Jump to content

User talk:Reaper Eternal/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Fjjfjfhtnghu

Do you have a quick link to the past history of this LTA (Fjjfjfhtnghu (talk · contribs))? Never mind if not. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No, but the master account is David Beals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
@Materialscientist: - see the associated SPI and the Meta report linked off there, this is a crosswiki vandal, and socks should be locked by stewards (#wikimedia-stewards or checkuser-l). --Rschen7754 00:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
But that particular account is already locked. --Rschen7754 00:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I love the username, though! Random keystrokes from the middle of the keyboard: the sockpuppet/ meatpuppet username of the vapidly bored future! hdhsfhshdff! KDS4444Talk 09:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the world of spambots, where computers come up with the usernames and mass-create accounts on all 700+ Wikimedia sites before spamming crap. :/ --Rschen7754 20:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Misconceptions2 closing

Hi Reaper Eternal, in closing this SPI case you wrote "Based on the behavioral evidence and the lack of technical connections, I believe these are all just paid editors or editors who are otherwise collaborating off-wiki. That isn't a violation of the sockpuppetry policy, so I'm closing this with no action taken." I completely agree with the first sentence, but your interpretation of policy seems problematic. About half a dozen of them voted in synchrony on an AfD (i.e., accounts created at the same time for the single purpose of voting on that AfD and then they were gone). So does this mean that I could pay a bunch of editors to create articles and pay others to keep them at AfD and as long as their is no conclusive technical connection, there is no action that can be taken? I am One of Many (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Reaper Eternal used his CheckUser powers to determine that these users are not sockpuppets and closed the case as solved, having done his part of the job as a Wikipedia volunteer. I can't speak for RE, but I don't think he was anywhere saying that what the users are doing is acceptable; however, you have a point in the sense that it says at WP:MEAT A 2005 Arbitration Committee decision established that "for the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." The statement becomes a bit ambiguous now that there is no uncertainty between whether they are socks or not. I take no position on whether the case is still relevant at WP:SPI, or if it belongs in WP:DRN or WP:COIN. If you're still concerned, I recommend filing a report at WP:DRN. (If you're actually not concerned and are doing this out of pure bureaucracy, you ought to be whacked with a trout.) Ginsuloft (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of a sockpuppetry caes is to determine whether two or more users are sockpuppets. Reaper has determined that they are not. He never said that what they are doing is acceptable, nor did he say that they should not be blocked. Simply that SPI is not the place to request it. You can always try one of the noticeboards that Ginsuloft recommended, or WP:ANI. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not doing this out of pure bureaucracy. I realize my question was put sarcastically (we all get a bit upset at times) and Reaper did not mean their behavior was acceptable. However, letting them do it without action makes it appear to be effectively acceptable to meatpuppet without consequences. In this case, which I showed you (@Someguy1221) here for advice, I used the users editing Miconscetion2's user pages to show that they started to have the same editing pattern (making a number of random minor edits) before their single purpose task as did the flood of AfD users all created about the same time. I believed that Obvious sock is obvious applied in these cases and checkuser was not required because of WP:DUCK test. If, however, technical connection is required, then it appears to me that meatpuppets can do anything they want. What is decided is decided. I want guidance on how cases such as these will be handled in the future at SPI. Since I can never be sure whether a set of users are socking or meating, I'm wondering whether I should just let them go in the future?--I am One of Many (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Nobody said canvassing users to debates is acceptable. It simply isn't sockpuppetry. It is also unfair to block users simply because they were canvassed to an AFD to vote. Furthermore, the closing sysop will likely discount a bunch of new accounts voting on the premise that they were likely canvassed to the discussion. If you want to try to get people blocked for canvassing voters, take it to ANI. SPI is solely for investigating violations of the policy on multiple account use. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand canvassing, but if this was canvassing, it was off-wiki and was canvassing to create accounts to vote on the possible AfD (in my view). The bottom line is that I hate making mistakes and I'm unsure about how to determine whether a group of users are socking or meating prior to a checkuser? The only solution that I can think of for such cases is to discuss them in the future with several admins to reach consensus about where such cases belong (i.e., SPI or ANI if meatpuppetry is suspected). I am One of Many (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
It's almost impossible to tell the difference between sockpuppets and canvassed users without checkuser. Checkuser reveals that either they are all the same user (and easily blocked) or not the same user, in which case it could be taken to ANI if needed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/James dalton bell

Hi, Reaper, please take a look at this report. What I did just now (not reflected in the report yet) is I've changed every single IP from confirmed to suspected and I've removed {{Banned user}} from Bell's user page. Before closing and archiving the report, I'd like to know if you agree with my actions.

As a side issue with some of the confusion about how to tag, I'd like to point out a discrepancy between two pages. WP:SPI/AI#Blocking and tagging says: "Tag only the sock puppet's user talk page – Unlike with registered accounts, we usually don't tag the user page since another person in the future may edit under that IP." {{IPsock}} states: "Place this template on the user page (not the user talk page) of the IP editor." My practice before becoming a trainee clerk was to tag the IP's user page. Having given it a little thought after noticing the discrepancy, I still think that's the better way to go because user pages are less volatile than talk pages and there are all sorts of IPs (some may never be used by anyone except the puppeteer and others may be very dynamic and used by all sorts of people). I also don't see a stigma associated with templating the user page, although some editors may disagree. What do you think we should do about the conflicting instructions?

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I don't agree with your actions. C.Fred, who is an admin, confirmed the community ban [1]. If you wanted to remove it, you should've checked with WP:AN first which I will do based on Reaper's response. And there's nothing in the "confirmed sock" template that indicates it can only be added by an admin. The text says, "Please refer to contributions or the sockpuppet investigation..." (emphasize mine). It is my understanding that consensus on WP:ANI can confirm an IP as a sock per WP:DUCK. --NeilN talk to me 13:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The banned tag was added three years ago. Daedalus tried to add it but screwed it up. All C. Fred did was fix it. You might infer from the fix that he agreed with it, but it would be an inference. I already told you on my talk page that non-admins can add tags but that generally admins do it. The confirmed part can't be added, in my view, regardless of whether there's an SPI report or a discussion at another noticeboard unless it's actually confirmed. A sock can be blocked without any discussion if an admin feels it's warranted; however, they wouldn't use the confirmed (proven) parameter when tagging. And then there's the issue of all of the IPs that were tagged. Interestingly, the ones you tagged you did correctly (in my view), but the "confirmed" ones were tagged by Daedalus. There's also the side but important issue of whether there was even a consensus at ANI that Bell was a sock, although that's probably moot because in reviewing the history, it certainly looks to me like he is.
One of the reasons I came here was to get Reaper's input on these issues (I'm a trainee at SPI, and Reaper is my trainer). There's no need to go to AN until we thrash this out. If at the end of the day, you still believe that whatever actions Reaper and I (I'll no doubt defer to Reaper's judgment) determine are correct are in fact wrong, then you can always go to AN to have the actions reviewed. Just be patient. There's no rush; don't forget that I blocked the IP you complained about.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
If I was rushing, I would have gone to AN when you removed the banned tag which I, as stated above, thought was hasty. I'm also interested in this discussion as if it's determined a confirmed sock tag can only be placed as a result of a SPI (if I'm reading you correctly), the template's documentation needs to be updated to reflect that. --NeilN talk to me 21:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not what I was saying, but, honestly, I'm not even sure if I'm right about the proven/confirmed issue. I think the instructions and the templates are confusing (in this instance there are two templates, one for the sock puppeteer and one for the IP puppets), and it may be that there's an established practice as opposed to a rule. It also may be that different people do it different ways, meaning there's not one "right" answer (the same may also be true about the ban tag, by the way). What bothered me the most in this case was a non-admin, who can't even block anyone, making a determination that the IP is a confirmed sock puppet. However, I'm gonna make this real simple for me personally. I'm just going to let Reaper decide what we should do. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Generally, we don't bother tagging IPs, since users later get them and go, "Hey! I'm not a sockpuppet!" Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

User:TheMazeMovie

Unless you think I'm being a jerk, I'm inclined to apply a spamuserblock. Appreciate your input. Dlohcierekim 21:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's promotion of a website of the same name. You might want to try a {{softerblock}} first though, since it isn't blatant spam. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Willsonsmith

I made a change to your comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Willsonsmith because I think you made a typo that misidentifies a username. Could you please have a look and correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I must have typoed the username. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sudhirkbhargava

Hey, Reaper, more education for me. The diffs connecting two of the named accounts wasn't enough? If it's not enough for a CU, I'm assuming it's not enough for DUCK, either, or am I wrong there, too? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment wasn't very clear—I'm still very a very new checkuser. I have clarified it now. What I was trying to say was that you provided diffs showing the behavioral connection between two accounts. That would normally be enough for checkuser; however, the filer had already demonstrated that they had similar IPs, so checkuser wouldn't be able to tell you much more. (ISPs in India are extremely densely packed and dynamic, so this connection is solely that they happen to be near the same city with ten million other people all with similar views.) The third account did not really have any diffs linking it to either of the others well enough for a check. And, of course, the IPs will not be publicly linked per the WMF privacy policy.
Additionally, be very careful in blocking Indian single-purpose accounts. Commonly, they are not sockpuppets but simply single-purpose accounts with a similar agenda. Hope this helps! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Helps a lot. Now the filer has essentially asked to withdraw the report and semi-protect the article. I'm inclined to do both. Sound reasonable?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think that closing the report as "no action" is probably the best solution, since there is a very good chance that we are looking at multiple editors. Semiprotection to stop the mass additions of poorly-sourced content is largely your call though. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
FYI, you really shouldn't archive cases you close. Archiving is supposed to be so another clerk can very briefly check over and ensure socks were actually blocked, innocent people weren't and appropriate tags were added. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought it was okay to archive it if I'd already checked with you. Not true? As an aside, I reconsidered on the semi-protection issue. If it had gone through RFPP, I would have declined it. I left a note on the filer's talk page explaining.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

Block of User:RmahHN

Repear Eternal, do you mind commenting on the unblock request at User talk:RmahHN? I believe you blocked the user as a clear sockpuppet due to behavioural evidence, but the account holdeer is now denying the connection. Since you were most familiar with the behavioural basis for the block, I was wondering if you could respond to the user's position before I take a position on the unblock request. Singularity42 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Decline it. Among other things, his username is a parody of Rabbi Mayer Alter Horowitz (note the "Rmah" part), the sockmaster's username apparently contains Horowitz's telephone number, and both accounts have "HN" embedded in their usernames and are dedicated to removing positive information from Horowitz's article and other articles mentioning him. Oh, and I've just blocked GrandmaPheonix (talk · contribs) who is quite  Possible when looking at CU, and very likely related when taking behavior into account. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. I missed the "HN" connection. In any event, the unblock request showed some very troubling COI issues with their editing. Singularity42 (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls?

Should I not report Beals puppets then? How about marking the accounts with {{Checked sockpuppet|David Beals}}? And, not to be rude, but if the answers are "yes" and "no", respectively, is this the consensus of the admins? I will gladly abide by that consensus if so, I just want to know. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Just report them to AIV and SPI if they are unblocked. Otherwise, just ignore them, since he's doing it for the attention. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay! I'll only report them if they are active. Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

L'Origine du monde has another registered account?

See here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Elockid has clarified that the block on the IP was not targeted at him, but, rather, at another user who apparently was spoofing Ldm's IP. Since he's convinced I have a "conflict of interest" regarding his block (from what I don't know), I'm not going to take any action. And honestly, now that the issue of block evasion has been cleared up, I'm not going to complain if he creates another account with an acceptable username and userpage. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Editor Greengrounds at Religious views of Adolf Hitler

You recently took action to block user:Greengrounds for extensive disruptive edits. He appears to be at it again using an IP address at Religious views of Adolf Hitler, (IP ‎209.91.107.167). Could you put a protection on that page to prevent IP editors from changing content for time being? Many thanks. Ozhistory (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone else has already protected the article. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BogusChip

I was looking at this report with the intention of archiving it. My question is should either of the accounts be tagged and, if so, which tags (neither Material Scientist nor Rschen7754, the closer, tagged them)?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. Random vandals/spammers are commonly not tagged. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Reaper, I'm really bad with this "this-is-the-way-it's-done" stuff as I'm incredibly literal and like to follow clear procedural instructions. Nonetheless, I will persevere. Everything else about the report appeared in good order, so I archived it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
No problem! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Email

Just making sure you got my email from yesterday afternoon. NW (Talk) 19:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. Thanks though! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Just let me know if you have the time to review it in the next couple days; otherwise I can ask someone else. Best, NW (Talk) 02:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Misuse of your Administrator and Checkuser powers

You got me banned for 26 days because you don't understand what you are allowed to do, or how the blocking process works. Please read my talk page carefully, and apologise sincerely for all your mistakes. Then I will not pursue further complaints. If you are genuinely unable to understand what you have done wrong, I can explain it here. For starters, our conflict of interest relates to your opposition to images of the 1866 Courbet painting L'Origine du monde in userspace, and telling me to mail arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org while mentioning checkuser makes other editors think you are using your super powers. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (♥ Talk♥ ) 03:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Just as an fyi, it is very standard policy that CheckUser blocks may only be lifted by either another CheckUser or by the Arbitration Committee. Thus, you being referred to the email was correct. ~Charmlet -talk- 04:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
There was no checkuser block on me User:Charmlet. But thank you for your remark which would make perfect sense under different circumstances. Read my talk page- seems something you like to do- and you might understand.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (♥ Talk♥ ) 04:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
There was a checkuser block placed on what was very obviously your IP, after which you created your account and inquired about it on Elockid's talk page, signing first as the IP and then as yourself. Given the very recent checkuser block, your inappropriate userpage/username combination, and the disputes on article talk pages, it looked a great deal like block evasion of a checkuser-placed block, for which I blocked you. For that mistake, I do apologize.
However, your threatening me with further action unless an apology was proffered makes this apology look and feel much less sincere than it would have been had you simply posted here pointing out my mistake.
Additionally, if you had emailed the list I gave you when I blocked you, the block duration would have been of something considerably less than 26 days—more like 2-3 days at most.
There was no "conflict of interest" in this block, as I am not and have never been in an editing dispute with you, unless it was under prior incarnation(s). I couldn't care less whether the lead image of Oral sex is a drawing, a painting, or a photograph. I don't edit the article except for (possibly) reverting spam or vandalism.
I did not misuse checkuser as you have implied—I didn't even have it when I blocked you.
My blacklisting of the image was absolutely correct, since images of this nature are commonly used for vandalism. It is not "censorship", as you have implied, since I made sure to include exceptions for every article it was on. Use in any other article where it makes sense can be easily requested on MediaWiki talk:Bad image list.
Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Please could you place an apology on my talkpage. It may be normal for vandals to ask why they have been blocked, but it seems unusual to me - why did you not ask Elockid if we were connected. You do not seem to understand the effect your powers have. When you wrote that i had to use that email it stopped anyone else from unblocking me - see the comments on the two other admins involved. I emailed that list. It took over 2 weeks for them to answer - what makes you think it takes 2 days? I find it very hard to imagine that it is possible that you genuinely cannot understand that for the past 3 weeks we have been in an editing dispute over whether the 1866 oil painting L'Origine du monde is a suitable image in userspace. The Bad image list is not for images that CAN be used for vandalism, but those that ARE used " for widespread vandalism where user blocks and page protections are impractical."- why did you not create exceptions for where it was in use in userspace or add it to the request list so it could be discussed? Are you still accusing me of vandalising my own userspace? You clearly stated above that you refused to lift the block you imposed on me because you dislike my choice of name, and you added both my username and image use as reasons for your block, when I pointed out that you might have made a technical mistake. Which disputes on article talk pages do you refer to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'Origine du monde (talk • contribs) 22:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please can you undelete my user page

I would be grateful if you would do this, or if you decline, explain why you are unwilling to do so now, so I may appeal your action.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (♥ Talk♥ ) 04:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done since the image won't appear anymore anyway. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
User:L'Origine du monde, why does everything need "appealing"?? Admins are never required to perform any action whatsoever - so if an admin declined to delete it, it's not appealable - period. Normally, a user simply uses {{db-u1}} on the page and some random admin who patrols the category will delete. This only works on your userpage, not your talkpage, by the way. This aggressive attitude is very much against the nature of the community ES&L 23:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. ES in order to restore a deleted page, it is necessary to appeal its deletion, or there is some similarly named process. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (♥ Talk♥ ) 22:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:REFUND aka "REquests For UNDeletion ES&L 22:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review - WP:REFUND does not apply to deletions by an administrator.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (♥ Talk♥ ) 22:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Uh.... All deletions are by an administrator. So your statement is confusing. WP:REFUND is for anything that did not go through an WP:AFD discussion, whereas WP:Deletion review is for AfD reviewal. Thus, your userpage would've fallen under REFUND. ~Charmlet -talk- 22:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Merging

I want to merge the contents of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kissass35 into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phines0001 (currently archived). The instructions say to contact an administrator to do it. I guess the idea is that some clerks are non-admins. Anyway, this administrator could guess at how to do it but would rather not screw it up. Could you give me some instructions, or do you think I should try it on my own and hope for the best (heh)? (Having had only three hours sleep last night is not helping.)--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw that instruction a while ago. See my comment at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk and checkuser procedures#Merging SPI cases. (@Bbb23: I'm not watching your contributions, honest. I just watch a lot of admins' talk pages.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
So what you're really saying is that you stalk many admins, not just me. :-) I can't speak for Reaper, but thus far your following me around has only helped. I'm still going to wait to see if Reaper wants to say something about merging. In addition to what you said at the talk page, I think I have to unarchive it as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess that's what I'm saying. Anyway, the archive doesn't need to be touched (for now). Cut-and-paste everything starting from =====<big>08 September 2013</big>===== from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kissass35 to the bottom of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Phines0001, add * {{checkuser|1=Kissass35}} right before * {{checkuser|1=Killbill22}}, and finally, change {{SPIarchive notice|Kissass35}} to {{SPIarchive notice|Phines0001}} (or if that makes no sense, I can do it and you can look at the diffs to see what I meant). Assuming Reaper agrees with me, I'll fix the instructions page to explain this better. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I started to do it but was interrupted by another admin. I wasn't quite done but I've left a note on the other admin's talk page. Sigh.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
With @Rschen7754:'s kind assistance and extraordinary patience, I've moved the page using history merge (rather than cut-and-paste). I've also updated the instructions detailing the steps.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
There's still one rare case where none of the current instructions will work - if there's an open case under the correct master's name the same time that there's one under an incorrect master's name, the page's histories would be weaved together (a bad thing) if the history merge procedure were used. Hopefully, though, this never happens (I've never seen it). Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my User Talk page, for deleting the User page not created by me, and for blocking the wretch that did these. (If you wish to respond, please do so here.) HairyWombat 18:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryan kirkpatrick

Tagging is clearly going to kill me ... soon. Bushranger blocked the puppet based on duck, tagged it as confirmed, and then opened a report mainly for sleepers. Native Foreigner said the puppet was likely and no sleepers. Tiptoety closed. I would like to change the tag on the puppet, removing confirmed, and then archive it. If you can bear to answer yet another question about tagging from me, would that be okay?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove or change the tag. They're pointlessly complex—as long as any tag is on the sock, it really doesn't matter. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

My Block Log

Sorry to bother you, but would it be possible to put an explanation of your mistake there. At the moment it does not look so pretty! ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (♥ Talk♥ ) 03:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I will not—it's recorded in the unblock entry and your talk page history. It's not possible to edit block reasons either. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Help with a proxy account

Reaper, I've screwed up enough of these so I thought I'd ask for help:

  1. I recently blocked 198.7.62.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as the obvious sock of Mister Potato 47 (talk · contribs). Looking further, it appears to be registered to the anonymizer, VPNbook. Can you check this to see if it is considered an open proxy? I would think that an anonymizer would qualify for a very long-term block. I blocked it for 3 months based on behavior observed.
  2. Where can I read up on checking to see if a site is an open proxy? As an admin, I feel I should know more about this.

Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Anonymizers do qualify for long-term blocks (though not indefinite, since the owner could still change). Usually, open proxies are dealt with by adminbots, so they're not a problem at all, but this one is unusual because it requires authentication. There's no way to detect this kind automatically, so the best way to deal with them is just to block them when you realize it (such as in this case). Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. I've extended the block on the IP. Any pointers for #2? Toddst1 (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
We have bots that do all of the easy checking. The ones they don't catch, like this one, can't be caught in any way other than the way you did, really. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

For grins

I just blocked two new accounts for socking. They were both creating articles about Italian mattress/bedding companies. I really wanted to file a report at SPI and request a CU for sleepers.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

We need something like this here.—Odysseus1479 01:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Edited 01:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hehehehehe. Yes we do! Bishonen | talk 12:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC).
I can look, but what are the accounts? Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't really a CU request - I just couldn't resist the pun. Since I posted this, though, I revoked talk page and disabled e-mail because of threats. The person claims he/she "will be back". If you want to look, the master is Silvia66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
((talk page stalker) going on and on). @Bbb23: Not to be finicking, but had they posted anything bad on their talkpage? With tp access blocked, they can't request unblock. I agree unblocking them is a pretty academic question, but still. Isn't tp abuse supposed to be the only thing we remove tp access for? Bishonen | talk 12:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC).
They can, of course, request unblocking through e-mail or a UTRS ticket. If I was justified disabling their e-mail (their e-mail were not pleasant), I decided it was useless to allow them talk page access. If you and Reaper think I should restore tp access, I will.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
This seems to be part of some larger socking group.... The following accounts are all  Likely related and now blocked:

There's also several more accounts that I haven't listed due to their abusive usernames attacking the steward Vituzzu and a couple other editors. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I wouldn't restore talkpage or email unless you want to be greeted with abusive unblock requests and insults. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Wow, thanks, Reaper. I've changed the tags on MartinaRoseti and Silvia66 to reflect the correct sock master.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Kana Nishino article

Hello, can I request to help rollback Kana Nishino's article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kana_Nishino all the way up till the point last made by "Whatcha know bout us"? The sales and records have been vandalized. I tried to revert back some but realized too much have been vandalized and I can't keep track.

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.90.103.173 (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted it back. Actually, I have to revert in the same way you do given that people who edited on top of those dubious changes. You can go to the article's history, find the last good version, and click on the timestamp for that version in the history. This will open the page as it was at that point in time. You can then simply click "edit" and then "save page" to revert the article back to that revision. I hope this helps! Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 16:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Rinpoche socks question

Hi Reaper Eternal, thanks for blocking some of the sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rinpoche. I was curious why some of the Rinpoche socks have not been blocked - specifically User:Amanda Jane Mason (whose actions started the original SPI) and User:Elissa Rubria Honoria who "...is [likely] related to Rinpoche/the Amanda Jane Mason account." There is also User:TestTubeFiasco, who has not been checked that I can see, but sure passes the DUCK test to be a Rinpoche sock. I am an admin and can block them if that would help. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

ANI - L'Origine du monde

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I should sign this, apologies ~Charmlet -talk- 02:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 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) 23:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Pan-Turkism And forging in history

Maybe I misunderstood it, but I took the title and the quote to refer to a supposed habit of pseudohistory in Pan-Turkism. If my reading of the bad English in this page is correct, it would seem to constitute an attack page. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

SPI - FlabbyLiam

Hi. I found User:HandyLiam which is clearly yet another account for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FlabbyLiam. Since you've already dealt with the listed ones, I wasn't sure if I should just go ahead and add this one, or is there some other procedure for this. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello could unlock the page Dariani Belle, I do a review. thank you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dariani_Belle--Ra Mukherjee (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Reaper Eternal. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC). 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.

Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

suspect edits?

Hi there.

I notice you blocked this editor - 90.213.203.27 - recently. I've only just watchlisted the article, but another IP editor (5.69.2.19) has started making very similar edits to Enola Gay (song), and has a similar editing history - which started just after the blocking. Always one to assume good faith, I'm not sure how much of a duck this is - what do you think? Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be a inappropriate sockpuppet. I've blocked the IP and semiprotected the page due to all the sock puppets. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive

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 October 1st, 2013 – October 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 enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Tag Scenario

I see what you are saying about multiple tags for recycled IPs very well. Take 167.206.233.254 (talk · contribs). This IP was used very briefly in October 6, 2012 by the indeffed Veryverser (talk · contribs). Before and since then, he has not used it and other editors have. The tag on the IP talk page links to his sock list; and no editors seem to care about the tag. If a new editor complained about the tag... they probably would have by now. Right? Doc talk 09:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Or, more likely, they'd (1) be scared off or (2) simply remove it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
HSOCK does not give any insight on this, unfortunately. It currently says only that blocked accounts may be tagged. If an IP used by a bad editor (one reported at SPI or AIV and subsequently blocked) was tagged, it can/should be removed under what circumstances and by whom? Doc talk 08:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

One other thing: is there a feasible way to do something that is not as drastic as removing the IPSock template, but still a noble endeavor? Move all sock templates to the IP's talk page instead of "user page"? This bit of language, changed in your edit at SPI/AI, is significant. Doc talk 10:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any difference between having the tag on the userpage or on the user talk page. It's the same message. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Redundant filter

Your filter is fairly redundant to 559, which I stiffened up early during yesterday's attack. You probably should comment at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC as well.—Kww(talk) 22:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:Archive.is RFC

Is your post in the correct section at WP:Archive.is RFC? I went to add a support for complete removal, and found a stern reply to you that I had not seen in the section I thought I was editing, so perhaps you (like me) intended to post in the previous section? Johnuniq (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yeah. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Unblock approved

Thank you.Sthubbar (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013


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.

User:Keychain accounts

See Special:ListUsers, accounts starting with "Keychain" -- any idea what is going on here? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

A very large amount of automated account creation is occurring—check my block log for all the gory details. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
There's more, see User:Keychaintest50. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm. If there's more than the following accounts recently created, let me know. Keychaintest50 (talk · contribs), Keychaintest9992 (talk · contribs), Keychaintest25 (talk · contribs), and Keychaintest1233 (talk · contribs) are all  Confirmed to each other. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't even load your log. Every time I go to Special:Log/NawlinWiki the server returns a 504 gateway timeout. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I've blocked a couple more IPs. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
They're still coming. See my post on WP:AN. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Vulgar socks

You blocked User:Turds in the car, who is most likely a sock of User:Box of Sonic's farts, whom I blocked earlier. Makes me think of stupid people I knew in junior high school.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

BACKLOG OF THE WEEK Category:Pages with broken reference names

Hello - some editors fight off the vandal hordes, as I do repairing pages with citation errors. If I didn't - there would be a large backlog in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting and in Category:Pages with missing references list as in Category:Pages with broken reference names (more than 1500 yesterday). But it is impossible to work it alone. Do you know how to do a "Blitz" (excuse the comparision) to find willing editors to work on it. It is much more easier to repair references if you do it one hour, one day or one week ago after the errors were made instead of months and years after the error was done. Very, very difficult to find these errors.

Only with WikiBlame Search it is possible to find and repair such errors.

Best wishes --Frze > talk 08:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I’m not certain it’s within their scope, but WP:WIKIFY runs periodic drives. Perhaps they’d be amenable to doing a ‘themed’ drive to target that backlog specifically.—Odysseus1479 01:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

Tumbleman

Hi Reaper, I blocked this user for one week based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tumbleman. Just an FYI, but he's just posted an unblock request. Not sure if you want to take a look. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman

"Actually, this explanation, as surprising as it sounds, does fit with the checkuser data available, .." Well it would though since he is in the perfect position to know about it. Sounds like he accidentally logged into the wrong account when he was in a different location and accidentally revealed his sock. Consider the other account (at the SPI) which popped up in a similar location but where he didn't make the same mistake. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

On Tumbleman's talk page an admin said that his account was WP:COMPROMISED and "can therefore not be unblocked". So is the issue whether or when he'll come back as a new account? vzaak (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Checkuser confirms that his account is not currently compromised, and he has changed his password, so he can be unblocked if an admin chooses to unblock him or when the current block expires. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Dan Bongino

Hi Reaper Eternal. Could you please unprotect this redirect? That election is long over and the individual continues to get coverage for example [2], [3] and with a recent endorsement from an Allen West affiliated group. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to take it to WP:DRV to try to get the consensus to overturn the AFD result. Since my protection was simply to enforce the result of the AFD, and I can't reverse the AFD unilaterally. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Cyberpower678

Are you aware that User:C678, who has you listed as a mentor, has had problems at their talk page, ANI: Bot gone wild, ANI: Cyberbot II take 2, and Bots/Requests for approval so far?Sammy D III (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If he wants to take a break, that's entirely his decision. What do you want me to do? Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I stalked you. It's pretty late, things seem to be calming down. Thank you.Sammy D III (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

GOCE September 2013 drive wrap-up

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

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

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

Backlog template made by User:TheJJJunk

Backlog status (Purge)
Category Current status
Pages with incorrect ref formatting  Not done
Pages with missing references list  Done
Pages with broken reference names Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ",".

Best wishes --Frze > talk 04:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

New REFBot

There is a suggestion on Wikipedia:Bot requests for a new REFBot working as DPL bot and BracketBot do. I beg politely for consideration. Please leave a comment if you wish. Thanks a lot in anticipation. -- Frze (talk · contribs) 04:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 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) 22:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

GOCE Blitz wrap-up; join us for the November drive

Guild of Copy Editors October Blitz wrap-up

Participation: Out of eleven people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we copy edited 42 articles from WikiProject Film's backlog, reducing it by a net of 34 articles. Hope to see you at the November drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

Sign up for the November drive!
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hi Reaper Eternal, I am here to ask you if you can grant the confirmed and reviewer rights to my mobile account, JianhuiMobile. I created a mobile account to edit on my mobile phone because in the past, I used my main account on my mobile and accidentally pressed the rollback button at times while scrolling up and down, as my phone is touch-screen. Then I decided to create a separate mobile account for use. I will definitely review pending changes on my mobile account. So I hope you can grant me thr rights I need on my mobile account. Thanks. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! JianhuiMobile talk 23:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You arb com statement

Has been brought up on the talk page as insulting and racist. Please explain what that statement means or delete it please.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That was a pictographic representation of a headdesk used to illustrate that all this fuss over a few inappropriate words is all really Much Ado About Nothing. There was nothing in my comment that was remotely racist, and insinuating that I am a racist is rather offensive, so complaining about my mild sarcasm directed at you guys is rather hypocritical. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
It never even occurred to me that the "comment" was racist, but I suppose that's partly because I can't even imagine your being racist. I do, however, confess to not understanding it at the time and, worse still, not understanding it now. I'm sure Drmies understood it cause he's much smarter about this sort of thing than I am. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you explained because I didn't get it either. Risker is obviously much cleverder than me. Also, I think someone is clutching at straws here, but I think I gave a better analysis of the situation on that talk page than you pulled out of your butt here, Reaper, if I may say so. (I'm a professional, Bbb, and I do this sort of thing while making coffee--while you are piddling your time away when there's two cases waiting for you at ANEW.) Drmies (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Nah, not cleverder than you Drmies. Although perhaps better looking, in a senior citizen sort of way. I just get what the cool kids are talking about. ;) Risker (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

SPI request

While I expect there are other things you'd rather be doing, would you mind taking a look at the new Defacto SPI? As you handled the last one I expect you're more familiar with the details.

Thanks,

Garamond Lethet
c 01:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I have raised at report on WP:ANI in relation to this user account. Credibility gap (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
You missed all the fun. Catch you next time. Garamond Lethet
c 17:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

Harald Sunde

Would you consider semi-protecting the Harald Sunde article? If you look at the history there is a long line of Sju hav sockpuppet edits going back to 2010. In addition to the recent banned ones, this includes Tammarlakkarus, Sywoofer, Ørnography, User:S(l)ick nation, IPs and more. Even if the edits are eventually reverted, I don't think we should allow an individual to continually vandalize a BLP like that. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I've protected it. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

SPI cases

What happened to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cases/Overview? We suddenly went from a huge list of cases to a handful?? Somebody must've been real busy. I can't even find the thing as there doesn't appear to be a template by that name (I realize that things enclosed in braces aren't always templates, but that's as much as I understand about that). I wish I were better at this wiki code stuff. Hopefully, you're still around.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the link for you. ;) It's in Wikipedia space, not template space. The people who emptied it were largely Shirik and somewhat me. And yes, I'm still around, though not as active as I once was due to college. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
If you use brackets, you can get to the page itself. How do the braces work to make the table appear? As for the emptying, I'm flabbergasted - what are the two of you? superhuman? Finally, the comment about being around wasn't a general comment, just in terms of today because I incorrectly thought there was a problem. Thanks and regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
You can transclude the page by using {{Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cases/Overview}}. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Now I get it. You're a prince.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reaper_Eternal/Archive_24&oldid=1168307163"