Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zigali
Zigali
- Zigali (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Populated account categories: confirmed
09 June 2024[edit]
– This SPI case is open.
Suspected sockpuppets[edit]
The reported IPs have recently made similar or identical changes to those previously made by User:Zigali and their sockpuppet User:Beretta Strike; likewise, demonstrating the same ignorance of MOS:DIGITS that was presented in the previous report, on 20 January 2024 (here). You may check EIA for more details, but as examples, compare:
- Diff1 to diff2
- Diff1 to diff2
- Diff1 to diff2
- Diff1 and diff2 to diff3
- Diff1 and diff2 to diff3 and diff4
I believe that a range block, of let's say 31.22.48.0/20, might be in order. Girth, if time permits, can you please investigate this, since it was you who dealt with the previous report. Demetrios1993 (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I agree Izno. These IPs appear to be part of a pool of dynamically allocated addresses. I am leaning more towards a range block instead of semi-protecting a number of articles. The {{IP range calculator}} produces the following results, which support my prior suggestion for the range of 31.22.48.0/20; even with the additional IPs that are included, which appear to be connected:
Sorted 6 IPv4 addresses:
- 31.22.48.48
- 31.22.56.10
- 31.22.56.16
- 31.22.56.53
- 31.22.56.99
- 31.22.57.86
| Total affected |
Affected addresses |
Given addresses |
Range | Contribs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4096 | 4096 | 6 | 31.22.48.0/20 | contribs |
| 513 | 1 | 1 | 31.22.48.48 | contribs |
| 512 | 5 | 31.22.56.0/23 | contribs | |
| 130 | 1 | 1 | 31.22.48.48 | contribs |
| 128 | 4 | 31.22.56.0/25 | contribs | |
| 1 | 1 | 31.22.57.86 | contribs | |
| 67 | 1 | 1 | 31.22.48.48 | contribs |
| 64 | 3 | 31.22.56.0/26 | contribs | |
| 1 | 1 | 31.22.56.99 | contribs | |
| 1 | 1 | 31.22.57.86 | contribs | |
| 36 | 1 | 1 | 31.22.48.48 | contribs |
| 32 | 2 | 31.22.56.0/27 | contribs | |
| 1 | 1 | 31.22.56.53 | contribs | |
| 1 | 1 | 31.22.56.99 | contribs | |
| 1 | 1 | 31.22.57.86 | contribs | |
| 6 | 1 | 1 | 31.22.48.48 | contribs |
| 1 | 1 | 31.22.56.10 | contribs | |
| 1 | 1 | 31.22.56.16 | contribs | |
| 1 | 1 | 31.22.56.53 | contribs | |
| 1 | 1 | 31.22.56.99 | contribs | |
| 1 | 1 | 31.22.57.86 | contribs | |
Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Comments by other users[edit]
- Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
- The one IP is old and now accidentally blocked (sigh). Blocked the other. Closing. Izno (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm going to reopen. 1) I didn't see the comment about the wider range block, and 2) it might be needed since another IP in the same range showed up shortly after those blocks. The wider block might be necessary, or we can try semi-protection for the worst of the articles. I'm not a great gauge of range blocks though. Izno (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)