User talk:Useight

Good morning, I'm writing here in Wikibooks because my IP range was blocked in Wikipedia. You're a bureaucrat, so maybe you could help me. My situation is complicated but my request will be simple. Let me tell you what happened. Now I'm going to speak frankly. I don't think that Ohnoitsjamie's behavior has been correct since the beginning, he's been interfering even after the page had been protected even if he had no reason to do it, and to me it looks like he's more interested in frustrating me than in the sake of the project (why on earth unprotecting a page which continues being disrupted by new and new IPs?!), even if I may be wrong. But I know he isn't the owner of Wikipedia, he's one admin among hundreds. His way to deal with this issue is "his" way, not everybody else would have acted in the same way as him, maybe somebody but not everybody. This is what I'm asking: what can I do to have a fair judgement about this story, to have my name cleared (for him I'm still the vandal who did this and this and all the other similar vandalisms just because one of the vandal's IP ranges matches with mine), to have my IP range unblocked and, possibly, that page protected? I hate the vandal who caused all this to me, so you can imagine how being accused to be him and have to undergo the same punishment as him screws me up. I'm not the vandal, would I ever ask to protect that page from all anonymous if I were the vandal who keeps switching IPs? Ohnoitsjamie is as human as us, he isn't infallible, I'm sure he's a good person but in this case he got wrong and he's persisting in his error. I'd like to be freed from his error, do you have any advice to help me succeed or there's no way this error can be reviewed and remedied? You're a bureaucrat, if a bureaucrat can't help me out of this situation I don't know who I might ask, and what I'm undergoing because of a vandal living in my country and of an admin who was mistaken is now beyond forbearance... I'm sorry for writing so much, but please give me a reply and help me in the limits of what you're able to do, User:Useight. 151.21.73.72 (discuss) 13:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) There's a cross-wiki vandal, probably an LTA, has been disrupting for over almost 2 years the page "Dredg" and other similar pages, not only in the English wiki but also in others.
 * 2) The vandal has been using IP ranges starting with 151, included mine which starts with 151.21, which are Italian IP ranges, quite common in the northern regions.
 * 3) After the latest vandalism, in that case from my same IP range, the user who reverted him last week asked to protect the page.
 * 4) An admin, Ohnoitsjamie, declined the request and, instead, partially blocked that IP range used by the vandal, 151.21.0.0/16, which is mine too.
 * 5) When I noticed that there was a block on my IP range I asked for an unblock, because I'm not that vandal and because, if the goal is "preventing the vandal from disrupting that page", the better solution is "protecting the page" instead of blocking a single IP range and other single IPs, in fact the vandal has continued disrupting it from different IP ranges, but the request was rejected.
 * 6) I asked to semiprotect it in the RFPP page but this request was rejected too, so I asked for "pending changes protection" which was finally granted by an admin.
 * 7) Happy ending? No. Ohnoitsjamie unprotected the page (which was disrupted again, QED) and fully blocked my IP range (after increasing the partial block from 6 months to 2 years which had no meaning at all) so now I can neither request to protect the page nor ask for advice other admins. And nothing that You can either accept those terms, or not. If you decide not to accept them, the next step would be to petition for a global block of this range if you continue tjustifies that has been done from this IP range!

I've noticed your messages on Ohnoitsjamie's talk page. Let me clarify a few poits and then, if you don't want or aren't able to help me, I won't disturb you again. That's all I wanted you to know about this case. If you can give me any advice about how to get my IP range unblocked (starting from the full range block but also about the absurd 2-years partial block in order to at least change it back to 6-month) I'll be grateful, but if you can't or don't want to help me in any way I won't insist in asking for your help. In this last case, I'll greet you and hope you well. 151.21.77.245 (discuss) 12:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not the vandal who used IP 151.21.102.195 in 2020, IP 151.21.129.163 in 2019, IP 151.21.72.169 in 2018 to disrupt the page "Dredg", I swear on my life, he's another person, not me, and I don't even know who he is, may I die if I'm lying.
 * 2) The IP range 151.21.0.0/16 belongs to one of the major Italian telecommunications operators and covers at least 2 Italian regions (almost 30000 km2 and over 10 million persons), affirming that a user from this IP range who asks for the unblock of this range and for the protection of a page "is" the same user who's been disrupting that page for so long just because both use the same range isn't just false itself, it's also fool or in bad faith.
 * 3) It was said that the vandal is an LTA, it's what I thought since the beginning when I said that, looking at the history of the pages he disrupted and at the IP adresses he used, he's been doing that since 2 years ago and not only in the English wiki but also in others, but again it's not me, again I swear.
 * 4) I've been asking since the beginning to "protect" that page, so that the IP switching vandal would be prevented from disrupting it and I wouldn't have undergone a partial block which wasn't caused by me, in fact you can see yourself in the history of the page that the real vandal has continued disrupting the page by changing IP ranges.
 * 5) The consequence of the fact that I dared to ask to protect the page first, and to ask for advice other admins then, was that the 6-months partial block was changed to 2-years partial block (absolutely absurd) first, and that it was changed to a 1-month full block then (on the edge of abuse).
 * 6) I've read the advice "request an account so that you can edit Wikipedia", but this isn't what I want, because I might as well not find anything to edit during these months, I just wanted my IP range to be "cleared" because I'm not the vandal and because blocking this IP range turned out to be ineffective, I think it's quite obvious that I'm just bothered by this block and I don't have absolutely any evil intent against the page "Dredg" nor against Wikipedia, or I wouldn't have cared so much for the sake of that page and asked twice to protect it so as to prevent the vandal from disrupting it further regardless of how many IPs he may switch (and absolutely no anonymous users but him have edited that page during the last 2 years).
 * Hey, did you try creating an account, as suggested? en:Wikipedia:wp:Request an account.Deepfriedokra (discuss • contribs) 13:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are not the vandal, then 'this partial block does not affect you.' The range block is quite effective, since it's obvious that's the range used by the vandal at home where it's most convenient, and it's targeted to a single page. Your other arguments about "clearing" your range are absurd. You do not own this range. It's shared by a few thousand others in Milan. You know how you get stop seeing the partial block message? Create an account. One of the IP ranges I regularly use is indefinitely blocked, but I don't notice that unless I accidentally logged out. Alternatively, I'll be happy to remove the full block from this range if you agree to drop the forum shopping regarding protection and partial blocking. Ohnoitsjamie (discuss • contribs) 13:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, we may have found an agreement. I won't make any more edits in the English wiki that you may consider "forum shopping" if you remove the full block. And please, if you really don't want to remove the partial block, at least change it back to 6 months. You might find more effective a series of partial blocks than the protection of a page (but then I wonder why, for example, the page "1988 Gilgit massacre" was protected by another admin instead of partially blocking the only single IP who disrupted it for just half an hour, in this case even "I" would have found more effective a partial block), but there was no reason to extend to 2 years the partial block if no further vandalisms could come from that IP range on that page, in fact the vandal found new IPs to use. If you restore your first block of my range I won't have anything else to say about this matter and none of us will have to deal again with this issue. I'm just afraid that the vandal may continue switching IPs to disrupt the page, but as long as he doesn't use mine I won't consider it my business any more and I won't ask again to protect the page, it's a promise. Do you agree with this solution, Ohnoitsjamie? 151.21.86.72 (discuss) 15:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) 151.21.77.245, thank you for providing more information. I reached out to Ohnoitsjamie for further clarification because the absolute last thing I'm going to do is jump into a situation without all the facts, especially if it involves admin actions.  Anyway, taking what you're saying as truth, then I feel for you.  I was blocked by mistake once, many years ago, and it was distressing to say the least.  Since one of your concerns is about "clearing your name", which is a valid concern, I must tell you that even if the block is removed/altered (and Ohnoitsjamie has offered an olive branch in that regard), the block will still forever be listed as having happened.  Once a block log has been created, it never gets "un-created."  If you're really concerned about your reputation not being soiled by that of a vandal, then you'd have to create an account, like has been suggested, which will give you a clean block log.  If you really aren't the vandal, nobody is going to hold it against you that someone vandalized from the same geographic location as you.
 * As for the concern about not wanting to create an account because you might not want to edit during the interim, it's not a problem. I once went five years without editing, and my account was still there, waiting for me to return.  And even if you forgot the credentials to the account, you can abandon that account and create a new one, per the Clean Start policy.
 * I hope this helps. Useight (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this reply, Useight, it's the most polite I've received so far! I can see that you went through a block too... Well, if Ohnoitsjamie removes the block and shortens the partial block I may register an account as everybody is suggesting, even if probably I won't use it. If I do I'll use an old nickname of mine that I used in online games, "Edescroc", so you'll know it's me when you see it. I didn't know that the block logs remain when the block expires or is removed, but from the sound if it I can't do anything for that. I hope that now the people who thought that I was that old vandal have understood I'm not him. Now I have only to wait for Ohnoitsjamie's answer, sorry for using your talk page for this. 151.21.86.72 (discuss) 15:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad that I could help provide some information, and no need to apologize - I'm only here to help. Now, like you said, just need to wait for Ohnoitsjamie's response and then go from there.  Useight (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with removing the full block, on the condition that you stop forum-shopping about the partial block and protection. There's no reason to shorten the partial block, as that range has been disrupting Dredg since at least 2018. Ohnoitsjamie (discuss • contribs) 17:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I promise that I'll stop doing that "forum shopping". I don't understand this: the shortest time you partially blocked IPs or IP ranges for "Dredg" is 6 months, so which was the reason for increasing those blocks to 2 years? Those IP ranges were already blocked, the vandal was already prevented from editing the page. You increased them after I tried requiring the protection of that page... At that time you were sure I was the vandal himself, now you seem to have understood I'm not. I won't protest any more for 6 month of partial block, it's ok if you prefer this partial range block rather than an equally long semiprotection, but there's no more reason to keep it extended, I'm not the vandal. He switched many others IPs, and in the past used others IP ranges starting with 151. I'm caring just about mine. Please, Ohnoitsjamie, change back the partial block of my IP range to 6 months, the vandal won't be able to edit the page anyway and there's no need to keep the time quadruple now that you know I won't ask to protect it again and I'm not that vandal. Grant me at least this, please. I'm not tricking you, I don't want to disrupt that page, I have no evil intent. Trust me, Ohnoitsjamie. 151.21.73.15 (discuss) 19:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no rationale reason for you to be concerned about the length of a partial block that doesn't prevent you from doing anything, and I'm not changing them. This saves us the trouble from renewing them every six months. We have IPs and ranges that are fully blocked for 2 years, it's certainly not controversial to apply a very limited partial block to one for that duration, especially given how long the abuse has been going on. Ohnoitsjamie (discuss • contribs) 19:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no rationale reason for you to have extended the block after I asked to protect the page. A 2-years block for a /16 IP range which isn't a proxy or so is something serious, during the last week no other blocks of the same type have been done except yours. About your partial blocks for Dredg, some IP ranges have been blocked for 2 years, some for 6 months, some others haven't been blocked at all. I don't understand this perspective of yours unless you still think I'm the vandal who wants to disrupt that page. I also don't understand why you didn't want to protect the page to the point of removing even a light protection given by another admin, but this isn't my business. I'm appealing to your humanity: don't pick on me, I'm innocent, it's not me who disrupted the page during the last 2 years from those IP ranges starting with 151. Grant me at least this, the shortest period of time you blocked the IP ranges that disrupted the page, 6 months. If you really care for the sake of Wikipedia, of that page, you should "protect it" for 2 years instead of "blocking my IP range" for 2 years. I could make you a list of pages protected for much less disruption and indefinitely, pages much more important than "Dredg" but that no anonymous will be able to edit. Again, now I don't care any more about the protection of that page, I'm just trying making you understand that your block is excessive. I'm not asking you to unblock it completely, and I'm making an effort not to ask it, just to shorten it back. A 2-years block for a full /16 IP range is too much, even if for one page (which has been disrupted by a number of different IP ranges). 151.21.73.15 (discuss) 20:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The time on the partial block is not going to be reduced, period. If you continue to forum-shop about it, the next step will be to apply a global range block, which as you can see here is not unprecedented. I'm pretty sure you don't want that. Ohnoitsjamie (discuss •
 * You aren't going to reduce the block nor to explain me why you increased it, I got it. Don't worry, I'm not going to do what you call "forum shopping". My first impression about you was right, alas. I think you aren't even going to remove the full block unlike you said, I won't be surprised if you don't. I'd like to know User:Useight's personal opinion about this issue and our exchange of words, if he likes telling me. 151.21.73.15 (discuss) 21:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I did explain that; disruption from that range goes back to 2018 (2 years); now no one has to be bothered by disruption on Dredg from that range for 2 years; everyone (except the vandal) wins. Sure, they could hit it from another range, but if I see more than one IP from a new range, I'll partial-block the new range for 2 years as well (let the vandal know that if you run into him on the streets of Milan).  Partial-range blocks are very targeted and minimize collateral damage (inconvenience) to other users, since, in this case, it applies to a single article.  If someone from one of those blocked ranges would like to contribute constructively, they can make an edit request on the talk page, or better yet, create an account. Ohnoitsjamie (discuss • contribs) 21:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The full block has been removed; what remains are partial blocks on any of the Milan ranges that the vandal has used. Further attempts to forum-shop or make spurious RFPP requests will result in an immediate reblocking, with possible global blocking. Ohnoitsjamie (discuss • contribs) 21:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of pages more important than Dredg that anonymous can't edit because they're protected indefinitely and nobody thinks that preventing every anonymous from editing them is a victory of the vandal who caused the protection. Going on blocking every new IP range used by a vandal who disrupts a single page is by far the most intelligent solution to keep that page safe, chapeau. I live nowhere near Milan, the chief town of Lombardy, one of the regions covered by my IP range, one of the most extended, one of the most populated, at least I could teach you something. I won't make the things you told me not to do and I'm sure the vandal has no reason to ask to protect the page he's been haunting. These are the last things I wanted to point out, that is correcting your inaccuracies and your logical fallacies. I wish you a good sleep despite the stodgy and undesirable milestone of your 100th unblock in the face of (just) (only) 10718 blocks. 151.21.73.15 (discuss) 22:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 151.21.73.151, my personal opinion on the issue? If it were me, I would've also declined to protect the page.  I would reserve that for pages that were being (temporarily) vandalized by a number of different accounts and/or IP addresses, such as what commonly happens after a celebrity dies, for example.  So, I, too, would've gone the blocking route.  However, it seems I have a more lax approach than Ohnoitsjamie, as I wouldn't've considered the duration over which the previous vandalism occurred, but rather the frequency.  The vandal appears to edit the page relatively often, so I would've used a three month block and then I would watchlist the page.  My reasoning would be that that would be a long enough time, probably, for the vandal to come back and attempt to edit the page, only to find that (s)he couldn't.  The vandal, at this point, would either: 1) realize (s)he's been caught, give up, and move on from vandalizing Wikipedia; 2) go vandalize something else; 3) wait out the block in order to vandalize the page again; or 4) become a constructive editor of Wikipedia.  In the event of number one or number four (not a likely scenario, admittedly), there would be nothing more to do.  In the event of number two, I would increase the block from partial to full.  In the event of number three, I would then reissue a partial block, but this time of six months.  Should number three repeat after six months, I would then do a year.  I, personally, wouldn't go beyond a year at a time.
 * If you wanted my personal opinion on what you should do and/or should've done, I would've used Wikipedia's Unblock Request to explain the situation to a neutral, third-party to review the block. If the block stayed, and I was told to create an account, I would do so, if I wished to continue editing Wikipedia.  If I didn't, then it wouldn't've been a high enough priority in my life for me to worry about.  If there wasn't a solution as simple as "create an account", then I would, as last resort, make a post on the Administrators Noticeboard to explain the situation and ask for a neutral, third-party review.  Failing that, I would've given up and chalked it up to Wikipedia's loss, since they'd be missing out on my contributions.
 * I you wanted my personal opinion on your conversation with Ohnoitsjamie, then I have no comment. As a rule, I don't get involved in stuff like that, which is why I have no interest in being on the Arbitration Committee and instead authored the Wikipedia essay called Let It Go.  Useight (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, thank your for your help, User:Useight. I've read your reply just today... Your thought is similar to mine, I'd have made the same considerations about the length of the block and the frequency of the vandalisms. A third-party review was what I was looking for when I decided to ask for a bureaucrat's help. I've just a fear, not so senseless: that if I try asking for an unblock, or if I write in the admins' noticeboard, it's possible that Ohnoitsjamie will change my range block again in order to prevent me to made further requests like these using as an excuse the "forum-shopping" or "spurious requests" thing, he even threatened a global block... I haven't followed your advice yet only because of this fear, even if I'm not sure that he's allowed by the rules to block my range or make somebody block it globally just because I try having it reviewed by neutral admins, however he's actually able to do it. I'm quite sure that some other admins would decrease the block if they read the circumstances under the which it was created and increased, I have to decide to do it or not. 151.21.79.193 (discuss) 09:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd never heard of Dredg before I came across this LTA; they are actually pretty good. I'm looking forward to the next album if they ever release it. Ohnoitsjamie (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Good evening Useight, I have a question to ask you, I hope that you can help me. Do you know if a list of sysops who deal with the UTRS exist? Or maybe a template in their user page showing that they do? It's for this old case of mine, unfortunately it seems that no UTRS sysop, so far, has read with any attention what I wrote in my appeals, unlike you did, but they just used predefined replies to decline without grasping my point... So, if I can speak directly with one of them, maybe I'll be able to find one that can review my block seriously. Please let me know, and thank you again for your pieces of advice back to last year! 151.21.84.234 (discuss) 21:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)