request links: main • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 13:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• 220.255.7.242 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• G:

• Supporting evidence:

Recently on the ACC tool we have noticed that the ip 220.255.7.246 has made over 5 requests for an accounts. There is a note on the users page claiming that the ip is shared. However I have also noticed that 220.255.7.242 has multiple requests for accounts and is not listed as a shared ip address. I have blocked both ips on the interface for 1 week, due to this case. Please check both ips and 220.255.0.0/16 as I and FunPika beleve that one user is using the ip range to create sockpuppets. Thanks Mww113 (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the CUs need to check a range, wouldn't something like 220.255.7.0/24 be more appropriate (I haven't seen any of those requests outside of the 7 range)? Also a whois confirms that the 242 IP is from the same source as the 246 one (the shared notice wasn't added by a bot just so you know). FunPika 13:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Mww113 (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: I am willing to provide ACC tool access to any check user who needs it to confirm the evidence. I can do this on a temporary basis (or full if its wanted) Leave a note on my talk page to request access. Mww113 (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested same, and will give this a look. ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. I think these account requests are very probably innocuous. This IP range is Singtel (as a whois will tell you), and there are a lot of edits on all the IPs in this particular area. Many many many edits from dozens and dozens of users, some I've known for years, can be found on 220.255.7.240/29 ... COULD someone be trying to slip sock requests through? Sure. But the collateral damage of denying account requests on this range is such that I would suggest we would be denying good users too. I'd advocate not blocking this range for account requests in ACC (much less actual blocks, we will have massive collateral damage... not that that was what was asked about). This is closable in my view... ++Lar: t/c 18:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Unbanned on the interface. Mww113 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]