Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Transitguru

If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Transitguru}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).

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

transitgumbo

request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 22:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

transitgumbo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Code letter: F
Supporting evidence: [1][2][3][4][5][6]

[7] Checkuser requested as advised at AN/I [8]. SpinningSpark 22:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed -to - preferably the former - Alison ^❤ 23:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the softblock range to me, I don't understand. None of the guilty IPs are in that range. SpinningSpark 23:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. A CIDR range of will extend all the way from up to . This is as tight a range that can be blocked yet cover the range of addresses used by the . The only one that's outside that range is the 66 one, which could be covered by another /24 rangeblock if needs be. See Classless Inter-Domain Routing - Alison ^❤ 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.