![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
.
Hi Reaper Eternal - What would you suggest would be the best way to get rid of such nonsensical submissions to AFC? As I see it, once an editor submits their sandbox content to AFC review the "anything goes" rule about sandboxes is suspended because an AFC submission is supposed to be an actual good faith attempt to write a real article. Nonsense submissions such as this are a plague at AFC and are responsible for a significant proportion of the periodic backlogs in the AFC process. As I see it there is no substantive difference between speedying such a submission where it stands (in user sandbox) versus first moving it to Draft-space (which as an AFC submission is a perfectly legitimate action) and then killing it as nonsense, except that the former saves one unnecessary step. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Good to have you back! Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 16:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irfan afzal singer -- they're back as Farhanbhai125. — George8211 / T 17:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you look again at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khangrah, please? I don't think your decline (on the basis that it looks like meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry) is well founded, and I've added significant material to the SPI since you declined it. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your comments on a recent RfA. By my calculations, a previous user page that was oversighted due to the candidate being very much a minor would not make them remotely the age they assume to be today. This plus a host of other things that I did not mention in my rationale gave me sufficient pause to vote on the side of caution. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 23:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Logic Barnstar |
This is a Barnstar that shows great logic in the realms of the unknown and needy! LewisMCYoutube ( talk) 09:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC) |
Did you read the article to the end? DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I got an email from User:Von Karma saying s/he was caught in an open proxy block. I don't know how to unblock the account. Can you help? Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 14:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors April 2015 Newsletter
![]() March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 19–25. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here! May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in December 2013, January and February 2014 and all request articles, begins soon. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
...although I have a strange feeling that isn't your real name :) PretendAuthority ( talk) 14:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
There's an article recently been created at Kendra sunderland. As I notice you deleted what I assume was a similar article at Kendra Sunderland for BLP reasons, would you mind casting your eye over it for similarity? Dolescum ( talk) 00:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was
Cas Liber (
submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on
Corona Borealis and
Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa ( talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Some fans are pretty hell-bent about getting their musicians into the Wikipedia, eh? Tarc ( talk) 16:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
That ended up breaking an edit filter? DN-boards1 ( talk) 23:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Reaper Eternal. All quiet, now that you blocked the socks and NawlinWiki protected the article. I'm not certain however that we got all the socks. The master may still be out there and one possible sock made a much similar edit on Dutch Wikipedia. Would you consider it advisable to request an SPI, or should I leave the matter until (and when) further disruptive editing occurs? Regards, Sander1453 ( talk) 23:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Re User:Peter Damian - thanks for doing this but I don't think it is needed any more, no more vandalism now I am fully back, and it is a bit scary - looks very similar to the 'blocked' message :) Peter Damian ( talk) 15:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not getting why you deleted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Esquivalience. Would you like to explain? OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
cot}}
, had user-created warnings that are not even similar, used {{
ping}}
, casted a
WP:ADMASQ AfD !vote while my "sockpuppet" casted a G11 vote, cited the same incident archive, avoided the
sea of blue, used semicolons, capitalized "f" in Fix, used "oops", and were interested in ANI, had quotes on both user's userpage, used the word "loop" (I used "template loop" and Zeke used "redirect loop"), forgets to sign (can't get more ludicrous), knew about
WP:FOOLS, used italicization, capitalized "OK", and the most frivolous of all: both participated in the Wikipedia Adventure, were the main premise of this vexatious SPI. This SPI probably is the most ridiculous SPI in the history of Wikipedia, no hyperbole (OK, maybe some hyperbole).
Esquivalience
t
02:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Reaper Eternal. I have reviewed the edits made by OccultZone ( talk · contribs) in the last few weeks and have formed the opinion, when reviewing behaviour and linguistic traits that OccultZone is the latest ban evading sock puppet created by serial ban evading user Betacommand. I doubt you will be able to prove this technically using your CU tools, so I believe a discussion on a ban as per Werieth will be needed, but I do not want to do so without a sanity check from someone experienced in such matters. 31.102.61.26 ( talk) 16:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Check Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May 27. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear Reaper Eternal, thanks for your actions concerning Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2636z. I have posted a reply [4]. Let me know what you think. Most of the "inactive" accounts can be easily verified as socks using the duck test. Same name, same time active, same topic, same typos, same spanish sources. All the best, Taketa ( talk) 16:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Reaper, I see you blocked this user . He's using his talk page to abuse you, and is doing so repeatedly, despite my attempts to blank his page out (it's a screed of repeating text abusing you ). You may want to block his talk page access. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 18:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Please note User:FirctionWoman; same editing style as User:Lucywhirlpool, whom you blocked as a sock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Reaper,
No grave dancing here, I just thought you'd be genuinely interesting in a recently published study which confirmed, beyond self-selection or confirmation bias, that being invited to play TWA leads to more communicative editors:
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2685553.2699022
Cheers, Jake Ocaasi t | c 16:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
What, in particular, was "terribly designed" about Filter 693? You really feel like full protection of the articles (which is what has ultimately occured) is a better solution?— Kww( talk) 17:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Reaper,
I wanted to thank you for appealing by unblock request. I have continued to make useful edits and have reviewed my work before I submit it. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamsw21 ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey, was browsing recent changes and came across this account. I'm guessing from what's on the user page that this is someone attempting to impersonate you and defame you. Just thought I'd let you know. Pishcal — ♣ 19:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Reaper Eternal,
I saw you recently indef. blocked Dame Etna per WP:SOCK. I'm not sure now how I should proceed in this NFCR discussion regarding the non-free use of a logo uploaded that editor. Should the process simply be left to run its course, or does something need to be added about the uploader being no longer able to participate in the discussion due to this block? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 23:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors June 2015 News
![]() May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, and we got within 50 articles of our all-time low in the backlog. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Coordinator elections: Nominations are open through June 15 for GOCE coordinators, with voting from June 16–30. Self-nominations are welcome and encouraged. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Peter Damian ( talk) 15:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
A poster on my talk page believes that this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist/Archive who is (and will be merged with) also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goblin Face/Archive. I can see reasons to think this is correct, but I'd like your comments first. I'm also asking User:Headbomb. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Greetings,
I am fairly sure this user is an illegitimate inpersonation. Putting the query here to make sure. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 18:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing my application for being a template editor and for responding. I am here to ask what else can I do to improve and what parts of the guidelines do I need to work on to make myself a template editor. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG ( ✉) 16:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TheFuckAddict/Archive
There you said, Checkusers will not connect an IP to an account per the privacy policy. Closing, since everyone is blocked for vandalism anyway. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Now here a user is blocked for ip editing, and the Ip is even mentioned.
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Warwar86
-- Cosmic Emperor 03:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
How does someone stop blocking being or looking like it is malicious as in no attempt to avoid harm? No one has attempted a workable strategy, no one has tried comprehensive info on one page designed to troubleshoot. The summary: trigger, blocked, not informed (hello robot), discovered, says no reason (hello robot), link suggest tests; fail to unblock; pages latter: you might be specifically blocked or not (hello robot); not specifically blocked; instruction refers to page no longer/never available with half a code to paste; fumble several guesses; you lift block.
How do you know it was right to lift block?
How so circuitous but never ever challenging the block 'reason', why the secrecy, why dumber than a robotic process would suggest, why lifted with no real evidence?
Why is the core of WP unethical? Because anyone who complains is "shouting on your page"? It is a bully tool/bully removal tool isn't? Otherwise it would be edited into one ordinary page and would have some polish.
This came from Flyer22 and/or the people attacking them, didn't it? All I have seen is complete crap on here, no desire for integrity of information and one talk argument over the meaning of '/' in "HIV/AIDS". Juvenile sandpit stuff. I came here to kraft information and hone editing, not argue on primary school topics where there never was argument.
"You should be able to edit without issues now." No I am finding it impenetrable or someone precious comes along and wants 'their' silly, patently wrong idea left instead.
Look, are there some guided steps for newbies? Some exercises perhaps that follow a recipe rather than needing to read many pages and distil them in your first action. Sorry I don't need to be give a page which turns into a tree of pages but something that pulls it together. I feel I cannot edit without upsetting someone and getting blocked again.
I notice that Drake Bell has apologised for tweeting transphobic comments. His car accident is listed. I think transphobia is more important to his music and its lyrics than the historical car accident that he has recovered from. Now it is settled, time to mention? Remember he may have caused someone's suicide and this is not an unreasonable assumption when the rate of self-harm is so high. 210.84.11.221 ( talk) 06:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Note today you have reported racism reported against Australian AFL player Goodes which is just another repeat unfortunately from game targetted at him and it is therefore insignificant relative to Bell's transphobia. Test your avoidance of trans by replacing it with one your attributes or race. I suggest you have been transphobic. If he hit a cameraman it would be there. Ericglare ( talk) 07:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry wasn't even logged in but it felt like I was. I gather this is all public domain then. Ericglare ( talk) 06:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
You've got an admirer [5] Acroterion (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Reaped_Eternally&action=edit&redlink=1 -- Cosmic Emperor 16:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It looks like this IP is now causing disruption on its own talk page, but I don't think I am allowed to remove or deny the unblock request even though it has 0% chance of being granted. I don't know if you can either since you are the administrator responsible for blocking the IP, but I thought I'd notify you just in case. Dustin (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Reaper, I don't know if you realized that Eric's block was done to enforce an arbitration decision. Unblocking him is grounds for an almost automatic desysop. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
For being one of few people who seem to have common sense here! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC) |
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Kevin Gorman has added you as an involved party to this case request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#AE closes, timelines, and independent admin actions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 13:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You are about to become the sacrificial lamb. I don't agree but they will do it. I'm glad to see that you stuck by what you believe was right and even justified it very well. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 14:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Thank you for closing the mess of a discussion & unblocking EC, Unfortunately you can't do right for doing wrong on this place but there are some here who appreciate what you've done!, |
I didn't notice until now that you applied semi-protection. That's probably why I haven't been targeted by any IP vandals yet. Thanks! Dustin (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Reaper Eternal. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#AE closes, timelines, and independent admin actions. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.
For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the
AN page, the
AE page or the
Case Requests page
and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee,
L235 (
t /
c /
ping in reply) via
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
Therefore, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you reply at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Driver 3 vandal? Thanks, Jackmcbarn ( talk) 18:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
All you did, Brian, was to unblock a productive editor to continue improving the substance of this encyclopedia, thereby boldly flying in the face of the bureaucracy and bad-faith-assuming that have come to dominate this encyclopedia. For that you should be applauded, not disciplined. I really hope everything turns out in your favor here. 166.176.249.80 ( talk) 19:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Helping Hand Barnstar | |
Asked for a moment and you spent an eternity clearing my doubts! Your patience with a novice like me makes you a real WikiGryphon! Wish I could give you more! JAaron95 Talk 15:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC) |
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
The vandal returned less than a week after your pp expired. Unless you're prepared to protect this page indefinitely, we need to reinstate the edit filter that you disabled. As was noted in the discussion to open the filter, protections had been tried over and over and just wasted time and effort, as well as being overbroad to the problem that the filter targeted well. I also can't find the discussion in which it was decided to turn off the filter. postdlf ( talk) 22:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
.
Hi Reaper Eternal - What would you suggest would be the best way to get rid of such nonsensical submissions to AFC? As I see it, once an editor submits their sandbox content to AFC review the "anything goes" rule about sandboxes is suspended because an AFC submission is supposed to be an actual good faith attempt to write a real article. Nonsense submissions such as this are a plague at AFC and are responsible for a significant proportion of the periodic backlogs in the AFC process. As I see it there is no substantive difference between speedying such a submission where it stands (in user sandbox) versus first moving it to Draft-space (which as an AFC submission is a perfectly legitimate action) and then killing it as nonsense, except that the former saves one unnecessary step. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Good to have you back! Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 16:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irfan afzal singer -- they're back as Farhanbhai125. — George8211 / T 17:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you look again at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khangrah, please? I don't think your decline (on the basis that it looks like meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry) is well founded, and I've added significant material to the SPI since you declined it. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your comments on a recent RfA. By my calculations, a previous user page that was oversighted due to the candidate being very much a minor would not make them remotely the age they assume to be today. This plus a host of other things that I did not mention in my rationale gave me sufficient pause to vote on the side of caution. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 23:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Logic Barnstar |
This is a Barnstar that shows great logic in the realms of the unknown and needy! LewisMCYoutube ( talk) 09:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC) |
Did you read the article to the end? DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I got an email from User:Von Karma saying s/he was caught in an open proxy block. I don't know how to unblock the account. Can you help? Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 14:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors April 2015 Newsletter
![]() March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 19–25. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here! May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in December 2013, January and February 2014 and all request articles, begins soon. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
...although I have a strange feeling that isn't your real name :) PretendAuthority ( talk) 14:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
There's an article recently been created at Kendra sunderland. As I notice you deleted what I assume was a similar article at Kendra Sunderland for BLP reasons, would you mind casting your eye over it for similarity? Dolescum ( talk) 00:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was
Cas Liber (
submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on
Corona Borealis and
Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa ( talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Some fans are pretty hell-bent about getting their musicians into the Wikipedia, eh? Tarc ( talk) 16:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
That ended up breaking an edit filter? DN-boards1 ( talk) 23:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Reaper Eternal. All quiet, now that you blocked the socks and NawlinWiki protected the article. I'm not certain however that we got all the socks. The master may still be out there and one possible sock made a much similar edit on Dutch Wikipedia. Would you consider it advisable to request an SPI, or should I leave the matter until (and when) further disruptive editing occurs? Regards, Sander1453 ( talk) 23:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Re User:Peter Damian - thanks for doing this but I don't think it is needed any more, no more vandalism now I am fully back, and it is a bit scary - looks very similar to the 'blocked' message :) Peter Damian ( talk) 15:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not getting why you deleted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Esquivalience. Would you like to explain? OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
cot}}
, had user-created warnings that are not even similar, used {{
ping}}
, casted a
WP:ADMASQ AfD !vote while my "sockpuppet" casted a G11 vote, cited the same incident archive, avoided the
sea of blue, used semicolons, capitalized "f" in Fix, used "oops", and were interested in ANI, had quotes on both user's userpage, used the word "loop" (I used "template loop" and Zeke used "redirect loop"), forgets to sign (can't get more ludicrous), knew about
WP:FOOLS, used italicization, capitalized "OK", and the most frivolous of all: both participated in the Wikipedia Adventure, were the main premise of this vexatious SPI. This SPI probably is the most ridiculous SPI in the history of Wikipedia, no hyperbole (OK, maybe some hyperbole).
Esquivalience
t
02:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Reaper Eternal. I have reviewed the edits made by OccultZone ( talk · contribs) in the last few weeks and have formed the opinion, when reviewing behaviour and linguistic traits that OccultZone is the latest ban evading sock puppet created by serial ban evading user Betacommand. I doubt you will be able to prove this technically using your CU tools, so I believe a discussion on a ban as per Werieth will be needed, but I do not want to do so without a sanity check from someone experienced in such matters. 31.102.61.26 ( talk) 16:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Check Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May 27. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear Reaper Eternal, thanks for your actions concerning Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2636z. I have posted a reply [4]. Let me know what you think. Most of the "inactive" accounts can be easily verified as socks using the duck test. Same name, same time active, same topic, same typos, same spanish sources. All the best, Taketa ( talk) 16:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Reaper, I see you blocked this user . He's using his talk page to abuse you, and is doing so repeatedly, despite my attempts to blank his page out (it's a screed of repeating text abusing you ). You may want to block his talk page access. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 18:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Please note User:FirctionWoman; same editing style as User:Lucywhirlpool, whom you blocked as a sock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Reaper,
No grave dancing here, I just thought you'd be genuinely interesting in a recently published study which confirmed, beyond self-selection or confirmation bias, that being invited to play TWA leads to more communicative editors:
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2685553.2699022
Cheers, Jake Ocaasi t | c 16:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
What, in particular, was "terribly designed" about Filter 693? You really feel like full protection of the articles (which is what has ultimately occured) is a better solution?— Kww( talk) 17:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Reaper,
I wanted to thank you for appealing by unblock request. I have continued to make useful edits and have reviewed my work before I submit it. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamsw21 ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey, was browsing recent changes and came across this account. I'm guessing from what's on the user page that this is someone attempting to impersonate you and defame you. Just thought I'd let you know. Pishcal — ♣ 19:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Reaper Eternal,
I saw you recently indef. blocked Dame Etna per WP:SOCK. I'm not sure now how I should proceed in this NFCR discussion regarding the non-free use of a logo uploaded that editor. Should the process simply be left to run its course, or does something need to be added about the uploader being no longer able to participate in the discussion due to this block? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 23:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors June 2015 News
![]() May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, and we got within 50 articles of our all-time low in the backlog. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Coordinator elections: Nominations are open through June 15 for GOCE coordinators, with voting from June 16–30. Self-nominations are welcome and encouraged. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Peter Damian ( talk) 15:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
A poster on my talk page believes that this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist/Archive who is (and will be merged with) also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goblin Face/Archive. I can see reasons to think this is correct, but I'd like your comments first. I'm also asking User:Headbomb. Doug Weller ( talk) 16:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Greetings,
I am fairly sure this user is an illegitimate inpersonation. Putting the query here to make sure. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 18:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing my application for being a template editor and for responding. I am here to ask what else can I do to improve and what parts of the guidelines do I need to work on to make myself a template editor. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG ( ✉) 16:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TheFuckAddict/Archive
There you said, Checkusers will not connect an IP to an account per the privacy policy. Closing, since everyone is blocked for vandalism anyway. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Now here a user is blocked for ip editing, and the Ip is even mentioned.
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Warwar86
-- Cosmic Emperor 03:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
How does someone stop blocking being or looking like it is malicious as in no attempt to avoid harm? No one has attempted a workable strategy, no one has tried comprehensive info on one page designed to troubleshoot. The summary: trigger, blocked, not informed (hello robot), discovered, says no reason (hello robot), link suggest tests; fail to unblock; pages latter: you might be specifically blocked or not (hello robot); not specifically blocked; instruction refers to page no longer/never available with half a code to paste; fumble several guesses; you lift block.
How do you know it was right to lift block?
How so circuitous but never ever challenging the block 'reason', why the secrecy, why dumber than a robotic process would suggest, why lifted with no real evidence?
Why is the core of WP unethical? Because anyone who complains is "shouting on your page"? It is a bully tool/bully removal tool isn't? Otherwise it would be edited into one ordinary page and would have some polish.
This came from Flyer22 and/or the people attacking them, didn't it? All I have seen is complete crap on here, no desire for integrity of information and one talk argument over the meaning of '/' in "HIV/AIDS". Juvenile sandpit stuff. I came here to kraft information and hone editing, not argue on primary school topics where there never was argument.
"You should be able to edit without issues now." No I am finding it impenetrable or someone precious comes along and wants 'their' silly, patently wrong idea left instead.
Look, are there some guided steps for newbies? Some exercises perhaps that follow a recipe rather than needing to read many pages and distil them in your first action. Sorry I don't need to be give a page which turns into a tree of pages but something that pulls it together. I feel I cannot edit without upsetting someone and getting blocked again.
I notice that Drake Bell has apologised for tweeting transphobic comments. His car accident is listed. I think transphobia is more important to his music and its lyrics than the historical car accident that he has recovered from. Now it is settled, time to mention? Remember he may have caused someone's suicide and this is not an unreasonable assumption when the rate of self-harm is so high. 210.84.11.221 ( talk) 06:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Note today you have reported racism reported against Australian AFL player Goodes which is just another repeat unfortunately from game targetted at him and it is therefore insignificant relative to Bell's transphobia. Test your avoidance of trans by replacing it with one your attributes or race. I suggest you have been transphobic. If he hit a cameraman it would be there. Ericglare ( talk) 07:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry wasn't even logged in but it felt like I was. I gather this is all public domain then. Ericglare ( talk) 06:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
You've got an admirer [5] Acroterion (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Reaped_Eternally&action=edit&redlink=1 -- Cosmic Emperor 16:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It looks like this IP is now causing disruption on its own talk page, but I don't think I am allowed to remove or deny the unblock request even though it has 0% chance of being granted. I don't know if you can either since you are the administrator responsible for blocking the IP, but I thought I'd notify you just in case. Dustin (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Reaper, I don't know if you realized that Eric's block was done to enforce an arbitration decision. Unblocking him is grounds for an almost automatic desysop. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
For being one of few people who seem to have common sense here! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC) |
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Kevin Gorman has added you as an involved party to this case request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#AE closes, timelines, and independent admin actions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 13:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You are about to become the sacrificial lamb. I don't agree but they will do it. I'm glad to see that you stuck by what you believe was right and even justified it very well. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 14:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Thank you for closing the mess of a discussion & unblocking EC, Unfortunately you can't do right for doing wrong on this place but there are some here who appreciate what you've done!, |
I didn't notice until now that you applied semi-protection. That's probably why I haven't been targeted by any IP vandals yet. Thanks! Dustin (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Reaper Eternal. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#AE closes, timelines, and independent admin actions. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.
For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the
AN page, the
AE page or the
Case Requests page
and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee,
L235 (
t /
c /
ping in reply) via
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
Therefore, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you reply at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Driver 3 vandal? Thanks, Jackmcbarn ( talk) 18:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
All you did, Brian, was to unblock a productive editor to continue improving the substance of this encyclopedia, thereby boldly flying in the face of the bureaucracy and bad-faith-assuming that have come to dominate this encyclopedia. For that you should be applauded, not disciplined. I really hope everything turns out in your favor here. 166.176.249.80 ( talk) 19:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Helping Hand Barnstar | |
Asked for a moment and you spent an eternity clearing my doubts! Your patience with a novice like me makes you a real WikiGryphon! Wish I could give you more! JAaron95 Talk 15:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC) |
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
The vandal returned less than a week after your pp expired. Unless you're prepared to protect this page indefinitely, we need to reinstate the edit filter that you disabled. As was noted in the discussion to open the filter, protections had been tried over and over and just wasted time and effort, as well as being overbroad to the problem that the filter targeted well. I also can't find the discussion in which it was decided to turn off the filter. postdlf ( talk) 22:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)