Jump to content

User talk:Reaper Eternal/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Please give confirmed user right to my bot

Can you please grant the confirmed user right to User:IPLRecordsUpdateBot? It is currently approved for trial and its edits involve changing some external links (not adding new ones, not changing legitimate links to spam links, and not changing the host name part of the URL to an entirely different site). I cannot use the bot as I am prompted for a CAPTCHA and the confirmed flag is the only way to skip this.

Note that the four edits already done are actually from me - since I am not an admin who can edit anyone's CSS and JS pages, I had to log in to the bot account to post some of its source code. Thanks. jfd34 (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Are there any bots which automatically deny/remove requests on WP:PERM and subpages just because they are posted by a different user than the one mentioned in the request? jfd34 (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I doubt it. If one did, it'd be KingpinBot (talk · contribs) or AnomieBOT (talk · contribs). Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

RevDel

Can you look at a few of these and make some changes? [[1]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed a few of the more disruptive edit summaries since they were being used as a forum for vandalism and trolling. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
ty sir Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Europefan at it again?

I'm tapping you as an admin who had some experience with this "case". Maybe I'm wrong. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/91.66.10.135 if you feel like it, and see what you think? I'm not sure I want to make a call on my own here. The sad thing is, I don't really have a problem with the edits themselves, but if this is the same guy circumventing his block for the umpteenth time, well.... - Vianello (Talk) 00:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's him again. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I didn't wanna go jumping the gun. - Vianello (Talk) 18:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ghermanovirtual2012

Thanks for cleaning up my mess. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've blocked the sockpuppets too. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Triple-talkpage-tagging

There are now three block notices at User talk:Mangoeater1000: The original from X! and DoRD, and now one from Rschen and one from you. Is there a reason for this? (Likewise, is there a reason for the restoration of talkpage access? I can link you to some of his nastier personal attacks if you'd like.) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That was accidental. I've revoked talkpage access again. Looking in his block log, I can see five indefinite blocks for sockpuppetry now due, in part, to script errors by those of us forgetting that he is already indefinitely blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Ahh. I thought as much. Thanks. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

All night sleeper

Hi Reaper, re your block of All night sleeper: please have a look at this. Looks like user continues in logged out mode. Thanks and cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

See also Jupitus Jupiter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). - DVdm (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, both are him, along with Yellowman Phd (talk · contribs) and The fundament of allan (talk · contribs). Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick note about the related IP block you just changed. You have now disabled the autoblock and enabled editing by other sock accounts on the same IP. This is usually something to be avoided. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Huh. I didn't realize blocking the IP deleted the autoblocks. In any event, I've now hardblocked the IP for 12 hours. It's an H3GUK mobile IP, so he could rotate it very rapidly. :\ Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a possibility but I will now do some constructive edits on some of my subjects of interest. I fully admit to being a banned user of 5 years, just ask jpgordon; he knows all about it. First it was Rab Allan, then HughieandHagred, then Tawt, now Oakey Zass. Continue your hard work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopping all over (talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Another series of constructive edits on some of their subjects of interest: 92.40.253.184 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - DVdm (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Nangparbat

This IP is User:Nangparbat Can you block it for 24hrs please. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, RE you're not the first one to block the IP as a sock, see this. Would you like to extend the block? I ask this because regardless of whether he indeed is a sock or not his edits don't conform with Wikipedia policies. Well, if he is a sock of a banned user then that's all the more reason to block for a longer period of time. And this wouldn't be the first time he attempted to use IPs to resume POV wars and vandalism (click me). Anyways, I will defer to your discretion in the end. Thank you. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice reason (no offense)

I see you've blocked User:Clearlynotatroll and gave the reason "vandal and troll" written backwards and reverse. Nice one! 19:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinity to the power of infinity (talk • contribs)

Sometimes, the ducks like you and he seem to quack very loudly.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Do you think you could delete some of the disruptive revisions from User:Tyleristhedevil and User:GOLFWANGFREEEARL666 in the history page of Template:Doctor Who, as well the ones from User:RAP VICTIM and User:Seluraang in Template:Doctor-who? Those revisions are page breaking revisions that have a black background and large text, so they appear to fit under the RD3 criteria. Thanks. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for letting me know. Please let me know if any more accounts appear so they can be checkusered. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

WIll you look in to this?

I think we have a 3rr violation via logging out and doing the IP thing. [[2]] I believe is [[3]] and is by my count at 5 reversions. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've given him and his IP an only warning. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me - I have not logged out of my account at any point today and have no made a single edit which was not under my own name. Exactly what evidence do you have that I have? Seriously, is this how Wikipedia is run nowadays - editors post whatever accusations they fancy, based entirely on what - their intuition, and admins come along and (without checking) issue warnings as though they were the police? Two minutes on Google would have show that that IP is based in West Sussex it seems (http://iplocation.truevue.org/81.101.253.171.html), my IP, if you check, is based just outside Edinburgh in Scotland. I presume, infact, that Wikipedia logs IP addresses and so you can in fact compare the two - since my PC is sitting behind a large corporate firewall and the other one most certainly is not, I would appreciate you removing your misplaced warning. I have tried at all times to remain polite and courteous in the face of provocation, probably canvassing and possibly malicious editing but this is getting beyond a joke. StuartDouglas (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Further, easily obtained evidence: the IP of the other editor: https://dns.l4x.org/81.101.253.171. My IP: https://dns.l4x.org/80.238.1.134 StuartDouglas (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the user who updated that, and I can confirm I'm not StuartDouglas. I've got an account, couldn't remember the username, asked for a password reset, didn't get a message. -- Cliff Storm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.253.171 (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Potential superpowers

Small issue with your locking out the talk page here mate, there is a non sock IP who has been taking part in the discussions there as well as the socky ones. I am guessing the IP will post either here or my talk page (it has posted there before). Should I encourage it to create an account so it can now post there? And if it does create an account will you auto confirm it so it can continue with the discussion? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

Question

Remember the IP that was removing anything protest related from Bahrain Grand Prix Articles? He returned today after the article semi-protection was over, and when it was re semi-protected (and IPs blocked), now he's using an account. Pork-muncher‎ was created on 2 May, and before blanking xhe had made exactly 10 edits. I'm afraid this person might have made several other accounts as well and will resort to use them once this one is blocked. So my question is, what should I do in this case? Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Mail!

Hello, Reaper Eternal. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

MSJapan (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Protection 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 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) 13:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

Re accusations of trolling

Right, regarding my contention that you were trolling (with the Wikipediocracy DYK nom), which for the time being I stand by, and which you responded to. It kind of got bypassed by other stuff before I notice it, and anyway I wanted to respond more privately, so here I am.

I have no idea who you are. I do know two, and only two things about you:

  1. You prominently display the legend "Make articles, not drama" on your user page.
  2. You did one of the most drama-inducing things possible: nominate that article for special presentation on the English Wikipedia Main Page.

Well what did you think would happen? What the heck am I supposed to make of these two things? How do you think people are going to respond to that?

You're entitled to quietly scribe away on articles about moths or whatever, or to do contentious things when you think that useful or fun. Or, like me and many editors, both. Just, you know, if you proclaim one and do the other, people are going to wonder what's going on.

This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know.

This sort of thing induces an unpleasing dissonance in my mind. Like the userbox to the left, which I've generally found on the pages of editors who are A) kind of troublesome or difficult in some way, and B) utterly uninterested in conversations implying anything they do could ever be imperfect. Which is human nature, but then why display that userbox. What is really going on in those people's heads, one has to wonder.

I don't mind trolling, and I don't (necessarily) mean it as insult, and certainly not in this case. By "trolling" I don't mean just being stupidly annoying or anything like that. I like a good troll; as a matter of fact, according to this essay which I just read, the admirable Benjamin Franklin was a troll, and a good one. Fine sarcasm like A Modest Proposal could be considered trolling (not by me; it's too obvious, though in the same general ballpark).

I also believe that because one does not know or think that one is trolling doesn't mean that one isn't, and in fact in my experience the best trolls are a bit unsure themselves. Look at Franklin as Hitchens describes him -- was he serious or kidding when he wrote some of the passages in Poor Richard's Almanac? He probably didn't know himself. Maybe some of both. And that's OK.

I don't know what's in your mind and can't, but like everyone you probably have complicated motives for doing stuff. So I wasn't accusing you of being nefarious or anything. Still, if it was trolling, that matters. I'd say this: if your intent really was purely anodyne and you're actually surprised and puzzled that drama resulted, I'm a little disappointed, because that indicates a sort of lack of insight.

Or maybe you're not familiar with Wikipediocracy. I'm not super high on them since they suggested doxing me so that I and my family could be personally destroyed (for being a pedophile; actually I've worked diligently for years here against pedophiles, but the folks there are not too up on subtle on distinctions like that). They do that sort of thing a lot. Some folks don't much care for it. (They also do useful things, but then Primo de Rivera improved the ports, and so what.) Anyway, if that's the case, it's kind of a contentious subject and you stumbled into a hornets nest, which is too bad. Hopefully now that you know more I suppose you may regret the nom. Anyway, that partly explains the general response to featuring that particular article on the main page, I hope.

No hard feelings, I hope. Clearly you've done enormous amounts of really important work around here and I salute that, and hopefully your editnotice assertion that you've got a thick skin is operative; carry on. Herostratus (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"You did one of the most drama-inducing things possible: nominate that article for special presentation on the English Wikipedia Main Page." Nope. That did not generate the drama. I'm not going to just repeat what I said in defence of myself on Template:Did you know nominations/Wikipediocracy, but I will say this: You made the drama. Allow me to summarize the events:
  1. 19 May 2013: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) starts the article.
  2. 19 May 2013: Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk · contribs) greatly expands the article.
  3. 19 May 2013: Nominated for AFD as non-notable.
  4. 20 May 2013: AFD speedily closed as keep per meeting the notability guidelines.
  5. 21 May 2013: I nominate it for DYK as a new article.
  6. 21 May 2013: Titodutta (talk · contribs) reviews and passes the article.
  7. 21 May 2013: Prioryman (talk · contribs) comments on the hooks, giving grudging support (?) to one. Very little unnecessary drama has been introduced by any of the supporters or opposers of Wikipediocracy at this point.
  8. 23 May 2013: You attempt to close down the nomination and stonewall it with an RFC, generating a firestorm of controversy. Notice when the major drama occurred? (If you're wondering why I've stopped assuming any good faith on your part, it's because your massive screed above solely serves to accuse me of being a bad-faith internet troll. Trolls don't assume good faith!)
Finally, even though you don't like Wikipediocracy (for that matter, I strongly dislike a couple of their members, and I've blocked a couple socks), you don't get to shove it under the rug on Wikipedia. One of our pillars is a neutral point of view, and, if you cannot contribute with a neutral mindset, I must request that you leave the article alone. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, I hear you. "Nope. That [nominating the article Wikipediocracy to be featured on the main page] did not generate the drama." So OK, you didn't expect a response different than nominating (say) Parliamentary Franchise in the United Kingdom 1885–1918 to be featured on the main page. Well what happened must have been a rude shock. In that case, your expectations of how your colleagues might take this sort of thing shows a certain naïveté, I think. Not sure which is worse, that you did anticipate the possibility of heated discussion, or didn't. Not a good nom either way.
Hey, I didn't start the drama, I noticed it and tried to do something about it; Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Nomination of Wikipediocracy already existed and was well-populated before I came along. But, unlike an article talk page discussion, all that wouldn't come to nothing if the DYK process just sailed along. That's why I made an RfC.
I (think I) see where you're coming from with the "stonewalling" thing: I'm not too up on DYK process details, but I guess that DYK noms are time-sensitive: if they don't move through the process in a timely manner, they expire and then they can't be accepted and published; thus creating an RfC (which usually lasts a month or longer I think) would achieve a fait accompli death of the nom. That would have been clever of me, I guess, but I didn't intend that here. I specifically wrote in the RfC "(N.B.: for the purposes of internal DYK requirements, if any, that DYKs be processed within a given time after article creation, the time that this RfC is open shall not be counted against the age of the article.)". If the folks who pass articles through DYK are not able to make reasonable exceptions for exceptional cases, that would show excessive inflexibility, and I can't help that. I'm sorry if all this creates extra work for the good folks at DYK, but that could have been avoided by not making a contentious nom in the first place.
Alright, though, the sincerity of your response has convinced me: you weren't trolling. I withdraw my accusation.
Instead, you really did expect your proposal to nominate an article, written by User:Volunteer Marek and an admirer of Eric Barbour (assuming he's not kidding about that), about Wikipediocracy (which it's now clear that you are familiar with), to be featured on he main page of the English Wikipedia, as a special reward to the aformentioned editors (that is a main purpose of DYK entries, you know), and with the result of driving considerable traffic to wikipediocracy.com, to be met with all-round placid acceptance by the Wikipedia community.
You really truly did. OK then. Herostratus (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I rewrote my comment in the "Survey" section of Wikipedia talk:Did you know#RfC: Should a DYK for Wikipediocracy be published? to remove my assertion of trolling. On reflection, that was quite wrong of me. I was going on my best-guess interpretation of the data I had. Bad guess. So let me again sincerely apologize. As to your comments on the merits of the case, my comments there address that. What I wish is that you and others who have made the point that this is a no-brainer slam-dunk pass go there, which is where it matters, and make your case. I think it's probable that the DYK will pass the RfC if enough people make the effort to make a strong case there, although I hope I'm wrong about that. Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Elder Village DYK review

I have edited Elder Village per your suggestions on the DYK review (May 19). Thanks. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I forgot to click "Save page" after passing the DYK. Sorry about that! Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Not sure I understand... but thanks anyway! --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for fixing my post on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thenightchicagodied as those pages currently confuse me and I've no ambition to learn about sock investigation procedure, I just wanted to add my information. Thanks again! Technical 13 (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Need help

Hi! I don't know if you remember me, I'm June, and I used to play Werewolf with you and friends in IRC (Internet Relay Chat on Freenode). I am wanting to write about something, but not sure where to start, and, I can't find guidelines on how to write a Wikipedia article. If you have links, or you could just tell me personally, that'd be awesome! Thanks! December Nights (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

My issue with stalking

Thanks for removing the post, what else is happening with the contrib who is using my name??--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

GOCE May drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors May 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter

We have completed our May backlog elimination drive.

The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the June blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

Thanks

For protecting my Userspace.

I've been taking so much heat lately that it's pushed me that last yard - I might as well put my hand up for Adminship. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Elder Village DYK review

Not to sound like an idiot, but what happened to this? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Umm, I passed it? Why, has it not been featured on the main page? Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Europefan back?

You previously blocked Europefan (talk · contribs) for block evasion, and although he/she is no longer blocked another editor has popped up with the exact same edits on German-related inventions - Germany423 (talk · contribs) --Biker Biker (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually I now see there is an open SPI - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

a little question

Hi, I got a question which Admins can answer, I do got alerts of edit warring about 2 or 3 times although I was not wrong and even once there was not an Edit war at all. In all of those alerts I was harassed and telling "You will be blocked" stuff. I also have got some times faced with users telling I should be blocked and stuff like that when actually they was the Bullying one. What should one do in such cases do these kinds of alerts without any reason is really matter? and What should I do?KhabarNegar (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed between 12-14 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the initial messages I sent out went to only WikiProject members and users that had over 15 reviews).

So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

  • Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. Now, one of the most important criteria is that you have at least 15 independent reviews. If you are reading this, you are likely 3 (or less) reviews short, so if you review another couple nominations, you can become a recruiter! If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".

NOTE: If you are interested in becoming a recruiter but do not meet the 15 review requirement, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters and put your status as "Not Available" until you have reviewed enough nominations.

  • Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Hello. I see that you are involved with Sockpuppet investigation for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RobertRosen/Archive and I want to ask if you think this user [4] could be related. He only contributes to a few pages but for some reason he made this confusing edit [5] on an RFC. It is confusing because he is not subscribe to RFCs and seems to think it is an AFD? Maybe this is normal, but when I started editing people were suspicious so maybe I am being the same now? I found the SPI because I looked at people who changed the same articles, this user does not edit many different ones. I hope you do not mind my question, Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

Adminship Request

I am asking you to look over my 20-month Wikipedia history to see how far away you think I am from becoming an Administator. I have asked others as well to get different opinions. Myself, I don't exactly think I am ready just yet, but it would be good to get an idea on where I am. I was rewarded Rollback status in November 2012, I have created 36 articles (with the only stubs being TN highway articles that can't be expanded for lack of information), and I have done extensive work for WP:NASCAR, WP:SEVERE, and WP:Tropical Cyclones. I occasionally get into it with others (mostly because of my difficulty adapting to change), but I will calm down and get over it. I try to welcome users, issue warnings, and report them for vandalism when necessary. What do you think? Feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, United States Man (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Dennis Brown/Dealing with sock puppets

Would love to have your input. Looking for a guide that can be moved to meta space that provides the basics. Most of it is already there, but cleaning up and linking assistance would be appreciated since you know more about it than I do. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 15:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Reaper Eternal,

Thanks for dealing with the Wagner sockpuppet. I had a feeling that he was Wagner when he put the sockpuppet warning on my user page in an effort to get back at me for something. I wish I had alerted someone earlier. Thanks again!

—Σosthenes12 Talk 20:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Elder Village DYK

(continuing conversation now in archive) It seems to have fallen off the edge of the Earth. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again

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 July 1st, 2013 – July 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 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.

Delivered at 12:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

Discussion on 2 haze articles

Hi Reaper Eternal, you are invited to participate in this discussion. Please note that participation is optional and the discussion closes at 12:15am sharp tonight (GMT+8). Cheers. --Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Wikipediocracy

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

free popcorn

treats

Thank you for filling a red link on my talk! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 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) 08:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Revert

Thanks for the vandalism revert on my talk page. I've got back into the swing of things after a semi-hiatus, so I'll be getting more of these edits on my talk page. Thanks again! -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

GOCE June/July 2013 events

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter

We have completed our June blitz and are about to commence our July backlog elimination drive.

The June/July 2013 events newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the July drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Block request of User:100loves

Hi, please block User:100loves, with an expiry set of indefinite. Because the user changed unsourced genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.178.6 (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No. I don't see any need for a block. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A tale of two socks

Hi, seeing as you've been involved with the sockpuppet investigations of both Hackneyhound and Mikemikev, I was wondering if you think these two could be the same individual? This has come to my attention from dealing with a troublesome individual hopping IPs, and two of them (212.183.128.75 (talk · contribs) and 212.183.140.7 (talk · contribs)) have been blocked in the past (the first as a sock of Hackneyhound, the second as a sock of Mikemikev). Plus, both investigations show a number of the IPs sharing the same Vodafone range. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Both these IPs are already blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Elder Village

Reaper Eternal, it looks like this nomination went awry, and I'll be doing my best to fix it.

What happened was you approved it on May 29, which is fine, but you then proceeded to promote it (close the template) on the same day, which is not. There are two issues with this:

  1. The person who approves a nomination should not be the same person who promotes it
  2. The act of promoting means that the hook is being placed in a prep area: a promoted prep "disappears" from the nomination page so no one else will attempt to place the hook in a prep area; it's how we avoid having hooks run more than once.

I've just reversed your promotion and placement in prep 4, and am in the process of putting the template back on the nomination page, where I expect it to be quickly seen and promoted in the usual manner. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that explains why nobody promoted it for a month. I thought that the template on the page was just to indicate that I had finished the review and approved the article. Thanks for clearing up the mess! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

SPI question

You recently closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/117.90.245.113 as being handled because the recent page got protected. Can I ask why we can't do more? This sock has used a variety of IP over a number of articles. Why close it with no action because a single article is protected?? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I closed it because there are simply too many IPs to block. If they continue mass disruption on other articles, file a request at WP:RFPP. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

Socky

Sorry to bother you just before the weekend, but I have a feeling that User talk:Yemote is probably User talk:Burnham (limited to the same articles, have similar obsessions, and edit styles) who you dealt with previously as a sockpuppet. Thanks, Rsloch (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Burnham is not blocked and doesn't appear to be a sockpuppet. Are these the right users? Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure how I messed that up. OK let's try it this way. I may be wrong but the similarities between the two warrant a quick check using your Wiki superpowersRsloch (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I've blocked Yemote (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of Serafin (talk · contribs). Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Now using this IP. Rather persistent this one. Rsloch (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Forgive my lapse

- I should of course have invited you to comment here. There's just a bit of reading and threads on the talk page to get up to speed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted User talk:Sockmachine

I understand, but he's a nice guy, though not by our standards I suppose. For the record, that IP was me, from out in the sticks. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you claiming the IP I blocked was you, or the other one? I'm pretty certain the IP I blocked was Badmachine (talk · contribs) editing while logged out. If you're claiming that was you, I'm highly disappointed that you would log out to post abusive commentary about Ironholds. Whatever, Drmies. :-( Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe he means he was the gentleman talking to Badmachine. Personally I find someone loses the right to be referred to as a "nice guy" when they spend months stalking and harassing a large chunk of my social circle, but that's just me. Ironholds (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, that was Badmachine alright. I guess he doesn't like you very much, Ironholds, but what you just told me is news to me. I just knew about his joy of watching penises and the kerfuffle over his user page, which was deemed too autobiographical. Badmachine has a past and a beating heart, like most of us. No, Reaper, I wasn't posting abusive commentary--you should know me better than that. Ironholds, I have no personal connection to Badmachine or contact information (I don't believe in that weird email address), but I'm going to try and ask him to consider not bothering you anymore. For now all I can do is apologize on his behalf. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
OK! That makes me feel better. When you commented on "that IP", I assumed you were on my talk page because the IP block had affected your account. Good luck with convincing Badmachine to not harass editors—see encyclopediadramatica.se/Special:Contributions/Hipcrime. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
you obviously have confused the words "harass" with "expose". 184.8.114.208 (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Reaper, I don't like any kind of harassment. I'm getting a little bit of it myself these days via email. I am in no position to judge where the borderline between "harass" and "expose" lies, but I did tell Badmachine (surprise, found his email address in a message from one or two years ago) where I stand: in a nutshell, personal stuff is off the table. (And IRC, from what I know of it) is just an invitation to letting loose without proper restraint: whoever fits that shoe can put it on.) He's not a monster, as far as I'm concerned. No one here is a monster, as far as I'm concerned. People have done things they maybe shouldn't have, sure. I am probably one of those, I'll be the first to acknowledge. Thanks, and take it easy, Drmies (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

User: Nutash Ali

Hello. While eliminating some vandalism from two user names Nutash Hira and Nutash loves Hira I stumbled on the user you have previously banned for abusing multiple accounts. I thought I'd bring these two to your attention. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, I blocked those two too. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ponderings

I've noticed that an editor has been placing exactly the same or very similar text on multiple articles. I've suggested to that editor that they should seek a consensus before doing so. The editor is continuing along as before. Any thoughts about how to handle that? Are there better things for a Saturday afternoon?Rsloch (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect this sentence is about me. I am simply adding info about Holocaust to sections covering Second World War(for example in Silesia article in history overview). User Rsloch seems to be interested in removing information about Nazi atrocities and claimed there was no Nazi genocide in Silesia(which goes against any mainstream history).

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

(Sorry for not getting to this earlier—I forgot it was here. Notifications should only go away when you actually respond....) In general, the best practices for resolving disputes involve discussion on either of your talk pages, or, better still, on an article talk page so more editors can weigh in. You can also request an outside third opinion from another editor. (I'd provide one myself, but my knowledge of Silesia is relatively poor, so I wouldn't be of much help.) You could file a request for comment on the content, but this can generally be overkill since you will get many editors injecting their opinions. The dispute resolution noticeboard has mediators who are willing to help arbitrate disputes. In all of these cases, one should refrain from commenting about any of the other editors and instead focus on resolving the disputed texts. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You deleted Mohammad Dawood (Bagram detainee) as an uncontested {{prod}}. I request userification please.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Restored. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

A cheeseburger for you!

You're pretty fast with those Oversight tools. I'd only just came on Wiki having got the E-Mail of Wagner's changes to my user talk and you've already over sighted him. I'm at a Barbeque so here's a cheeseburger fresh off of the grill for being so good. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 14:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! However, I actually used revision deletion, not oversight, since the messages were just rude and did not fall under the criteria for oversight. Also, I'm not an oversighter. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Socky 2

I believe our friend is back using Huronton Rsloch (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Blocked again. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
It's alive...Asvenadze Rsloch (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

More page move weirdness

Thanks again for your help with the userspace to mainspace redirects I noted on AN last week. I've come across another instance of an editor moving both their user and user talk pages to mainspace. Unfortunately the move was made in 2010 and the article been edited quite a bit since then. Could you take a look? As a sidenote, are you aware of any bots or filters that flag such moves?--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the user talk page history back to the user's talk page. I've left all the userpage history in the article, since all it ever contained was a draft of the article, which was then moved to article space. There was such an edit filter at one point, but it was disabled due to excessive resource consumption and routinely blocking editors from moving their article drafts out of userspace. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Cheers for that!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Contribution review for possible RfA

Hi Reaper. Could you give a rough indication on what the status is regarding the review of my contributions? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I sent you several emails, but you never replied.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
My apologies. I don't check the email address connected with my account very often. I did so now and my inbox contains only one E-Mail from you dated 2013-07-09, where you stated you sent the review over a month ago. Unfortunately I cannot find that E-Mail in my inbox. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, I have to admit I didn't expect the result of the review to reach me via email and your last On-Wiki message regarding the review was this one where you stated you were still in the process of reviewingmy contributions. Anyway, if you have come to a conclusion regarding the review, if you could state so here or on my talk page, that would be appreciated, regardless of whether the result was positive or negative. Thanks. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Is it very important? If so, why? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
It is not very important. My aim was to possibly be nominated at WP:RFA. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfA and its process under Nomination standards says "There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you." Reaper is listed as one of the users on that list. I more or less randomly chose one of the users on that list which resulted in Reaper being chosen by me. I then made a formal request at Reapers talkpage (diff). He responded by saying he was still reviewing my contributions four days later (diff). On 2013-04-23 he told me he would give me a review on one of the next days (diff). On 2013-05-04 I asked what the status of the review was (diff) to which he responded he was still reviewing my contributions (diff). Since it wasn't my intention to annoy him, I decided simply to wait. The above question by me was simply for me to get an idea what the status of the review was. As I said, the review is not that important. My expectation was that when asking one of the users at WP:RRN#Editors willing to be asked to nominate a user this would eventually result in a nomination of me at WP:RFA by that users. Had I known that this was not case, I could have nominated myself, but then I do not seem to understand the purpose of this page. Obviously that page is marked as an essay, and thus probably shouldn't have expected anything when following any advice from that page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 05:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Huh. I don't know what happened to my email then. :/ But anyways, I'll just paste it below (with a few links since it's now wikicode rather than an email):
Hi Toshio!
Apologies for the delay, but it takes a long time to review as many edits as you have!
This is no doubt the hardest review I've ever had to do because you focus on non-free content. I have no doubt you've seen the drama wars with many people claiming "it's OK to use it", and just as many, like yourself, pointing out that it violates NFCC point #8. While I pretty much agree with your viewpoint, it's guaranteed to gather a fair number of opposes at RFA simply because people disagree with you. I'm also definitely not the most knowledgeable on image copyright laws, so you might want to get another review from an expert to make sure that you are enforcing them appropriately. (I would like to point out, though, that I know you are following the applicable laws. My recommendation for you to look for a better reviewer on this topic stems from whether you are enforcing those laws appropriately or not.)
I've also noticed that you contribute a bit to AFD, including having several nominations. From what I can see, these all follow policy, and they aren't just pile-on votes to an AFD clearly going one way. It's very easy to game the AFD-counting tool, which is why I detest opposing based on having an "accuracy" percentage less than some magic number. Some people only contribute to controversial or unclear AFDs, making their percentages far lower than that of a pile-on voter.
On the subject of article content, I'm pleased to see a fair number of contributions to mathematical articles. Unfortunately, I could find no evidence of you writing a DYK or especially a good article. I don't like nominating anybody who doesn't have at least a good article that he or she can point to to demonstrate his knowledge of copyright policy, reliable sourcing, possibly WP:BLP depending on the subject of the article, and certainly a knowledge of what the encyclopedia is about. While I'm pretty likely to support any RFA that you may decide to run, whether self-nominated or nominated by another editor, I would like to point out that many will not support anybody who does not have some decent articles to point at and say, "I created that." I also liked your contributions to some programming-related articles. (Being an engineering student myself, I find math and programming topics interesting. ;)
I also liked that you contribute a bit to templates. You could possibly help by contributing to fully protected templates after passing RFA, should you decide to run one.
I couldn't find much in the way of CSD taggings, but that's fine—not everybody wants to do that.
Your work at the help desk is also laudable. Helping newbies is a great trait for an administrator.
I saw that you are very communicative on your talk page—still another necessary trait for an admin—and certainly more so than I've been these last two months. (Sorry again for that, but off-wiki activities like employment come first!)
To cut a long story short, then, I think you will make a good administrator someday, particularly if you raise one of those mathematical articles, like megaprimes, to good article status. If you do, feel free to poke me again and I'll be happy to write a nomination for you to be an administrator. Unfortunately, without a GA, I don't feel comfortable nominating someone to be an administrator, although I definitely would support your RFA unless some massive flaw I never saw turned up (doubtful).
Finally, then, even if your RFA were to fail due to the NFCC "we can do what we please" crowd, I'd still feel comfortable supporting you in any subsequent RFAs.
Feel free to contact me if you ever want some advice on something, regardless of whether or not you become an administrator. I'm always willing to help, although sometimes that help might be: "Find someone with more knowledge." ;)
Thanks!
—Andy Schmidt (Reaper Eternal)
So that's my review! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Wow, thank you. :) First let me say I can understand that reviewing someone with as many contributions as me is probably not easy, so thank you for taking the time to do it.
Referring directly to your point above regarding GAs, have you seen Talk:Wieferich prime/GA1? It's the only one I have, though. Regarding DYK and BLP, I don't have a DYK, as writing for DYK just isn't my thing. The same, unfortunately, goes for BLPs, it just isn't the subject area that really interests me.
So what should I do? Should I nominate myself and possibly point to this review? (As I guess it would be helpful for other people at the RfA as well). I can say it wouldn't really be an issue for me if I didn't pass, as I have contributed well without the tools so far and likely will continue to do so. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Unprodding Mohammad Dawood article

Thanks for un{{prod}}ding Mohammad Dawood (Bagram detainee) [6]. It may have met the notability standards of an earlier period, but it would require more references to meet today's standards -- so I changed it to a redirect. Geo Swan (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reaper_Eternal/Archive_22&oldid=1168307147"