User talk:Reaper Eternal/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Thank you

For protecting the Edward Furlong article. I was just trying to figure out the correct course of action here. Wasn't sure whether to ask for page-protection or ask an admin to look into it. Either way, I was already well over 3RR, so thanks for stepping in there. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a mess of sockpuppets. In any event, reverting BLP violations is explicitly exempt from the three revert rule, for reasons that should be obvious. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

GOCE July 2013 news report

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 30 people who have signed up for this drive so far, 18 have participated. If you have signed up for the drive but have not yet participated, it isn't too late. If you haven't signed up for the drive, sign up now! Progress report: Thus far we have reduced the number of May/June 2012 articles to just 124 articles, so we're on the right track. Unfortunately, for the first time in GOCE history, the number of articles in the backlog has actually gone up during this drive. While all participants are currently doing a fine job, we just don't have as many of them as we have had in the past. We have over 500 editors on our mailing list, but only 18 editors who have done a copy edit for the drive. If you're receiving this newsletter, it's because you have an interest in copy editing. Join the drive! Even if you only copy edit one article, it helps. Imagine how much progress we could make if everyone chipped in just one article. – Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For removing that crap from Tom's talk page, I had just mailed sal to get it oversighted. Well done. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you help with an edit filter for pawns and snowmen pieces?

Hi, Reaper Eternal. :) There was a question at the VisualEditor feedback page yesterday regarding the pawns and snowmen that VisualEditor is sometimes erroneously publishing in articles. @John Vandenberg: was wondering:

Is there an edit filter for pawn ♙ and snowmen ☃? I'm guessing that it doesnt appear often except for this bug. If the edit filter eliminates article that mention 'chess', or 'pawn', I'm sure we'll have nearly zero undesirable hits. Unfortunately I can see how many articles have this character because of bugzilla:51790.

This sounds like a sensible idea to me, and I've been asking around who might be able to help with something like this. It was highly recommended that I check with you.

Is this something you could help out with? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I've created a log-only filter at #577. However, this should be solved at the software level and not the edit filter level, so this filter will be deleted after a couple weeks. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

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) 15:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

• In the media: Wikipedia flamewars

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Religion

• Discussion report: Partially disambiguated page names, page protection policy, and more

• News and notes: Wikivoyage turns ten, but where to now?; Wikipedia Zero expands into India

• Traffic report: Gleeless

• Featured content: Engineering and the arts

• Arbitration report: Infoboxes case opens

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld / Tibetan Prayer

This editor is now using his/her two accounts to edit the same articles (for example the Paris article): here with Dr Blofeld, and just 17 minutes later with Tibetan Prayer. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Since they are declared accounts of the same person, what is the issue? Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

They are nowhere the declared accounts of the same person. Have you checked the user pages and talk pages of these two user accounts? It's only after looking for a long time in the history of both account pages that I found out that they most likely were the same person. The guy has a tendency to edit the pages of his/her two user accounts intensively, so it's hard for other editors to realize it's the same person. If we all start to create multiple accounts to edit the same articles, where is Wikipedia going? Der Statistiker (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: Have you also checked the history of the Paris article? A guy who has made hundreds of edits in a major article like that, in just one month, accounting for more than three-quarter of the edits in that article, to the point of rewriting most of the article in one month, and who on top of it uses two accounts, shouldn't that warrant monitoring by the admins? Der Statistiker (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld's user talk page redirects to Tibetan Prayer's. I don't know how much more obvious you can get. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What's the point of having two accounts? Only to confuse people? He/she has posted comments on the talk page of the Paris article under the two account names. This can only confuse many people, who will think it's two different persons talking (not everybody clicks on the user's talk page). Der Statistiker (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently using this account which I use at times I feel I need to "retreat" a little. I don't like using this account for confrontations, so this is why I posted on the Paris talk page as Dr. Blofeld to answer the continued unpleasant remarks towards my work on the article which promoted it to GA but has attracted a small group of editors who think that once somebody writes text for wikipedia it should never ever be altered, even just slightly...Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 18:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Lier! You posted on the Paris talk page several times as Tibetan Prayer: [1], [2], [3], [4].

And...? Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's also note (I hadn't paid attention to that yet), that Dr Blofeld/Tibetan Prayer wrote this charming comment destined to me: "If you don't like it Der Stat, bugger off to German wikipedia.", under his user account Dr Blofeld [5], and cunningly removed it 2 days later under his user account Tibetan Prayer ([6]). Der Statistiker (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing uncivil comments? I guess Tibetan Prayer must be the "nice guy" side of his personality, and Dr Blofeld the "evil genius" side. That would work.

By the way, I can't see any lies in his comments above, so you might need to do some removing (or striking) of uncivil comments yourself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hands down this German fellow is the rudest, most disgruntled person I've ever met on wiki and that's saying something on here. He acts like a two year old who has had his toys confiscated by his father. Somebody who cares that much about one article and a small section which he contributed clearly has issues. If he started communicating in a civil manner he might find that it would be returned. I'm genuinely a charming, easy-going guy who is willing to discuss ways to improve amicably, if you look at the history of the Paris talk page, nothing but personal attacks on my work and me and nothing really constructive. Above all he's missing why wikipedia is reedited and seems to think that if somebody adds text it must never be touched for hundreds of years. Tim riley, arguably the most respected contributor to wikipedia with countless FAs himself passed it as a GA and only after I edited, that should be sufficient proof that the article is currently a superior article. The funny thing is that this editor has barely edited English wikipedia in the last 4 years and is only here to cause trouble because some of his old work got sanded down.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Good idea

Good call. Coincidentally, I was just thinking I'd better do something about that. (I created the award for Little Less without thinking, as so often.) Bishonen | talk 10:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC).

Yeah, thanks. I just felt that the guy, if he ever saw it (unlikely), might be a little bit peeved at being captioned in such a manner. Anyways, I'm glad neither of you two are particularly annoyed. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Joachim von zur Gathen diffs

Thanks! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Noormohammed satya socks

Hello Reaper Eternal. Thanks for taking care of the two registered sockpuppet accounts, User:3apkgklak and User:3lakapkgk. Please don't forget to block the unregistered (but previously confirmed) sock User:178.61.8.29 as well; out of all three accounts it's been responsible for the majority of nuisance edits these past two weeks. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP too. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

212.183.128.0/20

Sadly you ignored my comments. This /20 is rather busy (you can check contribs and user_talk:s yourself) and is not problematic as a whole. The puppeteer was seen only in a part of 212.183.128.0/24 (not only in 212.183.128.128/26 as I initially supposed, but never before 64 or after 192, whereas numerous user_talk:s exist in first and fourth quarters), as well as from 212.183.140.0/26. Could you replace your broad range block with 212.183.140.0/26, 212.183.128.128/26, and also something like 212.183.128.64/26 or 212.183.128.96/27? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocking that many small ranges won't work, since he would just fit between them. I have, however, shortened the time of the block. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Should I imply that you have an experience with British Vodafone IP hoppers? When I dealt with mobile IP hoppers in Russia, most of of them had not more freedom than one or two /23 pools; anyone was not able to occupy an entire /20. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess you have nothing more to say… but I have. Blocking narrow ranges for a medium term could become a kind of investigation. It will determine whether the puppeteer is able to switch to neighbouring pools. Also, I noticed rumours that other puppeteers operated from Vodafone UK. This experience will be valuable in the future. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not playing games with rangeblocks. I rather doubt Vodaphone is taking any particular caution to assign ranges exactly in those /26's. The only reason just those /26's are affected is because he hasn't needed to hop any more ranges. Given how widely scattered those ranges are, his having access to the entire range is quite likely. If he returns after the rangeblock, the only remaining recourse will be to semiprotect affected pages. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

My IP is blocked

My IP is blocked due to this. I have raised a valid question to know something. Is it possible to block for raising such concern ? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.163.9 (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Looser go and block Drimies for Trolling if you have a shame. I will create an account an do it properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.165.23 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Filter 29 oddity

Hi, I wonder if you could answer this one? An edit by a new editor tripped this filter, and as you can see from the filter log [7] it appears they removed the speedy deletion tag. So far so good. However, upon looking at the actual edit (here's the diff and here's the revision after their edit), they didn't actually remove it. Since the filter hasn't been changed recently, is this a software bug of some sort? The only odd things I can see are that (a) the filter log entry is timed at a minute before the actual diff, and (b) possibly more importantly the user was using Visual Editor (which may also account for the minute's delay given VE's speed). Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking into this...I know the VE has (apparently) introduced some bugs into the AbuseFilter extension. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Reaper Eternal. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:26, 1 August 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mark Arsten (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Revdel

Can you revdel the edit summary from this edit, since you revdel'd the username from the last one? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

• Op-ed: The VisualEditor Beta and the path to change

• Recent research: Napoleon, Michael Jackson and Srebrenica across cultures, 90% of Wikipedia better than Britannica, WikiSym preview

• Traffic report: Bouncing Baby Brouhaha

• WikiProject report: Babel Series: Politics on the Turkish Wikipedia

• News and notes: Gearing up for Wikimania 2013

• Arbitration report: Race and politics case closes

• Featured content: Caterpillars, warblers, and frogs—oh my!

• Discussion report: Defining consensus; VisualEditor default state; expert and layperson terms in article titles

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

FB-like spamming

The spamming feature of the "game" is another minor irritant. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, tell me about it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Another one

Hi Reaper. I blocked Boksembooes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as another obvious sock of Technoquat. Don't suppose it's necessary to add a formal SPI entry. Favonian (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Not again...I'll try to flag down a checkuser for another check. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox vandal

They seem to have a highly dynamic IP, and are obviously not going to be stopping any time soon. A 31h rangeblock might be necessary. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 21:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblocked the /27. This was getting out of hand. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot . Unfortunately, the range seems to extend beyond /27, to /29 at least (see history). It might actually be necessary to block the whole .0/255 range. Never mind, the IP seems to have given up. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 22:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

In Classless Inter-Domain Routing, the "/number" refers to the number of constant bits in the range. Thus, a /29 has 29 constant bits out of 32 total, leaving 3 variable bits. There are 2^3 (8) possible combinations of variable bits, so 8 IP addresses are covered by a /29 rangeblock. With a /27 rangeblock, 2^5 (32) IP addresses are blocked. With a /16 rangeblock, 2^16 (65536) IP addresses are blocked. A /255 rangeblock is impossible, since that implies 255 constant bits, and there are only 32 bits (4 bytes) in IPv4 ranges. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

188.238.0.0/16 is the best way to ban me --188.238.29.239 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	At first, I was just going to thank you for the rangeblock, but you also seem to be quite active in WP:SPI, and, looking through the list of rangeblocks, your username pops up several times as the blocking admin. Hence this barnstar. Keep up the good work! SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 22:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. In response to the above comment, I don't know much about computing (see my userboxes). Thanks anyway, though! --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 15:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...

...For deleting the SPI. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if I should, but I second that thanks. Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You both are welcome. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Sarcasm

In fact, I really enjoyed your advice very much. My comment was to make them (the admins) cool. Sometimes Sarcasm is the best medicine to present a matter in front of ... :) JKadavoor Jee 11:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I thought you were taking my sarcasm seriously. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Hey RE,

Sorry about that revert, you beat me to it and Igloo decided to revert you instead... I'm testing the new Igloo2 that me and KP are sorting out.

Sorry again

Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 18:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It's okay. ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking the sock puppet?

Really? He created two other accounts to get his view across. That's an automatic indefinite ban. Rusted AutoParts 15:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not unblock either sockpuppet—I unblocked the sock master account. And no, sock puppetry, while deceitful, is not an automatic ban. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It was actually three socks. It's certainly true that it's not an automatic ban: first offense is usually one or two weeks, dependent on the severity. In this case, I judged that three socks obviously created with malicious intent fell on the two week end of the scale. I'm curious as to how you found a statement from someone that understood edit-warring well enough to attempt to get away with by by creating three accounts that he "didn't understand edit warring" to have any credibility. At this point I don't think reblocking is even in the cards, but that was quite a leap of faith.—Kww(talk) 16:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I unblocked him because he knows what he did, we know what he did, and he knows that we know what he did. He has agreed to refrain from sock puppetry and edit warring in the future, so I don't see any real reason to keep him blocked. If sock puppets reappear, it's simple to block them and indefinitely block his account too. If he goes back to reverting with his main account, I will be happy to re-instate the block. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Another SPI with possible privacy issues

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bagworm. Is this being handled by ArbCom or not? Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Rollback request

Hi Reaper Eternal, I saw from the category for those who are willing to grant rollback and you are one of them. I have been using Twinkle to revert vandalism and I hope to have rollback permissions to use Huggle. I have a reasonable number of reverts and I hope to have rollback permissions. So I hope that you grant me rollback. Thanks. Jianhui67 (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You need to post this request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, not here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I saw that in the category Reaper Eternal is willing to grant rollback requests. So I'll just posted here instead. By the way, do you think I'm eligible for rollback now? Jianhui67 (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Please unblock my account

Please unblock my account. You blocked it for the reason for running an open proxy and that is not the case. I am just using my computer through a regular connection through Sky Cable Broadband. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untdrum99 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I never blocked your account. Are you sure you didn't just get assigned an IP that had been used as an open proxy in the recent past? If so, could you tell me which IP it is so I can remove the block? Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

A-Roid

I know you salted this article, but I would like for you to undo that so I can make it a redirect to Alex Rodriguez#Use of performance-enhancing drugs. buffbills7701 22:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No. I see nothing in the article indicating that this is a commonly-used term for Alex Rodriguez, making this potentially defamatory. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. I wasn't sure, but thank you for clarifying it a bit. buffbills7701 00:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Post Finasteride Syndrome Re-Direct

Hello,

I believe the post-finasteride syndrome page was incorrectly redirected. In the past, there were arguments that there were not enough sources to justify allowing the page to exist and subsequent false claims of sock puppeting. However with the publication of additional medical research, a PhD has since updated the post-finasteride syndrome page with additional sources. I believe you may have mistakenly upheld the previous decision without considering the new facts that would change the situation. Will you please advise on why you made this decision and how we can re-open it for discussion?

Thanks Doors22 (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I protected the page to enforce the results of the discussion page, where it was decided that there were insufficient reliable medical sources to warrant an article. If further sources have appeared to warrant an article, by all means challenge the "redirect" result at deletion review. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Will you please unblock PhD-Lin's account so that we can review the edits he made in the deletion review section? As it currently stands we are unable to view his edits. As I mentioned, there really was not a case a sock-puppetry but it was several separate people who were interested in creating a wiki page of an illness from which they suffer. Alternatively, if you would help me with the review deletion page that would be appreciated. Thanks. Doors22 (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The edits are invisible because the page was deleted, not because the account is blocked. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there any way to make them visible again so they can be discussed for a revision of deletion? Thanks again.Doors22 (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If you file the review request at deletion review, an admin will undelete the page so it can be reviewed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Thank you for handling Ai-mu-mu's SPI case, have you looked into checkuser to find any other socks he might use (he seems to play catch with new IP's on a regular basis)? Thanks. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Checkusers will not connect an account with the IPs per the privacy policy. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

SPI page

Just an FYI, the directions for multiple users on one account direct people to SPI. If they're supposed to go somewhere else, the directions are far from clear. Might be something to raise with the other SPI folks. Thanks! Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

• Arbitration report: Fourteen editors proposed for ban in Tea Party movement case

• Traffic report: Greetings from the graveyard

• News and notes: Chapters Association self-destructs

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Freedom of Speech

• Featured content: Mysterious case of the grand duchess

• Discussion report: CheckUser and Oversighter candidates, and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Ghosh Bot

Actually you have blocked that bot. But I have no intention to run it here before I get an approval. This is my first bot and those contributions are my first bot contributions. So if you can please unblock that. I am not going to run that here. You saw that it's last contribution is at 24 July. So if you kindly... --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked. Please do not edit outside your userspace (or the bot's) without getting approval from the bot approvals group. Also note that welcoming bots have repeatedly been rejected by the community. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Many many thanks to you. Also thanks for the information about welcoming bot's.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 15:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

GOCE July 2013 copy edit drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter We have completed our July backlog elimination drive. The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor. Sign up for the August blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you revdelete this?

See here. They seem to be quite young, so it seems pretty important to revdelete it. I'd contact someone via email or IRC, but I don't have an email address set, and I'm not sure how to use IRC, and, based on your contribs page, you seem active at the moment. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 21:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you mean their real name, revdelete wouldn't work because it's in every revision. The whole page would need deleted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

They seem online at the moment, and I've asked them to remove it from their current user page, which might make it possible to delete it without deleting every revision. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 21:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed it myself. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 21:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it rises to the level of needing revision deletion. The user has nowhere posted his/her age or any other identifying information. If you do find such issues, you should request oversight privately rather than post on my talkpage, which is somewhat widely watched. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

FiveSidedFistagon

Hi, Reaper Eternal. Just so you know, FiveSidedFistagon has returned again, this time as Flatus I (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([8], [9]). Isn't it time to give him a block? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, Floquenbeam's got it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

And now he's come back as Flatus II (talk · contribs), Flatus III (talk · contribs), Flatus IV (talk · contribs), Flatus V (talk · contribs), Flatus VI (talk · contribs) (all blocked by Elockid (talk · contribs)), Flatus VII (talk · contribs), Flatus VIII (talk · contribs), Flatus IX (talk · contribs), and Flatus X (talk · contribs) (blocked by myself). Sigh. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I have started a ban proposal on this individual at AN. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think that will stop him? WP:RBI. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:RBI is best, but if he is community banned, his edits can be reverted on sight. If the ban doesn't work, we should just basically revert him if he ever shows up again. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Your vote at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Russavia_(de-Bureaucrat)

You need to use the {{remove}} template to vote; otherwise chances that a clever closer may ignore it. :) JKadavoor Jee 16:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Added. Thanks. It'd have likely been missed in the flood of little icons. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

• News and notes: "Beautifully smooth" Wikimania with few hitches

• In the media: Chinese censorship

• Featured content: Wikipedia takes the cities

• Special report: Jimmy Wales: media favors entertainment over raising public awareness

• Discussion report: Wikivoyage, reliable sources, music bands, account creators, and OTRS

• WikiProject report: For the love of stamps

• Arbitration report: Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case closes

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hallo, Reaper Eternal.

I tried to move Studium Generale to Studium generale, with lowercase as it is written for the whole article, but this is blocked by the presence of the redirect studium generale, which prevents the correction. Could you help me? Thanks and nice editing. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the redirect, so you should be able to move the page now. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks a lot, eguor admin. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Check User

Doesn't say on your page that you have check user rights here but judging from your comment on my sock report it appears you have, care to clarify it for me? Mo ainm~Talk 09:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not have checkuser. Additionally, in the SPI report on you, checkuser would not have been used, since your prior account was long since stale, and whether it was you wasn't in question. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Who said it wasn't in question? Mo ainm~Talk 13:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying it wasn't you? Why didn't you say so on the SPI, then? Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/99.251.112.162

I clearly stated within my evidence and in a comment I just left on the page, but as far as I am aware there is technical evidence that checkusers can look at beyond matching accounts based on their IP addresses that can be examined. That is why I asked for checkuser. That is why it is necessary in this case. There are no named accounts being linked to IP addresses to violate the privacy policy. I am asking that the operator of several IP addresses be confirmed as the same person.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Signup Page Error

Error on this page. googleappspotblock template fails to appear. Not sure if this is a system limitation or not. (e.g., due to period next to the end of the template call tag) Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlindWolf8 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

www.celebritiesheight.com

Somebody were posting spam using my personal computer. thats why u blocked my domain www.celebritiesheight.com. i m extremely sorry for that and now my pc is safe, so i request u to remove my sites from your blocklists.

Regards Durchana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durchanarawati (talk • contribs)

N Not done and not likely to be done. The spammers might return. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a spammer beleive me im owner. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durchanarawati (talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

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) 23:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What's this?

18:49, 19 August 2013 Reaper Eternal (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WPPilot (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page: Not sockpuppets either)

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WPPilot. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what this is about? It was put on my page by Bushranger and then taken off by Bushranger. Is there a reason for this or is it meant to be intimidating? If the later I suggest BS Ranger read my profile as that is a highly unlikely scenario. Maybe it is just some wiki paranoid thing? Unsure so I thought I would ask your opinion as the deleted instructions said to do that. Thanks Pheasantpete (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC) P.S. I am still somewhat new to wiki, especially wiki politics which I do not have much interest in.

Basically, The Bushranger thought you were an inappropriate alternative account of some other person, then he realized you weren't, so he removed his accusations. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

GOCE Blitz wrap-up and September 2013 drive invitation

Guild of Copy Editors August Blitz wrap-up Participation: Out of sixteen people who signed up for this blitz, nine 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 removed 26 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the September drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor. Sign up for the September drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

• In the media: Chelsea Manning, Box-office predictors, and 'Storming Wikipedia'

• Recent research: WikiSym 2013 retrospective

• WikiProject report: Loop-the-loop: Amusement Parks

• Traffic report: Reddit creep

• Featured content: WikiCup update, and the gardens of Finland

• News and notes: Looking ahead to Wiki Loves Monuments

• Technology report: Gallery improvements launch on Wikipedia

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:96.35.201.177

You may want to revert the Talk page above and revoke the IP's privileges. - Areaseven (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Threats

Although I don't take this threat seriously, it would be nice to block User:Ol' Dirty Jedi and their other accounts as soon as possible per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OneMadScientist. Thanks. I am One of Many (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the sockpuppets. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary Revision Deletion

Hey there, Reaper Eternal. Could you please be so nice as to delete something from the history of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NawlinWiki? Thanks! Ginsuloft (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Took care of it myself, thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh lovely, another nimp link. (Don't go there; virus awaits you.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Another one at [10]. Is it simple to remove it from the pagemove log, i.e. can you do it without deleting the page? Ginsuloft (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I hid it. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't be bothering you anymore (just realized there are dozens, if not hundreds of them still left and probably no one cares). I'll go through them and delete them if/when I become an admin myself.. Ginsuloft (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Request and question

Hi Reaper Eternal. Can you grant rollback to my alternative account, Jianhui68? Though I rarely use that account, but I will still use that account for testing purposes. I may also use that account on public computers too. So please grant rollback to my alternative account. Thanks.

By the way, how do you hire a bot to help me to archive your talk page? Currently I archive my talk page myself. But it would be efficient if there is a bot to do it for me. Jianhui67 Talk 13:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) He uses ClueBot III to archive his talk page. You can find instructions for how to have either it or MiszaBot III archive your talk page by following the instructions here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Reaper Eternal will you please view my request I placed 2 days ago?

And can you help me to place the code on my talk page for Cluebot III to archive my talk page by each month? I'm not sure how to do so. Jianhui67 Talk 01:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the rollback request after seeing that someone had replied to your question. Someone else has already done that too.

To archive by month, I think you can use: {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |archiveprefix=User talk:Jianhui/Archives/|format=Y/F|age=168|index=no}}. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have actually asked Spencer about archiving and tested MiszaBot III. It will archive Spencer's message on my talk page tomorrow at about 04:00 to 05:00 (UTC), since I put it to archive a message which is 3 days old. I want to see if MiszaBot III can archive my request properly tomorrow, so that I can continue using that bot. Jianhui67 Talk 15:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked Accouns

Hi Reaper Eternal,

I saw you blocked my account Reeespecto. I don't know what else to do - but that was my attempt to protect the integrity of a Page that has been vandalized since its inceptio: Luis D. Ortiz. This user LuisDOrtega is really good at making himself look good. If you see the history of the article he is always shedding a bad light on the subject and misinterpreting events. I do not work for the subject or am I friends with him like LuisDOrtega has stated. However I have followed his career closely and I'm very certain that what LuisDOrtega is doing is trying to slander his image. I don't mind having negative aspects in there however I think there should be some space for the good things the subject has accomplished. I greatly appreciate your help in this matter.

Kind regards, Nameofjustice (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I can see from your page that you want to write articles not drama so I could see why reading this might not be of your interest. However I feel that if you look into it you will quickly see that I'm not trying to create drama but an impartial article.

LuisDOrtega tried to make my account seem bogus when if you take a look at his contributions all he has edited has been Luis D Ortiz. There have also been other moderators that have understood what LuisDOrtega is trying to do and in one instance gave it semi-protection for a while. You can also see LuisDOrtega including the "controversy" sections of Luis into the show's page Million Dollar Listing New York even though is irrelevant to mention it over there.

In order to portray how he has tried to shed a negative light on the subject here are some examples of his work:

1. ) If you go to the source that talks about Bait & Switch it is very clear that the subject talks about how it was widely practiced in the industry - however LuisDOrtega is quick to make it seem as if all that the subject did was bait and switch - and that was all that his worked involved.

2.) I tried including that Douglas Elliman is the largest real estate company in New York City - LuisDOrtega deletes this given he doesn't want the subject related to the #1 firm.

3.) LuisDOrtega is very adamant to include that the subjects mother wanted to "kill him" - in one of the edits he even stated that the mother wanted to kill the subject and his brother out of suffocation when the source just said that they felt suffocated given their circumstances in their home town.

4.) Ortega also tries to imply that the subject's use of his father's credentials to obtain a loan is part of a controversy when it is common practice in New York to use a co-signer to obtains loans. From the article it really isn't clear wether he used a co-signer or not so it shouldn't be mentioned in either way.

5.) I have tried to name the Film section as Film Directing and Ortega repeatedly renames it Very Short Film Directing - trying to belittle its contribution.

In summary - everything that is negative about the subject is OK to be included in the article but anything that might be remotely positive about the subject is interpreted as vandalism. It is very frustrating. If I include a quote from the CEO and President of DouglasElliman saying that the subject is a great addition to the company - Ortega deletes it saying that the article is not a resume. Well I believe is part of the subjects Biographical history.

I greatly appreciate you taking of your time in reading this and hope that you are able to see where I'm coming from. Pleasehelpicomeinpeace (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for removing the auto block request. Does this mean that the next time I log in from the autoblocked IP, *my* account will always be able to edit (even if the IP is autoblocked)? Noopur28 (talk)

I deleted the autoblock on the IP itself. Thus, you shouldn't have any more issues with being autoblocked. If vandals keep vandalizing on your IP, resulting in it being continually autoblocked, let me know and I'll give you IP block exemption so this will never happen again. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

• In the media: Chelsea Manning, Box-office predictors, and 'Storming Wikipedia'

• Recent research: WikiSym 2013 retrospective

• WikiProject report: Loop-the-loop: Amusement Parks

• Traffic report: Reddit creep

• Featured content: WikiCup update, and the gardens of Finland

• News and notes: Looking ahead to Wiki Loves Monuments

• Technology report: Gallery improvements launch on Wikipedia

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Kanjabir

Thanks for cleaning up after me. I only got to find all his other accounts through the photos he uploaded to commons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277

Ahoy Reaper.

Am I the only one who gets the feeling that rybec could use a little teaching about how to add newly found socks to a currently open case? I mean he has what, 10 or 11 SPIs to a day? That's unnecessarily a lot for clerks like you to look over. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 17:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I wish he was wrong, but he isn't. There really are that many socks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Questions regarding EFM permission

I'm asking you for some advice, since you seem to be an experienced admin and EFM (and I like your username), just about when is it appropriate to request for permission at WT:EF, if at all (instead wait until you pass a RfA and make yourself one)? I would find this user right useful for finding vandalism quickly (if I understood the "test this filter" button correctly and it isn't actually a "break Wikipedia" button) and possibly silent logging (I am aware of condition bloat issues), also to see hidden filters of LTAs. So, I am asking you, when should I request it, in the near future, or not now and not in any foreseeable future (forget it totally)? Thanks for your advice. Respond when you aren't busy. Talk page stalkers may also comment.

Also, congratulations on your promotion! Hopefully you are enjoying your new toy. Ginsuloft (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"Test this filter" is used for testing edit filters, not finding vandalism. Additionally, you will need a good understanding of regular expressions before requesting EFM. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit filter issue

A quick question; I've found a couple of FPs recently where an editor had edited a line which if it had been added would have triggered a filter; however in these cases the text which would have triggered it is already there (and is valid). I'm guessing this is something to do with added_lines, but is it something we simply have to live with? No big deal, just a query really. Black Kite (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That's because, when editing a line, the edit filter sees the line being removed and a slightly different line added in. Could you give me an example, and I'll see what I can do? Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The latest one is here. The previous one, which I can't find now, was Filter 380. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's due to the "FUCKUP". Unfortunately, there isn't a whole lot I can do about that. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I guessed there wasn't. I made the edit for the IP anyway. Black Kite (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Boast of socking at WP:FTN?

Hello, Reaper! Excuse my sticking my nose in, but you may wish to reconsider your closing the SPI of 97ytkljgg789 in light of the subject’s edits at FTN, which could be construed as an admission. Just thought I’d bring it to your attention.—Odysseus1479 06:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I checked based on that boast, and they are  Likely to be the same user based on technical evidence. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

With the recent block expired, this user 8i347g8gl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing the same behavior that lead to the block, warring to add the same (highly irrelevant, anti-semitic, weird) material. Are you going to block, or do I need to create a separate ANI for that? Vzaak (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Reaper Eternal. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Closed Sock Puppet Investigation

Hi Reaper. Thank you for reviewing my claim and belief that Loudog777 is the same user as Rockhistoryking. You closed the investigation on the basis that the edits weren't the same. I may not have presented the claim properly, for which I apologize. If you compare this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Cardenas&diff=571188298&oldid=571171676 with Administrator Mike Rosoft's reverts of August 18th, you find that Loudog777 inserted this text: "Although Allied Artists/Kim Richards claim that Renegade has released four albums; it's realistically NOT TRUE. Renegade only released one album which is Rock N Roll Crazy to date." in both edits. Then this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Cardenas&diff=571188298&oldid=571172007 contains "This claim was also conjured up byAllied/Richards and Renegade didn't even come close to sales of that magnitude." which was again the same claim contained in Mike Rosoft's reverted edit of August 18th. Although I'm not quoting all of the edits, they all parallel the edits Mike Rosoft reverted. In other words, the same edits appear in both Loudog777's current edits and Rockhistoryking's edits of August 18th, which caused Mike Rosoft to block Rockhistoryking indefinitely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rockhistoryking. I can't copy the August 18th content because Mike Rosoft protected the defamatory comments he reverted from, but you should be able to compare them from archives to satisfy yourself that they are the exact same vandalism. I hope this helps you to reassess your conclusion. Thank you very much. --TechnicalExcellence (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Aha, I see that now. He changed the order of everything around in this second incarnation so it wouldn't be obvious to anybody unfamiliar with the case, and put the inappropriate claims in the middle rather than at the end, where they had been before. I've blocked the sockpuppet. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Double cheers to you too!! --TechnicalExcellence (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tokarro666

Damn, you beat me to it. I was working on this and had come to the exact same conclusions you did (without the CU, of course), but I was moving much more slowly than you, so by the time I was about to update the report (I'd already made minor changes to it), you were done. Oh well, I guess I'll have to find another.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Heh, sorry about that. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I did Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shirai2013. I had to change the master and then I endorsed a CU. Please let me know if I did anything wrong, or even if I could have done it better. Thanks. (It seems like you're on a tear doing just about everything yourself. At the rate you're going your trainees will be left in the dust. :-) ) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've replied there, Bbb23, with my results. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like my feelings about Shirai2013 were correct. Should I now change the master to be the oldest of the other accounts? If so, what would I do with Shirai2013 so we (a) keep it documented and (b) have our comments make sense?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, move it to the oldest account of the obvious sockpuppets, and put Shirai2013 as a "suspected sock" on the page, so we know why he was checked. Obviously, don't block him or tag him as a suspected sock. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I did everything except archive it. Should I have changed the indef block on Mikeyyking to reflect the sock puppetry (I didn't but I tagged him)? Also, would you please take a look at it before I archive it? Let me do it but the procedures suggest having someone check my work first. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't change the actual block message. A sock tag on the userpage is already enough. It looks good! Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It's archived, and I'm inordinately pleased that I've gotten one under my belt. I assume, at least from a mechanical standpoint, it will get easier with practice. Thanks much for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible impersonation

Just curious, but is this you? If not, you may want to contact Wikia about having the account closed as they are impersonating you and vandalizing pages. Thanks! Foodbandlt (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not me; that's Wagner. Could you please block him? Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

@Foodbandlt: Would you mind removing the impersonation on his userpage. I created an account "Reaper Eternal (real)" to do so, but was promptly indefblocked as a sockpuppet of the fake "Reaper Eternal". Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Kinrah has already taken notice and I've unblocked that account as you're not a sockpuppet. Thanks for your time! Foodbandlt (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)