User talk:5.148.42.186

Edit warring

I noticed that you left Binksternet an edit warring warning. It takes two to tango. Neither of you have tried to discuss the issue, as far as I can tell. Both of you are just reverting each other, which amounts to an edit war even though neither of you have crossed WP:3RR yet. If this goes on, admin intervention may become necessary to stop that edit war. Please don't let it come to that. Instead, use the talk page of one of those articles and explain how those edits improve the articles. You may want to take a look at WP:UNDUE and WP:Identifying reliable sources first. Please also take a look at WP:BRD: When you make an edit that gets reverted, you are the one who's expected to start a discussion. I've left a similar note on User talk:Binksternet. Huon (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

This user's unblock request is on hold because the reviewer is waiting for a comment by the blocking administrator.

5.148.42.186 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Blocking administrator: NinjaRobotPirate (talk)

Reviewing administrator: Vanjagenije (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request reason:

What on Earth is this block for? I've edited some pages, but never run into issues and I always include references. What on Earth has happened?

Administrator use only:

After the blocking administrator has left a comment, do one of the following:

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with any specific rationale. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted.

{{unblock reviewed|1=What on Earth is this block for? I've edited some pages, but never run into issues and I always include references. What on Earth has happened?|decline={{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed|1=What on Earth is this block for? I've edited some pages, but never run into issues and I always include references. What on Earth has happened?|accept=Accept reason here ~~~~}}

@NinjaRobotPirate: Is this user the intended target of this block? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This IP was disruptive in December 2017, edit warring at Shirley Bassey, GoldenEye, and a few other articles, trying to insert a damning private video of Shirley Bassey in violation of BLP. In February, this IP was involved in edit warring at Gross National Happiness. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - Interesting to see you wade into this discussion with another dishonest comment. I did edit the Shirley Bassey and Goldeneye articles, contributing sourced, referenced and accurate information. You began an edit war, removing the sources, removing the references and dismissing my edits with contemptuous comments. The video you refer to was added only as support to my original references in an attempt to end the war. The video was broadcast on BBC1 on January 2, 1998, as part of a documentary entitled "Shirley Bassey: This Is My Life". It is not a private video and if it is "damning" of Miss Bassey, then I'm afraid she is "damned" by her own words in a documentary seen by several million people on the national, state broadcaster of the United Kingdom and subsequently repeated and broadcast on many other channels across the globe, including PBS in the USA. Bassey claimed in the documentary she had been approached to sing the theme to 'Goldeneye' and then she went on to criticise the performance of Tina Turner who subsequently recorded the theme. I'm afraid that is an incontrovertible fact and she damned herself by allowing it to be broadcast. The interview was then parodied in the comedy series "Rock Profiles". Another incontrovertible fact. The programme history can be referenced here: http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/517d3bdfe7de4364a8bf2bc0a72b6158. The clip from the broadcast documentary is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwaGsdESjko. The parody is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrLO0F-nKYs&t=9s. The sources I added were accurate, the contributions I made were accurate, the references were acceptable and accurate. You were warned about edit warring and you were actually threatened with being blocked. I stepped away from the war as it was clear that you had a personal vendetta and were going to continue the war until I was blocked myself, something you were goading and encouraging. For you to lie about my contributions now just demonstrates your unsuitability as a wiki editor. However, I have never edited any article relating to Gross National Happiness. I don't even know what that is. Your contribution here is thus nothing more than spiteful and vengeful and as soon as this erroneous block is lifted, it will be reported.5.148.42.186 (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - Yes, I see, but it was blocked only on 16 March, so I'm not sure whether this block is connected to those edits. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's undoubtedly going to be some collateral damage here. That's why the block is only 24 hours. I'm not sure exactly what this network is, but it's registered to a cloud hosting company. I suspect it may be some kind of public wifi or similar infrastructure. If that's the case, please just wait out the 24 hour block and let Wikipedia have a breather from the logged-in abuse that was coming from this IP range. It's not personal; like the template says, "This network has been used improperly by someone on your network. It has therefore been blocked as a precaution to prevent abuse and damage to Wikipedia." It's already halfway over. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - What is the procedure to report administrator abuse of which this is a clear example? Particularly as the administrator involved refuses to even acknowledge the request for an explanation let alone review the block. 5.148.42.186 (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no administrator abuse here. This range was used for disruptive edits (probably not by you), and the only way to stop disruption was to block the range for a short period of time. That't the standard procedure. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You are entitled to your opinion and to support your fellow administrator as I would fully expect you to do. But I disagree. The procedure is to contact the editor and inform them of any steps to block, with warnings etc and at least have the courtesy to reply when asked why the block has been imposed. None of that was done. I also note you more or less encouraged the lies from the other editor who joined in unsolicited with false allegations. This is bullying and abuse. You may not agree, but with or without your help, this matter is not finished and will be escalated. 5.148.42.186 (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - @NinjaRobotPirate: If the block's purpose is to stop logged-in abuse, as you say, then why is it "anon. only" block? Vanjagenije (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Someone was creating sock puppets on this network. The sock puppets are already blocked, and an anon-only block will stop the creation of more. A hard block would be overkill and likely result in too much collateral damage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Ignore me all you like. I'm not going anywhere and I fully intend to escalate this matter. The bullying of administrators is not going to be tolerated.5.148.42.186 (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.