Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Luca Marco/Archive

Evidence submitted by JamesBWatson
There is an edit war on The Bible and slavery and Christianity and slavery. Luca Marco has been involved in the edit war on The Bible and slavery since 5 November. Rences wiki and Comprehensible view have appeared since then (10 and 13 November). All three have been involved in repeated insertions of the same rather ill-written POV passage into the two articles, and also removing other content, as can be seen in the following diffs:           . Rences wiki has made no other edits at all. Comprehensible view has no other edits apart from minor copy editing of the passge which they have all been inserting. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional comment Daniel1212 has submitted an additional report (below). I agree with what he says, except that I do not see any evidence that 210.84.3.100 is another sock of the same user. 210.84.3.100 has made only one edit, and, although the edit was a change to the sockpupeteer's piece, the edit merely corrected "Christen" to "Christian", which could have been done by anyone. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor at subject is posting and reposting the same poorly written POV rant on The Bible and slavery and Christianity and slavery pages, replacing an objective entry reached by consensus. I posted an appeal and warning on each of the talk pages of the names (i presume are all) used by this same editor, without any response, except that he/she now is posting without a name. Below is the worse of his long edit in the intro, the subject of which is covered in the article:

"There is no despite that the Bible refers to slaves as a personal property that could be purchased & beaten, Jesus said not a word against slavery as a social institution; ore provided a way out of slavery he endorsed slavery and argued them to obey there earthly masters,...,farther more Jesus approved betting them severely, Christen supporters of slavery argued that the New Testament clearly did not forbid slavery, and did not deem it a sin. However, after slavery was viewed by the secular west as immoral wish lead eventually to the abolishment of slavery,.... Daniel1212 (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidently the editor is ignorant of the extensive debate as regards the wording of this complex and contentious issue, and the efforts at balance, as seen in their talk pages. Reversions by myself and others have resulted in him/her re-posting under a new name, and now just an IP. Daniel1212 (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The introduction to this article is extremely biased, and reads as a rant rather than an impartial description. It also contains numerous grammar and spelling errors. Furthermore, it is virtually identical to the The Bible and slavery intro. Would an admin be able to address this? Thank you. Bobaati (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer, so my apologies if I am going about this the wrong way, but I wanted to agree with Daniel1212 and request that an admin do something about the rant at the beginning of this article. Neutrality issues aside, it is extremely poorly written. Bobaati (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've also posted a warning on his Talk Page. I am an admin but with over 2000 pages on my watchlist it is easy for me to miss stuff. If this continues to be a problem, leave a message on my Talk Page and I'll come over and take a look. --Richard S (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * is ✅ as:
 * . Brandon (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * . Brandon (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Peter Symonds ( talk ) 18:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)