User talk:97.77.103.82

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at St. John's University (New York). 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Sorry, I know you reported the editor first, but what goes for the goose goes for the gander (see WP:POT, WP:BOOMERANG). I have blocked the other editor for a similar amount of time. Please stop revert warring. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magog, I understand you had to immediately stop the warring. With it now over, please take a look at the History of the page; you will see that 24 was literally remaking the page. And I must also say that I did not revert his edits more than three times; I made sure of it. I was reversing numerous unrelated edits because he was destroying so many parts of it by inserting and deleting. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may edit the St. John's article again after both you and 24's blocks have expired and a consensus has been reached on the talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Eagles -- I just want to point out that I did not revert any particular edit more than three times; I made sure of it. I could not get him to stop; he was remaking the page with no discussion. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made no attempt to discuss on the talk page either, and continued to edit war with him. It doesn't matter if you reverted one of his edits three times, you made a total of six reverts on that page (he had four btw). Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re 97: there are several exemptions for breaking the 3RR rule. Biased editing short of sheer vandalism (but see WP:VAND#NOT) and remaking the page aren't among them. 1 2 3 4. FWIW I don't count that many reversions but 4 is still greater than 3. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see three reverts of the "unhappy students" ranking, one revert of the Wall Street Journal revert, and two reverts of the Prime Minister revert. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Magog and Eagles for responding. I have a few points that I would like to address, one which follows with a question.

First, after his initial reversal, I began posting to the Talk Page, however he began to make major edits with which I just could not keep up.

Second, he keeps referring to a 67 "sockpuppet" with which I have no connection.

Third, I am unable to access the CA registered account. With this block in place, he can lob continuously accusations against me for evading block. What can one do in this situation? Can Magog unblock CA? 97.77.103.82 (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I thought you and 67 were the same person after analysis of editing habits and tendencies. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles, some time ago, I noticed on the St. John's Talk Page an editor's comments regarding 24 and his unfortunate ways. That editor -- who wrote long before I came to Wikipedia -- asserted that 24 used to go under several aliases on Wikipedia. The most common one was now-blocked user Uconnstud. After going through the Uconnstud pages some time ago, I noticed great similarities between Uconnstud and 24, however because I did not have overwhelming proof, I decided not to lob accusations, for that would be wrong. Today, however, 24 gave me almost concrete proof that he is a sockpuppet of Uconnstud, who has been lurking around the St. John's page for some time creating great difficulty (and apparently bringing many editors to leave Wikipedia out of frustration). 24 today edited some details on one of Uconnstud's St. John's related pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uconnstud/Stjohnscompromise. Why would 24 be editing a long-blocked user's pages if there was no connection? On the page 24/Uconnstud edited, one can see how the mission of Uconnstud/24 is to literally re-make the St. John's page. I would appreciate greatly if you could look into this not only for me, but for all the individuals who have been scared away from Wikipedia because of Uconnstud/24. I am confident that with some analysis, you will be able to attempt to rid Wikipedia of someone who has been impacting the community negatively for some time. Thank you. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]