Jump to content

User talk:Reaper Eternal/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 35

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

Declined Speedy deletion of User:Mae Bug93/sandbox

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)

Decline it, and ignore it. If they keep re-submitting nonsense for trolling purposes, they can be blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Good to have you back! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to your doom! I mean, welcome back! (How'd I get those mixed up?) Nice to see you again! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Irfan afzal

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irfan afzal singer -- they're back as Farhanbhai125. —George8211 / T 17:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

Sock vs meat

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)

Sorry, I missed this message due to people rapidly vandalizing and reverting my talkpage. I really don't have time to review all the new potential evidence right now, so I'm removing my declined checkuser so another can take a look. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, I've been seeing the vandalism cycle here whenever I look at related changes on the SPI. Sorry to see that you've been targeted in this way, but I suppose the socks that do this are particularly easy to spot. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I've dealt with that SPI. Let me know if more sockpuppets start arriving. >_< Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

RfA

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)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

Logic Barnstar

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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyclone Waste Heat Engine

Did you read the article to the end? DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. And I have now removed the offending synthesized "controversy". The article needs work, not blanket deletion as an attack page, which it clearly isn't. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Email unblock request

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)

I've dealt with the block. You can reply telling him that he should be able to edit now. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! NawlinWiki (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter

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)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

Hi Brian...

...although I have a strange feeling that isn't your real name :) PretendAuthority (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you cast your eye over an article for me?

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 Signpost: 29 April 2015

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by India The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

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 Belarus 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)

Thanks

Some fans are pretty hell-bent about getting their musicians into the Wikipedia, eh? Tarc (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've found that the more "hardcore" and less notable the musician is, the more likely it is that sock puppetry or canvassing will occur. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Aren't you that guy...

That ended up breaking an edit filter? DN-boards1 (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Aren't you that guy...who is currently evading a block? :P (Not that I care if you are, if you've matured.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Ummm....What makes you think that...? --DN-boards1 (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

Dru yoga socks

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)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

semi protect

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've unprotected your userpage. Feel free to let me or WP:RFPP know if the IP trolls return and you want it re-protected. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
:) Peter Damian (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

SPI

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)

I deleted it because the users are obviously different, and there is no reason to keep frivolous SPIs around. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
There are more than enough similarities for saying they are not different but same person. Thus I am still not getting what made you think that they are any different, or different enough that SPI should be deleted. One account is hardly 6 months old, while other one is only 1.5 month. None of your deletion reasons seems to be valid either way. Going by the contribution history, similar AfDs, interests, userpages, all that seems too much for such a new accounts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
And I could find just as many tenuous "similarities" between you and them if I wanted to. Does that make you their sockpuppet too? Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
That had to be mentioned on SPI, if there are any, not here after unilaterally deleting a WP:DUCK case for no actual reason. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I take as much unilateral action as I want because I'm a rogue admin on a power trip. Mwahahahahah! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The fact that my "alleged sockpuppet" and I had a "second sandbox", used the COI template, used {{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)
Seriously, a WP:DUCK case? Not a random person's chance of fulfilling every Hebrew Messiahic prophesy, with such evidence. If you're trying so hard to get me blocked, even going as far as requesting Reaper Eternal to (e)mail you a copy of the SPI, then you really need to wake up and smell the coffee and drop the stick immediately! Esquivalience t 02:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone is Betacommand ban evading

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)

Hmmm... interestingly, you have 1 edit, right to this page..... Cursory check at OccultZone's edits and Betacommand or even Δ's edits, show no overlap, so, even though I'm no CU, I'd say that's very doubtful. OTOH, since you've made 1 edit, and have come directly to this page, I wonder if you've been here under a different name  ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
IP reminds me of Arnhem 96.[1][2] Werieth was already checked on the same "discussion" that the IP is referring.[3] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
@KoshVorlon: OccultZone has been abusing multiple accounts, so I wonder if this allegation is connected in some way with that and/or OccultZone's impending ban. It seems very suspicious that this allegation should be made just hours before significant multiple account abuse by OccultZone was discovered by the Arbitration Committee. Nick (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Nick Got it. I did some other checking Werieth, Betacommand (and Delta symbol) that he used as well as the IP address and Occult Zone, and to be honest, Betacommand had a VERY customized monobook.js file, Werieth , Occult Zone and none of his socks have this same set up. (I know what it is, because I have it in my monobook.js file too ). Further, Betacommand had very customized .js files in his space that none of Werieth , Occult Zone or his socks have in theirs. So again, even though I'm not a CU, I don't believe the IP. Speaking of the IP and Arnhem, I seem to recall another named user repeatedly making the same accusations, I think it was Andy Dingley, it would be impossible to connect the two as this IP has only posted one message with the poor man's CU, but based on evidence, I'd say it's probable (flimsly, I know ), and since a CU won't publiclly connect an IP to a user, it would be useless to file a CU. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

DR

Check Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May 27. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Socks

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)

I went ahead and blocked the rest of the accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


Talk page block

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)

headsup

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)

Blocked that  Confirmed sockpuppet of AHLM13 (talk · contribs) too. Additionally,  IP blocked now. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
...and another range blocked since he evaded the first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

TWA Study

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)

Oh, I understand that this isn't "gravedancing". However, I have replied to this study in general over at Wikipediocracy. I must say that I find this study unconvincing, for reasons I go into detail over there. Thanks for the link! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"Terribly designed?"

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)

That filter was so overly broad that anybody making any edit to any paragraph on the article Drake Bell containing the five letter word fragment "trans", which includes words like "translation", "trans fat", "transition", "transmission", "transubstantiation", and others, regardless of whether or not they originally added the word, would be disallowed from making the edit. If people are repeatedly violating the BLP policy, block said people. If it's an edit war, protect the article. In this case, which happens to be a lot of autoconfirmed accounts vandalizing one article in particular, full protection or PC-2 (which I think people rejected for unknown reasons, since it would be excellent in a case like this...) is called for. The edit filter is meant to stop very specific types of edits across wide ranges of articles. It is not a good use of server resources trying to stop very general edits to one specific article. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
A very theoretical argument: if, in practice, the filter began firing on things like "trans fat", I would modify it. As it stands, the article has been protected specifically due to edits adding variations of "transphobic" and "transgender" to articles about things related to "Drake Bell", which the filter did a quite good job of stopping. Since the article does not currently contain the word "trans", your concern about "regardless of whether or not they originally added the word" is irrelevant. Please don't disable filters I have created without the courtesy of discussing it with me in the future.—Kww(talk) 20:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank You!

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)

You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Impersonator

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)

Oh, fun! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Question about procedure

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)

I guess just let the deletion request take its course. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. That's what I did. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter

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)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

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

Peter Damian (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BookWorm44/Archive

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)

Oops, not an ordinary poster, another Goblin Face sock. Typical. Still, there is something in it. Doug Weller (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Hm, I hadn't see that socks edit until you mentioned it here. It's looking more and more likely that Pyramidologist, Goblin Face, and BookWorm44 are all the same. I do also suspect that there is an innocent person in all of this - the sockpuppeteer's family member. Some of the accounts edits don't really match up with the majority. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to decipher who is who. Tiptoety talk 05:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Tiptoety: I agree that it's a bit tricky, and we've got Quack Hunter in the mix who is another victim. User:Berean Hunter is looking at this also as I've asked him if he'll do the merge (as I saw him at Wikipedia talk:SPI discussing another merge. Doug Weller (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I also believe that the cases may be merged but will wait for Reaper's opinion here. Where I dissent is that I don't think Quack Hunter is innocent. It's more of the same old brother story as in the Anglo Pyramidologist archive but that means Quack is still a sock that managed to find himself in the same areas as before. This means he was dishonest when he created his userpage (diff) "Long time observer of Wikipedia. Signed up as I want to fix a few fringe-related articles on Wikipedia. I will not be here long and..." and failed to disclose anything about previous accounts which helps create this mess again. His brother was a uni student four years ago (if he was to be believed) but he is still supposedly in the same house messing things up? He only lets us know after he is caught but never assists beforehand in revealing anything about his brother's socking? That means he isn't helping us. Aspects of the story are BS and I wouldn't feel guilty about letting things stand. If he can't keep matters in his own house straight, he shouldn't expect us to have to sort out the messes for him. By hook or by crook, if I had an issue going on in my house like that I would certainly fix things my way off wiki. This reminds me of a BS story related to someone's recent desysopping over socking. In this sock case where the master is Anglo Pyramidologist, I suggest locking everyone behind the house IP out so that WP is not disrupted...it isn't our job to sort out the problems under their roof.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Berean Hunter, I agree that the disruption is enough to lock out everyone. Even if Quack were innocent, he should have been able to stop it. Doug Weller (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

User:Eternal Reapist

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)

Template Editor

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)

Sorry for the delay, but it is not happening. This is not a game—user rights are not "level ups". They are granted on an as-needed basis. As for what you need to work on, try not searching for user rights for their own sake. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
OK Thanks -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 21:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

different rules for different users

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Warwar86

--Cosmic  Emperor  03:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Admins blocking accounts and IPs which are blatantly the same person without using checkuser is not a privacy policy violation. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

How to edit Block info?

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)

What on earth are you trying to write here...? Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

Fan club

You've got an admirer [5] Acroterion (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Parody account

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Reaped_Eternally&action=edit&redlink=1 --Cosmic  Emperor  16:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Special:Diff/668691501

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)

I rolled back the request and removed the talk page access. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate the quick response. Dustin (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Please block this IP: 82.132.239.251. Thank you. Dustin (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI

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)

See also. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
In general, Ed, I replied on Eric's page. Specifically (sorry, admired Reaper Eternal, for using your talk): look. When I made the edit I knew that sooner or later it would get to AE, where it might demonstrate how silly it is to count my comments without looking at their content, while not counting those of others nor looking at their content.- Digest the whole discussion for kafkaesque aspects. It was later, to AE I mean, and I was almost blocked, to demonstrate kafkaesque aspects further. - Some things are predictable, unfortunately so, and that's what Eric did. - Others are unpredictable, like the unexpected unblock. Thank you, RE. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Wrong. He expressed anticipation that a specific admin, Callanecc, might block him. Which was EC's assessment of the judgment and aims of that admin, than any supposed admission of violating his Tban. (It's a manipulative & underhanded argumentation style to twist other people's meanings in attempt to color things according to your own agenda. Please stop it.) IHTS (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Enough of the bureaucratic BS already!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I have added a note to the current ArbCom case request: [6]. Fundamentally, you're in the wrong by the plain reading (and reasoning) of the ArbCom's discretionary sanctions (DS) process—a central purpose of which was to prevent the paralysis and neutering of enforcement of arbitration remedies by interminable, intractable, and inconclusive noticeboard threads. In instances where a clear, active, and substantial consensus to overturn an AE/DS action does not exist, the only correct, specified avenue for appeal is to ArbCom.
I hope that you overstepped the bounds of the AE/DS rules just because you weren't fully familiar with them; I admit that I haven't sat down and re-read the specific provisions for a while. The best thing you can do here is to undo your out-of-process action and – if and only if Eric endorses such a request – participate in an appeal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Otherwise you're in the position of deliberately ignoring and overruling ArbCom's remedies, which just isn't cool, and is the sort of situation where they ought to consider desysopping. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I did not overstep the rules. I implemented the community consensus, which is exactly how AE blocks were meant to be contested! Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
No, not really. I'm disappointed that you want to wink and nod and stick to that story. You left a Hey buddy, looks like they're out to get you-type message for Eric on his talk page [7], then two days later you overturned an AE block of Eric on the basis of what even you called a "slight consensus" (which is a pretty tortured redefinition of the word 'consensus'). Your process was bad, and the optics are bad, and the outcome was defective—and you're doubling down on it, converting a lapse of judgement into a demonstration of bad judgement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I saw Reaper's actions as following the original intent of the blocking policy and the core of Wikipedia, in particular, WP:BLOCKING and WP:IAR, which isn't a license to do what you want, but it is a license to use whatever methods are necessary to do the "right thing", and it trumps all policies, Admin, Arbcom and Jimbo combined. The current cluster of conflicting rules are such that it is easy for someone who shouldn't be blocked to stay blocked indefinitely. It is about Power® and whether Arb can make or override policy. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. That Eric is involved is secondary and uninteresting at this point. THAT took some doing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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)
Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
spirale of justice, 1510, Kiedrich
I looked up, Brian, what I had to say, starting 2014 - a difficult time for me, and don't regret one word, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
A very bold action, to say the least. I just hope you don't get desysopped for this. To be quite honest, I've always thought it quite disturbing that a block can be made near-irreversible (or even unalterable) by merely declaring it to be for arbitration enforcement... --Biblioworm 15:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
...even more ironic after AE was closed as "no enforcement", - the table of logic in the case request is admirable, - let's see who understands it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: It was recently brought to my attention that there is a second clause that I had not considered, which adds scenarios #3 and #4 to the logic table. However, they run into serious issues that I have outlined in red. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I think a lot of the sanctimonious idiots on here have an idea of how an admin should be, and there's no such thing as perfection. Personally I much prefer admins who aren't excessively preoccupied with what others think of them and are willing to take action where they think it's in the best interest of the site or peace rather than doing something which will gain them brownie points. There's so many admins on here who never do the slightest thing to avoid a backlash, and I don't think they should be under that pressure if admins are really to do their job properly. An admin should quite rightly protect content, like Rambling Man did the other day with the reverts, and Reaper should be well within her rights to take action where she's sees a whole load of pointy time wasting, blocking for the sake of it, and where there isn't proper consensus to do so. These are the sorts of administrators we need more of. Summer fever seems to be affecting a lot of people on here at the moment. Best of luck Reaper in dealing with the backlash. Respectfully,♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, I've been watching Wikipedia's general mindset become more and more "ban-happy", for lack of a better word. Admins and ArbCom are acting more like cops and jailers than like arbitrators and janitors. We're supposed to be the servants of the community, not its dictators, for crying out loud! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
What's really sad this that the whole thing could have been avoided if the person reporting to AE first had talked to Eric first. Sure, he might have refused to revert, but ... - Andy, when asked, refused, remember, - one edit - which no doubt improved Wikipedia - kept three noticeboards busy for weeks, - my father called it waste of time and potential (today's). - If you follow where the image of the spirale is used you get to some interesting discussions. - When it was ban-happy season in 2012 I decided to stay anyway, - the red link on my user page dates from then. The key word in the cantata title is not logic and rulez but heart, - you have it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request

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)

Uhmm, I already posted my statement. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, it looks like you posted your statement at the same time (13:13) that I posted this notice. I just noticed you hadn't been notified of your addition to the case request. Liz Read! Talk! 14:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
No worries! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that sucks

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)

A barnstar for you!

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!,
Anyway keep up the great-admining (If that's even a word ) –Davey2010Talk 16:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection of my talk page

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)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

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)

Duly noted. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

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)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

  1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

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)

Here we go! Fun! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Good luck Reaper. I expect that from now on every thing, every dispute, every POV tag will get its Arb case. Oh! Thanks for the unblock! You clearly have more courage (and zeal for the project) than I do. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Sadly, a lot of the gunning for me feels political rather than out of any attempt to better Wikipedia. :\ Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I wait for the workshop phase to say more. Less is more ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Driver 3 vandal

Can you reply at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Driver 3 vandal? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Good luck on your arb hearing!

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)

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

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 Signpost: 01 July 2015

A barnstar for you!

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)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

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:

  1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
    2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

List of people from San Francisco

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)

Yet another edit the filter would have blocked. I'm happy to ask @Jackmcbarn: to reinstate the filter he set up, if you don't have the time. postdlf (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reaper_Eternal/Archive_28&oldid=1137475069"