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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]