Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yopienso (talk | contribs) at 23:22, 20 July 2012 (Statement by involved editor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Gwillhickers reported by User:Quarkgluonsoup (Result: )

Page: Thomas Jefferson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gwillhickers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor keeps reverting edits even though all the other editors on the talk page disagree with him on the matter.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User Quarkgluonsoup came to the Thomas Jefferson page and started in making one major edit after another, repeatedly, not allowing time for other editors to respond, often removing sourced text. There is no one single item that has been reverted more than three times in a row. All edits in question have been restorations of original sourced text that this user took upon him/herself to delete and/or edit. Quarkgluonsoup's presence and hurried editing manner has done little more than bring disruption to the page and to the discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR clearly states "undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert" (emphasis mine). It also states "If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to block in such cases—for example if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake". I suggest you make use of this option before a less flexible admin processes this case. There are many editors watching the Jefferson pages, so it is unlikely that a widely unacceptable version will survive for long. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by involved editor:

The TJ article is a battleground and has been for a long time. Several of us keep taking a break but Gwillickers is one of the persistent warriors. Quarkgluonsoup's arrival certainly did add to the fray, but his only actual error is in failing to make edit summaries even after being reminded. I believe Gwillickers may sincerely be unaware of WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. Quark was bold, perhaps unsettlingly bold in the context of a battleground article. Otherwise, what he did is perfectly acceptable by WP standards. Gwillickers has a history of trying to exert ownership of the article. He also cherry picks sentences out of context to prove his points. He is willing to discuss, but does not realize his manner of discussion is unproductive. With some guidelines on NPOV and ownership, he would be a highly productive editor.

Today, in an attempt to show TJ was "always opposed to slavery" (in the sense that he never did anything to support or further the practice of slavery) he quoted from a reliable source,

Jefferson was no hypocrite when it came to the slavery question – even his most fervent detractors have to admit as much. He loathed slavery – this “great political and moral evil... There is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity - Thomas Jefferson letter, 1814. (after 1785)

Well and good, but he ignored that the same source says TJ left aside in a bill about slavery

any “intimation of a plan for a future and general emancipation,” he all-too-scrupulously included many of the harshest and most inhumane features of the colonial slave code, provisions which even the Virginia legislature, when the time came to vote on Jefferson’s bill, found too harsh.

And:

Having worked to reform the manumission laws, he hardly took advantage of them; having found a way to declare that slaves should be free, he never really found the way to declare that they were.

Call it expediency, or cowardice, or selfishness, or lack of moral courage; it probably reflects some of each, none of it particularly attractive. Yopienso (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillickers will brook no mention of any of TJ's negative qualities, even writing today, "I do not view Jefferson flawed in anyway. . ." And, as QGSoup alleges, it's true he quickly reverts material that does not fit his personal opinions. He is not, however, malicious in the least bit. Yopienso (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)