Wikipedia:Abuse response/87.112.x.x to 87.115.x.x

. These IPs have no recent activity and they are no longer ripe for investigation. This report will likely be closed and archived.

This report has been archived. If vandalism originates from this address in the future, please reactivate this report. Netalarm  talk  04:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Requester Comments
See WP:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day, Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day, as well as WP:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (2nd), WP:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (3rd), and WP:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (4th). Recent blocks:

Vandalism (see original SSP report), incivility, disruption, and extensive block evasion.

WHOIS
(Asked whois.ripe.net:43 about 87.112.0.0)

inetnum:       87.112.0.0 - 87.115.255.255 netname:       UK-FORCE9-20050729 descr:         PlusNet plc. country:       GB  org:             ORG-PTL1-RIPE admin-c:        PLUS1-RIPE tech-c:         PNET2-RIPE status:        ALLOCATED PA  mnt-by:          RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-lower:      MAINT-AS6871 mnt-routes:     MAINT-AS6871 source:        RIPE  Filtered organisation:   ORG-PTL1-RIPE org-name:      PlusNet plc. org-type:      LIR address:       PlusNet Technologies Ltd Internet House Tenter Street S1 4BY Sheffield UNITED KINGDOM phone:         44 114 2200000 fax-no:        44 870 7051731 fax-no:        44 870 7059449 admin-c:        AM10633-RIPE admin-c:        AW570-RIPE admin-c:        DS3916-RIPE admin-c:        PNET2-RIPE admin-c:        SB195-RIPE mnt-ref:        MAINT-AS6871 mnt-ref:        RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-by:         RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT source:        RIPE  Filtered role:          Plusnet Hostmaster address:       PlusNet Plc address:       Internet House address:       2 Tenter Street address:       Sheffield address:       S1 4BY address:       UK  phone:          44 114 2200084 remarks:       trouble:      abuse@plus.net remarks: remarks:       Please do NOT e-mail abuse to the contacts given remarks:       here  e-mail them to ABUSE@PLUS.NET instead. remarks:       All email sent to other listed addresses will remarks:       be deleted! remarks: remarks:       Network Status and Information Page: remarks:        http://status.plus.net remarks:        http://monitor.plus.net remarks:        http://support.plus.net remarks: remarks:       Support 247 Phone: (UK) 0845 140 0200 remarks: admin-c:        AW570-RIPE tech-c:         DS3916-RIPE tech-c:         RM6084-RIPE tech-c:         AM10633-RIPE nic-hdl:        PNET2-RIPE mnt-by:         MAINT-AS6871 source:        RIPE  Filtered abuse-mailbox: abuse@plus.net person:        PlusNet Ripe Admin address:       Plusnet plc. address:       Internet House address:       2 Tenter Street address:       Sheffield address:       S1 4BY address:       GB  phone:          44 114 22 00084 nic-hdl:        PLUS1-RIPE mnt-by:         MAINT-AS6871 source:        RIPE  Filtered route:         87.112.0.0/14 descr:         PlusNet plc. origin:        AS6871 mnt-by:         MAINT-AS6871 source:        RIPE  Filtered route:         87.112.0.0/16 descr:         PlusNet plc. origin:        AS6871 mnt-by:         MAINT-AS6871 source:        RIPE  Filtered

Moving discussion found on talk page
I approve this swift action to cut off my neighbour's internet access. time to move on and we can start again. --81.153.14.94 (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is certainly Fredrick day who has bragged about being able to access many unsecured wireless routers in his neighborhood, plus he can drive around, go to an internet cafe, etc. However, the range reported here is obviously very convenient for him, and perhaps it's time to make it less convenient, that's not up to me, it's up to the investigator and the contact and the ISP.
 * And it's up to the neighbor. I might ask Fredrick if he thinks its a nice thing to do to one's neighbor, to abuse their trust by using their internet connection for vandalism, block evasion, and disruption. Perhaps that neighbor would like to know about it. I know that if my router was being so used, I'd want to know, and I'd be quite appreciative of a little technical advice from my ISP. Of course, the ISP might simply shut them down, it's true, unless they can tell the difference. I'll leave this to experts. --Abd (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

you have missed the point - it's not a matter of convenient, it's a resource management issue. It's a poor tactical response to expose an asset before I need to use it. I will now use this ISP up and when the abuse is filled move onto the next - I have XX more ISPs before I need to consider moving the equipment to a different position. Make no mistake, we are far from the endgame - or maybe not, you have exposed an area of weakness by claiming to have a sock detecting method. If you get it wrong a third time, you are done. that combined with your other recent political mistakes would finish you off (because perception is more important here than reality). The trick is finding my admin account before your ego forces you to say 'there he is!'. --81.153.14.94 (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the helpful comment, Fred. I learn a great deal from it. If I were ever actually banned (unlikely) and needed to add something here (also unlikely, I respect consensus), I'd know many ways to do it. I'm not going to describe them, though they aren't rocket science, but "moving the equipment" gives me loads of hints. I could do that, I already have equipment that would work. However, I don't trust Fred's report as necessarily being true, he lies quite often. It's not impossible that this IP is actually not his neighbor's, and we won't know for sure unless it is investigated and the ISP contacted. By the way, this is the first time that Fred has taken my comments about sock detection seriously. I'm not going to move with that until it is totally nailed down. It already seems to me that had this evidence been represented in the Mantanmoreland case, the ArbComm outcome would have been different. Unless I've made some serious mistake -- which will be discovered in the process of nailing it all down -- it's like night and day, it's not vague and speculative, and it is, when there is sufficient data, more reliable than checkuser. Two independent editors could be used as a reasonably reliable random number generator. One editor with two accounts, the patterns are different. Really, the open question is how many edits are necessary, but I'll say this: 1000 edits seem to be more than enough. If, as I mentioned, there isn't any bug in the method.


 * Fred, we've got to stop meeting like this. Come clean before you are forced to, either with me (just because I find something doesn't mean that I have to report it), or with a checkuser and probably an arbitrator, and I presume you could continue your constructive work, and take up knitting or whatever you need as your hobby. By the time the method is widely known, and somebody else suspects, if that ever happens, it would be ancient history, you'd have a solid history without this little complication. If you give it up now. Do the confession thing with me, and you might keep your admin bit(s). I guarantee you, I will not use information, provided to me under a promise of confidentiality against you, unless a clear independent path to that appears. Don't reveal such information unless I've made a specific agreement to keep it confidential, what is here is general. Email, I'm sure, would be tricky for you, but you could possibly ask a friend to strip headers and forward to me. You could simply start by negotiating terms, what you would reveal, what I would or would not do with the information, etc. You'd have to trust me, though. Think about it. Why would I do this? Because you are far more valuable to the project as a constructive editor than as a time-wasting vandal and block evader; the time you spend with your hobby of harassment and "I can do anything I want" block evasion is damaging to the project and I'm pretty sure it's not really doing you any good, in the long run. --Abd (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)