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 [1] 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]

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)[reply]

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

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

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

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)[reply]

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

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)== August 2013 ==[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

	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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]