User talk:V7-sport

blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. It's apparent that the edit war between V7-sport and Iquinn will never stop, and neither party appears much more innocent than the other. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 03:21, 19 August 2011 (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).

V7-sport (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

RE “You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.” I made the total of 5 reversions on 5 different articles during the course of that 24 hour period. There was no violation of 3rr. (yes, I understand 3rrr isn’t an entitlement to revert, however blocking someone indefinitely should probably entail more then 1 revert per page. Wikipedia’s “What edit warring is” states: “An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period” “A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space” The edits I made were on different pages and I was careful not to exceed a single reversion. I had just taken a 10 days off from editing because of my last interactions with Iqinn. Upon my return it took minutes for him to start in with the reversions. Sorry, I find this to be a bit frustrating. The reverts I made are as follows: 1)[1] 2)[2] 3)[3] 4)[4] 5)[5] Several of those edits pertain to living people. Per Wikipedia policies removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP) is not considered edit warring. Even still, I only reverted once. One edit was a mistake (I had confused “Dilawar (torture victim)” who is dead with “Abdul Jabar (torture victim)” who is not. I had pressed the self revert button to encounter an edit conflict, Iqinn had already reverted the POV tag I was trying to put on the page, again. Iqinn reverted 4 out of those 5 reverts. The rest of what I did that day were new edits, not reversions. Most of that got reverted as well. 2) “It's apparent that the edit war between V7-sport and Iquinn will never stop, and neither party appears much more innocent than the other.” I had 5 reverts on 5 different pages. 1, (a POV tag which shouldn’t have been reverted anyway) I was going to self revert but he did it before I could. This is his list of reversions. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] I had just come off a 10 day hiatus from editing here because of the previous interactions with Iqinn who has been doing his very best to pick just this kind of fight. He has been stalking, filing alerts and complaining to whomever will listen that I should be blocked. I have repeatedly told him to stop wikihounding me. (I can provide diffs of that if you wish) I have spoken to an administrator about it who was in the process of intervening[32] when I got blocked. I thought after 10 days things would have cooled off. It was a matter of minutes before he was reverting again. He reverted me 26 times, including multiple reversions on the same articles and engaging in the same talk page filibustering to circumvent the WP:BRD cycle that has worked so well for him. It’s easy to look at the bickering and declare both parties are equally guilty and nuke the whole thing, however, it would be wrong. I don't think that 1 revert on several different pages warrants an indefinite block from editing here and I hope you reconsider. V7-sport (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I suggest you consider the standard offer. You have ignored the edit warring policy on too many occasions to be allowed to talk your way out of yet another block. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2011 (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.

"You have ignored the edit warring policy on too many occasions to be allowed to talk your way out of yet another block." Well that's just it though, It would appear that I am being blocked because I have previously been blocked. 5 reversions on 5 different pages (which were in turn reverted) shouldn't constitute an indefinite. Its totally out of proportion to anything I have done here. V7-sport (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this were your first ever block for edit warring I would agree. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have been blocked for edit warring previously, however that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not I was edit warring here. Had I wanted to simply "talk my way out of it" I would not have taken this approach. You are talking about blocking me indefinitely for "1RR" even when 1) there are BLP issues and 2) I had someone following me around reverting everything pretty much whenever I logged on to edit here. V7-sport (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about blocking you indefinitely, that has already happened. We are talking about whether you can and will avoid such behavior in the future, and your request makes it clear that you would not. Your previous record of revert warring with this same user is highly relevant to why you were blocked again. I'm sure the blocking admin would agree that refusal to get the point is as much a reason for this block as the actual edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not me. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] etc. This is seriously not me. It is in keeping with other ham-handed attempts to get me blocked though....V7-sport (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where anyone has suggested it is you. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here: [38]V7-sport (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to see you get blocked. I can easily believe that the responsibility for whatever triggered the block was not equally shared. Email me please. Geo Swan (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email me, and