Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Lotuslander

Sorry for the IP but I'm at a public terminal in a mall while my wife shops. After due consideration I have removed the Lotuslander check as a fishing expedition. If the Lotuslander account contiunued to act disruptively on Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) it can be banned as a single-purpose axe-grinding account. If this account is a sock of an established user, there seems to be no basis for disclosing that fact unless the different accounts have all edited Rachel MArsden, which it doesn't look like they have. Anyone can restore the request, of course, and I'll let the checkusers deal with it from now on. 24.39.204.9 21:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC) user talk:Thatcher131

Indeed. A reminder to all clerks: Please do not make decisions on checks, that is for a checkuser to do. We need to be very careful about blurring the lines between the assitance tasks the clerks perform and the judgment calls the checkusers make. Essjay (Talk) 04:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I rolled back that users edit (just before you left this message), I am not sure that is Thatcher. Prodego ^talk 04:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It was, but I will leave it to others from here in. Thatcher131 04:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Dave702 sounds a lot like Warren Kinsella who is based in Toronto. He writes a column for the National Post, a cross town rival, and has a political consulting biz in Toronto's Yorkville district. He's also been feuding with Mark Bourrie and would be going after Rachel as a way of getting under his skin. He also dissed Rachel recently on his blog. 64.230.75.43 08:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a fishing expedition and should be dismissed. Marsden has lived and worked in Toronto for several years and has made friends and enemies at both of the Toronto newspapers she's worked at as well as at the Star and Globe (and probably tv and radio). Proving that someone who's edited the Marsden article is from Toronto doesn't prove that person is Warren Kinsella - it could be anyone from a disgruntled co-worker to a professional rival to an unimpressed reader or an ex-boyfriend. 74.12.83.146 19:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's important for those with checkuser permission sot understand the significance of RFC 1918 networks

This provides some introdutory information on such networks. These IPs should probably only be blocked for a few hours or days at most, to discourage vandals and spammers. If that doesn't work, more significant measures may be needed. T-Mobile hotspots is one large example. Another is apparantly the country of Qatar.

• 208.54.95.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 208.54.95.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 208.54.15.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Request for ISP reporting:

• Contact T-Mobile (my mail: address was provided before) and verify the network topology.
• Work with T-Mobile to institute Wikimedia’s XFF-RFC1918 Project if appropriate (the research listed here before indicates that this is not a proxy IP rather a handful (maybe only 2) of public IPs that provide NAT routing to thousands of private IPs per RFC 1918.
• Raise awareness among admins about RFC 1918 (this was not in the original ISP reporting request, but not it seems clear that it is needed). Admins repeatedly delete the ISP reporting page for the very reason this issue needs attention. Some additional information is in the article Wikipedia has on the topic of RFC 1918 and private networks.

More details were included in the deleted version. I'm sorry I don't have access to that information.

---

Discussion Several editors from this IP commented here to work up a solution to the T-Mobile hotspot problem. The request for ISP reporting was deleted because of the unawareness of administrators this IP significance. This is the very problem this abuse report is meant to address.

I do not have access to the original discussion (except for what appears on the IP's talk page), however I'll do my best to reconstruct it.

Exercise extreme caution in blocking this IP address. As of 23 December 2006, T-mobile uses this IP for over (8,000 locations. Each location has approximately 30 NAT IPs assigned to it. That potentially effects an estimated 240,000 possible nodes. When considering blocking, It is not your average IP. It is not an open WiFi network either, but instead t-mobile collects personal identify information from every customer. Therefore serious abuse can be reported and traced through the ISP. When blocking be sure to provide diffs on this page to support the block and identify specific edits among a sea of different anonymous editors on this IP. This IP may even serve as the primary ISP IP for many editors.

Also try to be aware of Autoblocks that include this IP address. Keep in mind that an autoblock of this IP will simultaneously affect over 8,000 LANs throughout the continental United States so an autoblock on this IP address can potentially affect many other editors. This makes it especially important to avoid frivolous blocks. If an account block is necessary — and such a block therefore results in an autoblock of this IP address — we advise administrators to wait some time (minutes or hours) and then lift the autoblock before the usual 24 hour period expires.

This may be an ideal candidate IP for Wikimedia’s XFF-RFC1918 Project using the entire private range 10.0.0.0/8. The contact to T-Mobile should be made through the Wikimedia Foundation office on their letterhead. T-Mobile has provided the following address:

T-Mobile USA
P.O. Box 863957
Plano, TX 75086-3957

What we need from ISP reporting is someone to take the lead in raising awareness of RFC 1918 private networks and to serve as a liaison to ensure the Foundation contacts T-Mobile. For security/obscurity reasons, they do not want to discuss this with just anyone. --TheSameTmobileEditor 03:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)