User talk:Dougal83

March 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Drchriswilliams. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Civic nationalism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Civic nationalism, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Civic nationalism. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should really start discussing things as opposed to just reverting. Join us on the talk page.VR _talk 15:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Civic nationalism.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a series of edits to Civic nationalism where you have stated that you are removing vandalism, but this is clearly not the case. If you feel that there is material that is missing from the article then you should discuss this on the talk page of the article. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drchriswilliams is undergoing a campaign to remove sourced material from wikipedia. Be wary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougal83 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed. I am extremely happy that your behaviour will come under review. I regret the time that will be wasted by impartial reviewers. Thanks guys. Please strip the offending account of editing rights, whoever is in the wrong. Dougal83 (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the report: Dougal83 blocked 36 hours for disruptive editing. Please read WP:NOTVAND during this time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 7 days for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dougal83. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Dougal83 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think there is a fundamental problem here as I have no other account. Is it fair to ban someone without a right of reply? It's not a well founded accusation with obviously no evidence other than circumstantial. If I couldn't sit out an unfair three day ban, an unjust seven day ban would fare no better. I'd advise the people looking deeper into this case if they have time. I would point the finger at the person who gains from me being banned but that wouldn't make it right. To whom it may concern, stop wasting people's time.

Decline reason:

The evidence of sockpuppetry is so strong as to make your denial highly implausible, but even if we accept your word for that, your editing has been so disruptive in other ways, so that unblocking you would certainly not be likely to be beneficial to the project. Also, I have never yet seen an unblock request succeed if it contained a veiled threat to evade the block by sockpuppetry if the request is not accepted, and I don't expect I ever shall. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[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.

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).

Dougal83 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The process is not perfect, evidently. One man's statement of practical reality is seen as a threat. I'm an IT prof. I could evade a block in seconds just rdc'ing to a remote site... Why would I use an obvious email proxy if I was banned, especially for just three days. Predictable result though for someone who know how the review process is handled. This "evidence" reeks, I questioned the SNP on the civ. nat. page and someone took advantage and acted. Touché to people "edit warring". Can regular users raise sock puppetry investigations?

Decline reason:

You are using the unblock template to continue a conversation and ask (seemingly) rhetorical questions. Please see the Guide to Appealing blocks if you anticipate posting further appeals. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Dougal83 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not "sock puppet". I have no other account. No proof. Can't prove a negative. The account I'm accused of using during three day ban is not even consistent in behaviour when I'm arguing for inclusivity comparing items on a page. Looking at the edits times isn't even consistent with my account. Can I raise a sock puppet accusation? This is absolutely not a rhetorical question. Dougal83 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Your block has expired. PhilKnight (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you're unblocked you can raise a sockpuppet accusation if you have evidence of sockpuppetry. PhilKnight (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin comment Reviewing the sockpuppetry case, the contribution history for each editor (Master/Sock), and the revision history for the page in question, it is beyond clear that you are abusing multiple accounts. You can deny it up and down all you like, no one on Wikipedia is inclined to take your word for it. If you were truly innocent, the evidence would show as much. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]