User talk:151.21.79.43

151.21.79.43 06:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC) User:Ohnoitsjamie (and, for information, User:Deepfriedokra and User:Oshwah): I had to write this reply here because I've undergone an abuse (in my opinion) by Ohnoitsjamie. The text was this: "It's "N O T" me who made this and this and all the other similar vandalisms! When one accuses somebody, the burden of the proof is on the accuser, not on the accused. Either you have a proof that the person who's writing these words is the same who disrupted that page during the last 2 years, or stop telling lies about me! I suggest you to read Assume good faith. If I were the vandal of that page as you think why on earth would I want to protect that page? Answer, why? I'd like to read your answer. If I were him I'd rather that it isn't protected, so I can continue switching IP and disrupt it. Instead I'm asking to prevent this, which is happening and you know. But we come now to your comparison. Let's see pros and cons of each solution. (1) semi-protect the page. Pros: the vandal who's been disrupting it for almost 2 years will have to leave it alone. Cons: possible anonymous good users (there was "none" in almost 2 years) won't be able to edit it (again: there was "none" in almost 2 years). (2) targeted partial-blocking. Pros: the vandal won't be able to edit the page "from those ranges". Cons: he'll be able to continue switching IP, he'll be able to register accounts from the blocked IPs and disrupt the page again, I'll have to undergo this block even if I've done nothing bad at all. To me it's quite clear where the balance leans. I'm not interested at all in editing that page. Understood? I'm not interested at all in editing that page, I've never said nor implied that, or I wouldn't have asked for a protection that would prevent me even more from editing that page, so stop telling lies about that too. I came to know of "Dredg" when I clicked "Contributions" and saw your block. Really. That block is annoying because it isn't about me but I'm involved in spite of myself. The vandal should be punished, or better prevented, not me and the innocent people who share this IP range, a very common range in this part of Italy (your "same place" includes at least 2 regions according to "IPinfo", from Lombardy (151.21.0.0) to Liguria (151.21.255.255), almost 30000 km2 and over 10 million persons, the so called "same place" which would prove that 2 users from that IP range can't be 2 different persons...). I've shown how your statements are incorrect, we can still have different opinions about how dealing with the vandal but I'm asking you not to say again that: (1) I'm the vandal who's been infesting that page for months; (2) I'm asking to unblock this range "because" I want to edit the page "Dredg"; (3) blocking this range is more effective than protecting a page which is still being disrupted. If you want to reply I'll be reading your answers, if you don't want I won't be waiting for them. Instead keep an eye on that page and revert eventual vandalism, I'm against that vandal too, and this would be really useful to Wikipedia, not these long discussions nor take actions against "me"." 151.21.79.43 19:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)