This is an archived case at Abuse Response.
	The page you are viewing is an archived case (or possibly other) page located at Abuse Response. It is no longer used but is preserved for archival purposes. You may observe anomalies, inconsistencies, or other general weirdness, which is to be expected. No warranty of usefulness or satisfaction implied.

 Stale. 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This report has been archived.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) reply

87.112.x.x ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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:

87.115.28.102 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.113.10.208 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.112.53.52 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.114.131.159 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.115.30.251 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

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

(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 

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply