173.13.132.244

December 2018

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Longhair\^talk 05:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I restored text that had been part of an article for FOUR years, with sourced, accurate references. The editor Ewen Douglas needs to be investigated. As another editor has written, he has ruined that article and has started - and it seems won - several, multiple edit wars. Messages have been left for him, but he ignores them. Messages left on the talk page of the article, rather than engage, he accuses users of sock puppetry. The editor he was first engaged in an edit war with was in Malaysia according to their IP address, yet he accuses me of being the same editor. And nobody challenges him. He managed to get the article locked so that he could perform all his contentious edits. Not the article is unlocked, he has started warring again. There is nothing wrong with the edits I restored and they are ALL sourced. Blocking me and making threats is simply allowing a bully to stamp all over anyone who is trying to improve wikipedia. His accusations are as offensive as his behaviour and yet, anyone who challenges him is blocked from editing. A farce

Decline reason:

Seems like a WP:3RR violation.

Before you next edit, please answer this question: Have you ever edited Wikipedia on any other account or IP address? If so, please list any such accounts and IP addresses. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

173.13.132.244 (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Ewen Douglas

The editor Ewen Douglas has been disruptively vandalising the article Prisoner (TV series). Whenever Ewen Douglas does not get his own way, he accuses editors of being sock puppets. If he sees an IP address, he accuses those editors of being the same person, even though they are on different continents. Ewen Douglas has ruined an article that existed perfectly well for many years and keeps removing sourced, referenced, accurate edits. Ewen Douglas has also engaged in "revenge editing" against editors, destroying other articles out of spite. This behaviour is not in line with wikipedia guidelines, and yet several administrators are supporting his actions. Wikipedia is simply now a place for bullying.173.13.132.244 (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Ewen Douglas Talk Page

I made the following contribution to the talk page of the editor who goes by the name of Ewen Douglas who had threatened me. THREATENED ME. Since it has been removed as a 'personal attack', I have restored it here: Hello, this is to let you know that your recent reversal of constructive, sourced edits to Prisoner (TV series) has been reversed. The section is called "continuity" and thus highlighting sourced, referenced continuity issues is relevant, pertinent, appropriate and factual. The text in question was part of the article for four years, but did not have any sources. You removed the four year old relevant, pertinent, appropriate and factual, constructive text because it did not have references. The references are now there and thus the relevant, pertinent, appropriate and factual, constructive text has been restored. I see from your history that you have started several edit wars with several editors - not me before you begin making accusations - and I think it would be highly inappropriate to start another. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may NOT leave a message on my talk page, but you can reply here. Thank you. 173.13.132.244 (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Please show where you were threatened by User:Ewen Douglas. startTerminal {haha wow talk page | waste_of_space#4023 on discord} 05:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Longhair\^talk 05:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

---