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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]