User talk:Magkantog
February 2009[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Phi Kappa Phi. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Toddst1 (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Blocked[edit]
This account has been blocked temporarily (for 1 week), because you obviously created a new account, User:George sherman 34 to perpetuate an edit war and give the illusion of greater support for one side in said edit war. Such uses, where two accounts are disguised so as to appear as different people, but are in fact just one person, are not allowed, per WP:SOCK. This is plainly clear if you compare the specific texts of certain edits, such as this edit by George Sherman 34 and this edit by Magkantog. The style of language and the nature of these two requests in compellingly similar. Additionally, the types of edits to the disputed article between the two accounts is also far too close to be a coincidence. If you wish to request an unblock, please do so using the {{unblock}} template. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Magkantog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am requesting to be unblocked, especially because the reason cited for blocking is totally baseless: 1) I never "created a new account" - the account of George Sherman is different from mine and separate from mine, and had been in existence for sometime now, although we are colleagues in the same school and may occasionally use the same IP address; 2) if you look at the Phi Kappa Phi discussion page, sherman and I had been discussing the contested issues with user Lhakthong who was suspended twice last week, so in many instances my and sherman's viewpoints would coincide (In short, the points of view of sherman and me would expectedly be consistent but not identical; 3) I explained on several occasions to Lhakthong that sherman and I are colleagues, and not sockpuppets, meatpuppets, etc., so I do not understand why I am blocked; 4) sherman and I precisely wanted to avoid another edit war with Lhakthong that is why, instead of editing what he edited, sherman reported his 17 edits on 3/03/09 because of a clear violation of a protected article. I just could not do it myself right away because I was in class so sherman probably did the request for me; 5) Finally, how can the editor who blocked me say that I wanted to engage in an edit war when -- despite my ability to do so -- I have not edited the questioned article since the suspension of user Lhakthong on 2/27, precisely in order to avoid another edit war, or even a semblance of unfair play? In view of the foregoing, and in the interest of fairness and since it has not been proven that I have violated or ever violated any WP policy, I request that the blocked be removed. Thanks. Magkantog (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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.
.
Magkantog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am appealing the block imposed yesterday because I have not engaged in any form of destructive or disruptive editing after reading all applicable WP rules. In fact, as you will see from my history page, I have not even edited anything since the user Lhakthong, who had been debating with me over the Phi Kappa Phi article, was suspended. I refrained from touching anything in Wikipedia to give the suspended user a chance to return after being unblocked. Secondly, I do not see any hard proof that I committed sockpuppetry, etc. which is the only reason cited by the admin. Some of the IP addresses, as noted before, are open to the public. Regardless of that, I am being unfairly and unjustly accused of disruptive editing and sockpuppetry without any tangible proof other than the admin saying that the "language and style" of my and my faculty colleague George Sherman's writing are "similar." They will, of course, be somewhat similar because we agree on the same points in contesting the points raised by Lhakthong. In addition, we are both behavioral scientists so our training and discipline would be the same. But "similar" writing cannot be held to be "identical" (as in sockpuppetry) without any hard or solid proof to the contrary. For these reasons, I think it is unfair that after I point out that recently suspended user Lhakthong edited our contributions to the article and discussion pages, I am the one now being suspended.Magkantog (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Accounts don't randomly pop up out of thin air in the middle of edit wars, particularly not ones that have a) a full understanding of the dispute, b) a full understanding of how to edit, c) a full understanding of Wikipedia terminology and procedures. All of that, combined with the very similar editing style, is enough to make this an obvious call. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:46, 4 March 2009 (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.
Magkantog (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The poiints raised 1,2 and 4 are not fair. We are professors and we publish all the time so we are familiar with editing rules and practices, and different referencing styles. As to Wikipedia terminology, I do not see any special terminology used by me or anyone else (not even Lhakthong or sherman) except the WP:3RR that the admin introduced to us. Cite an example of our familiarity with Wikipedia terminology?Also, our accounts were created precisely to bring in objectivity to the questioned article -- why would we create accounts for no reason?
Decline reason:
Declined, per the typical approach on Wikipedia to dealing with accounts that appear to be linked, even if they might be operated by two people. On the positive side, if you are professors, and if you could both email me through the Wikipedia interface, I may be able to confirm your story. Mangojuicetalk 23:20, 4 March 2009 (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.
Magkantog (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Explaining blocking[edit]
Dear Professor, This is not a court of law and proof is not needed. You have been accused, blocked and the block twice upheld by overwhelming circumstantial evidence - you failed the duck test. Frankly, your edits along with those of your edit-war adversaries can easily be considered tendentious and you should consider yourself lucky the block wasn't longer. I suggest you stop protesting and start figuring out how you're going to change your behaviour to align with our policies. Further, you should be aware that gaming the system will get you an indefinite block pretty quickly. You've now drawn attention to your edits and you should expect people to be watching your behaviour. Good day. Toddst1 (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- A good read should also be this policy. Recruiting of editors to perpetuate edit wars or other tendentious editing, especially where two or more accounts edit so similarly that they clearly appear to be one person, is considered by Wikipedia policy to be indistinguishible from one person starting multiple accounts by themselves to do the same. If you are interested in Wikilawyering this point, it should be noted that the arbitration committee has long established a prescedent for blocking accounts based on behavioral and technical evidence of disruption, regardless of whether it is one or two people maintaining the accounts. This case from 2005 was the first such instance, but the idea has been held up by numerous decisions since then. If you truly wish to be unblocked before this block expires in 1 week, you may contact a member of the ArbCom directly by email (their individual emails are listed on the ArbCom page I linked for you). If they find your evidence compelling, they have access to tools, such as Checkuser access which can allow them to look for technical evidence that is unavailible to most admins. Good day.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)