User talk:Magkantog

February 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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
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 (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Explaining blocking
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)