editing his talk page and posting for him evades that block.  ArbCom members can post that material (since they have it) if they believe it is productive.  Otherwise that talk page is just a dramafest. --DHeyward (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No. There was nothing against policy in my post, just as the prior postings of excerpts of e-mails from Cla (posts acknowledged by NewYorkBrad) did not violate any policy. But I will not engage further here.  If you want an argument, look elsewhere. Kablammo (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you haven't addressed the policy aspects of proxy editing and policy says 3RR doesn't apply, I presume you won't mind if I remove that material per the blocking policy. --DHeyward (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that I've clarified the 3RR exemption as referring to edits made in violation of the block. You aren't reverting blocked editors&mdash;you're reverting two perfectly good-faith editors who posted the content of their own free will. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, why are you interested in removing that post since the text in and of itself does not violate any policy? If it's doing no harm, just leave it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your changes to policy were reverted almost as fast as you made them. You have no consensus to change policy like that and you seem to be backpedaling heavily as you were not aware of the policy.  Your belief that it is causing no harm is subjective.  I believe that proxy edits like that only stir the drama pot and are not useful or helpful in the discussion.  I do not wish to stir it so I have not reverted you even once and took it to your talk page (though it is clear that your edit to policy implies that you believe I would be within current policy for doing so - whence the need for a change).   The burden is not on me to prove the posts are harmful, rather, it is on the editors that post material from a blocked editor to explain how they are meaningful and independent of the blocked editor.  --DHeyward (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And Victor Yus has re-clarified WP:BLOCK in a better way than I originally did. The policy was never meant to imply that you could revert all edits from someone just because he was blocked. It was intended to apply to block evasion.
 * As I have linked before, IAR is the policy to apply here. Reverting the post and removing Cla68's message simply serves to silence Cla68 as one of "teh evul" editors. If Cla68 wants, I will post more messages from him to his talk page, assuming they are all within the bounds of policy and subject to my discretion. (For example, I would refuse any trolling, outing, disruptive, or otherwise unhelpful or unnecessary posts.) If you are really concerned about a blocked user making posts, consider such posts as authored by myself or whoever he chooses to post them. If you wish to prevent such an action on my part, take me to WP:ANI or WP:ARBCOM. But first ask yourself: Why does Cla68 need to be kept completely silent? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the post is helpful because it lets ArbCom know not to worry about unblocking him if they choose to keep Kevin desysopped. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)