User talk:Blindleee

June 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Sue Bell Cobb. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. The editor  whose username is Z0  19:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

I'm a new user and am experiencing an extreme case of vandalism from ip users to the BLP article Sue Bell Cobb. Today this seems to be limited to user 144.163.39.142(talk) but given the number of reversions, tone of user edit summaries (when provided), and duplicated reversions from multiple IP's over the past several days, I suspect some sock puppetry as well, but can't prove that. I'ver stated numerous times in edit summaries the reasons for my original edit, but they don't appear to have satisfied any of the vandals. These are: "content purpose, value, and context is unclear and confusing. Content placement is confusing and disjointed, lacking clear or seamless flow into present text. Doesn’t add anything to BLP." Appreciate any assistance towards properly handling this situation. Blindleee (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Try using Twinkle to add level 1 to level 4 warnings (or pick from Template messages/User talk namespace), then report at WP:AIV - just reverting gets you nowhere fast with some vandals. I see page is now protected. Ron h jones (Talk) 20:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I rather don't think I'd call this vandalism, much less an "extreme case". The IP editor added sourced information; I checked that the sources indeed confirm the content about Cobb and Sessions that the IP added and you removed. So why would adding correct, sourced information to a BLP be an attempt to make the encyclopedia worse? Extreme vandalism would consist of things like adding fake accusations of child molestation or replacing the entire page by "LOLOLOL". That, of course, doesn't mean the content necessarily belongs in the article, or that it should be presented in that specific way. Those are issues that can (and should) be discussed on the talk page. Reverting with edit summaries is not a valid substitute for a talk page discussion about accurate but disputed content. 21:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)