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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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