This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

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?

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. The block has expired since. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• @NinjaRobotPirate: Is this user the intended target of this block? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]
              • I'm not sure what you're talking about. Nobody is ignoring you, and I've explained in detail why this IP range is blocked. Your IP address was not specifically targeted; that's what a range block does. Some IP editors who did nothing wrong get caught up in the range block, too. If you don't understand what this means, you can read some more about it at User:NinjaRobotPirate/IP editors. If you want to file a complaint, it would go to WP:ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not necessarily the same editor. Like I said, I suspect this may be some kind of open connection, such public wifi. If you have complaints about this editor in particular, I'd suggest you go to WP:ANI, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is you that does not understand. And I shall report you every time you exercise your patronizing, abusive, bullying behaviour. In fact, it's already done. And I shall now delete your abuse from my talk page, which is my prerogative.

Please, stop. Calling other editors "abusive" and "bullies" without evidence, and threatening to report someone are kinds of WP:personal attack. You were not blocked for your edits. Actually, you were not blocked at all. Your network was blocked because it was used for abuse (not by you, but by other persons). That is standard procedure here. It was not directed towards you. No one has done anything against you, so please stop complaining. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is too, too funny for words. Take a look at the block log for the abusive editor who keeps harrassing me. I have been blocked once only due to my IP address being part of a range of IP addresses being targeted. Not once have I ever been blocked for editing. Yet just look at the block log of the abuser. 14 times they've been blocked at a cursory glance. You can't make it up some times. 5.148.42.186 (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is that editor who is "harrassing" you? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Austin Ekeler, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]