Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/75.49.223.52

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

75.49.223.52

 * ,
 * 
 *  
 * ,
 * ,
 * ,
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 *  ,
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 *  ,
 * 
 * 
 * 
 *  ,
 * 
 * 
 * 
 *  ,
 * 
 * 
 * 
 *  ,
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * A:

The anon has been blocked in prior IP incarnations, and is currently claiming that none of the blocks belong to him/her. Furthermore, (s)he is now stating that many of these IPs do not belong to him/her - despite statements to the contrary in prior RfCU requests. I request that a check also be conducted to see if the user is a formerly indef-blocked or banned user; their experience with using wiki protocols and their unpleasant behavior make it seem unlikely that they haven't been here before. Additionally, I will try to search the RfCU archives to see which IPs that the anon has identified as their own, and embolden the IP with citation. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Supporting evidence:


 * Searched for and found four prior RfCU's connected to the user. The last two have IPs explicitly claimed by the IP of this RfCU. Checkuser should be able to connect the claimed IPs with the unclaimed.
 * Prior RfCU regarding this user:


 * Case/Jojhutton (Filed: 23:05, 10 November 2008)
 * Case/206.176.204.44(Filed: 14:23, 28 August 2008)
 * Case/75.57.201.254 (Filed: 04:46, 3 July 2008)
 * Case/75.58.34.144 (Filed: 14:16, 7 April 2008)
 * - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved user: The answer to the checkuser has been given by the submitter. You have listed the IP number.  There are website that will give the approximate location of each IP.  Since they all begin with 75, they are probably within the same location.  Arcayne, all these IP's begin with 75.  You don't need a checkuser to tell you this.  Checkusers only tell you if User:Arcayne and User:Arcayna are using the same IP.  Just be nice to everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.78.135 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 15 November 2008


 * Interesting to see that while the above IP claims to be "uninvolved user" but the IP falls right in the 75.XXX range where this CU is about, plus this is the first and only edit by this "uninvolved user". I would recommend a CU to determine whether a rangeblock will have collateral damage or not. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

67,108,864 IPs are of the form 75.XXX.XXX.XXX. Under IPv4, that's over 1% of the entire internet -- Avi (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, blocking that range will be fun, wouldn't it, eh? OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, for about 4 minutes, until the servers crashed, logging all the complaints that would come in...There's gotta be a better way. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  02:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Server crash might be better than you think, since some people really want a wikibreak and tons of awards up for grabs if you did manage to crash it without anyone noticed your good-faith wrongdoings. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With the current software, that would take 1024 separate rangeblocks :) -- Avi (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really up-to-speed on the process, but the Ips appear to be confined to the Chicago metropolitan area (which is creepy, as I am from there), Gary, IN and New York. Not sure why the anon would claim IPs in New York, but maybe they travel for work. The largest part of them appear to be through AT&T, and might be part of a mobile network. ..Did I read that right? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''