"

 Evidence Redux 

I'll be frank.  The blocking of  came a bit late for my taste.  However, he was found to be in violation of the 3 revert rule, and to again quote the policy which ironically Malke was threatening people with and was himself found to be in violation of:

"" A bright line exists on edit warring, known as the three-revert rule (3RR). If an administrator has not acted already by this point, then action is very likely, especially if a report is made to the noticeboard. Policy forbids edit warring generally, and editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR. ""

I commend  for taking the actions he did.  The subsequent complaints Malke made, and his promise to cease his activity in order to get unblocked a few days later, are a matter of record on his user talk page.  Malke has since deleted the notifications, but they are viewable in his talk page history, and make interesting reading.

After Malke's block on August 19, 2009, I decided I needed to take a step back.  For the past ten days I have busied myself with other Wikipedia subjects.  I now return to this page.  I suggest we talk a bit about what happened, and I also suggest we take a look at what happened here this month, edit by edit.  It continues to seem clear to me that Malke was editing with obsession towards an agenda; his obsession got him in hot water with the admins.  Soon, Wikipedia policy is going to change, as many here know.  I'd welcome some reasonable discussion, and renewed work on the article.   

On closer examination of the history pages of the main article, it appears some of Malke's biased edits, through sheer volume, are still in effect.  I propose going through every edit of his, see exactly what changes of his have survived, and put back all relevant, sourced material.  Once that is effected, we can pick up the chore of dealing with further improvements.   

Having just returned to WP from an extended absence, I am not fully familiar with what has occurred with this article, but cursory skimming of the talk page reminds me of some of the frustrations which led me to leave WP more than a year ago. I recognize Malke's concerns. Material that is added back should strictly follow WP:BLP, ie., it should be directly relevant to Rove, not defamatory, and should be sourced by reliable secondary sources.   

Malke's concerns were one thing, his methods another.  Admins blocked him not only due to his violation of the three edit rule, but because he was deleting paragraphs of properly sourced material, and as the admins noted (to quote directly from Malke's talk page history, since he has since, for obvious reasons, deleted all reference to his blocking):

   
   
- *An impartial administrator just did; I don't know you from Adam, and haven't so much as looked at the contents of your edits; all that matters is that you broke WP:3RR, and received a short block for it; if you want to be unblocked, all you have to do is agree to stop edit warring, regardless of whether you think it is justified or not. :==( o ) 

'''I highly commend the admins, and urge others to support their work. These admins had not been involved here previously; they took firm, direct action on a disruptive editor, Malke, who was judged to be making ""untrue"" statements regarding his efforts.  I again suggest we move past this period of turmoil and examine what changes were made to this article by an editor whose tactics earned him a block and who, in my view, obse