Wikipedia:Abuse response/81.15x.x.x and 86.1x.x.x ranges

Requester Comments
None of the IPs on these ranges have been individually blocked more than five times, however attempts have been made to block ranges more than once, as shown by the block log of the range listed above. Furthermore, I believe that the extent of the problem merits an exception to the five-block rule. IPs from 18 different blockable ranges are being used by a user to harass editors on Pakistan-Indian topics for almost a month now. The full list of IP addresses involved (those that have been noticed so far, 92 at the time of this report) can be found at User:Hersfold/Vandal watch.

From what I have seen, was harassing users on talk pages of several articles, and making disruptive edits to those articles. He was blocked for 48 hours for disruption, and it was later brought to my attention through Suspected sock puppets/Nangparbat that he was using a large series of IP addresses to avoid being blocked. Those ranges were blocked temporarily, until I noticed the potential for heavy collateral damage on the network.

Nangparbat has returned, and is IP hopping more frequently now to avoid being blocked. Again, rangeblocking is not an option, as most of the IPs he is using are assigned for a period of time; Nangparbat is bypassing this by forcing his ISP to give him a new IP address every time he logs in. As a result, a rangeblock would likely have little useful effect, and would only stop innocent users from editing.

A related discussion on this matter has taken place at the incidents noticeboard at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

I would ask investigators to waive the standard rules for abuse reports in this situation due to the severity of the abuse here. Thank you. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
I personally would Reject, but would like a third opinion.  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This user is continuing to IP hop despite a claim that they would not continue editing. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 14:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

when did i say i would stop editing i said i would keep away from kashmir articles besides what have i done now to anger you i just post on talk pages regarding POK i have made no disruptive edits 86.158.235.148 (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I reported to Hersfold based on this message you left on my talk page. But even if you implied that "you would keep away from Kashmir articles", you may wanna explain this edit. S3000  ☎  18:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreover canvassing, as how you did on my and other people's talk pages are considered disruptive editing. Just because Kashmircloud did it first you need not retaliate. Two wrongs don't make a right. I went to Kashmircloud's page to warn him but refrained when I discovered he's blocked for suspected sockpuppetry. S3000  ☎  18:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The block evasion is continuing. blocked for one week. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 16:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you list all the IP adresses abused. I cant ring an ISP and report a whole range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prom3th3an (talk • contribs) 04:13, September 11, 2008


 * Have fun. There's over a hundred of them because he keeps hopping around. They're all listed at User:Hersfold/Vandal watch - his edits tend to have summaries of "POV" or "biased" etc., so it shouldn't be too hard finding when he was online for each of them. Feel free to edit that page as needed, I'm adding IPs to it as we notice him. I would further note that at this point 10 blocks have been applied against this user. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep that list updated. I may or may not choose to act as cases like this are very time consuming and difficult to prove. I range block may be the only interim sollution  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You can report a whole IP range. They'd know internally how to match up the numbers that we're reporting with who a customer is and while they probably aren't about to tell us who that is, then can then take steps to contact the customer and warn them to stop such harassing and disrupting activities.  You might also let them know about the XFF standard that they could configure their servers to use which would prevent this problem from happening in the future.  This user may not only be vandalizing Wikipedia -- the user may also be an active participant in other activities happening on other websites.  When websites have no choice but to block an IP address in an attempt to block a malicious user and must block whole ranges, then all of an ISP's customers suffer because none of them are able to access the desired internet service.  Anyway, Nangparbat's ISP (his local internet registry) is BTBroadband.com, which goes through the regional internet registry RIPE NCC, which connects him to the internet backbone.

inetnum:        86.148.0.0 - 86.159.255.255 remarks:        ***************************************************** remarks:        * Please send abuse reports to abuse@btbroadband.com * remarks:        ****************************************************** netname:        BT-CENTRAL-PLUS descr:          IP pools country:        GB admin-c:         BTCP1-RIPE tech-c:         BTCP1-RIPE status:         ASSIGNED PA  remarks:         Please send abuse notification to abuse@btbroadband.com mnt-by:         BTNET-MNT mnt-lower:      BTNET-MNT mnt-routes:     BTNET-MNT source:         RIPE # Filtered role:           BT CENTRAL PLUS - OPERATIONAL SUPPORT remarks:        ****************************************************** remarks:        * Please send abuse reports to abuse@btbroadband.com * remarks:        ****************************************************** address:        BT address:         Wholesale address:        UK abuse-mailbox:   abuse@btbroadband.com admin-c:        PC487-RIPE tech-c:         SR401-RIPE nic-hdl:        BTCP1-RIPE mnt-by:         BTNET-MNT source:         RIPE # Filtered Banaticus (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this investigation going to continue? Netalarm  15:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing due to case being stale.      bsmithme    00:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)