novaseminary pov pushing and section blanking So everyone is aware of his pov editing I have copied some of his history here I ask other editors not to restore his versions as they are pov and section blanking Here is a little histoy on novaseminry More can easily be found I include it here to show the type of editor he is Request topic ban of User Novaseminary for persistent disruptive editing at Douglas Tait stuntman User Novaseminary has tried unsuccessfully to get the Douglas Tait stuntman BLP deleted twice before Here and here But having failed at deletion twice for two years now Novaseminary has also failed at WP LETITGO He persistently challenges the BLP s notability and threatens to start a 3rd deletion attempt He also regularly violates WP DE He edit wars and disruptively edits almost on a daily basis pushes POV attacks other articles because they are mentioned in the BLP creates suspect disambig stubs insists on irrelevant or dated edits violates OR uses citation tags to edit war like here here here and here removes sourced quotes and attacks and fights to include and spreads unflattering and irrelevant material about the BLP s subject over several editor s objections But Novaseminary is also knowledgeable of WP rules So knowledgeable that he uses WP to argue defend his indefensible actions even as he ignores all the WP rules policies that his tendentious editing violates He cites the rules that give him cover and just ignores those that expose his tactics as disruptive Recommend an immediate topic ban Not just for the Douglas Tait stuntman BLP but for all the articles sourced in the BLP Otherwise he will just retaliate by continuing to disrupt them 2602 304 5EA1 52A9 A449 F5CE 8339 FCA2 talk This looks like a content dispute Have you taken this to WP DRN as a first port of call Ritchie333 talk cont Unfortunately it s more than a content issue It s a persistent long term pattern of disruptive behavior So per WP DDE ANI may be the best first step 2602 304 5EA1 52A9 A449 F5CE 8339 FCA2 talk The article would probably benefit from both these editors leaving it alone Drmies talk Fact is unless admins enforce it don t count on it Otherwise I wouldn t have had to come here I ve suggested several times that Novaseminary just take a Wikibreak from the article He refused 2602 304 5EA1 52A9 3533 DED5 47AA B44 talk I found this at WP RFPP and have spent more time than I m willing to admit looking through it all 3RR violations from dynampic IPs are really disruptive but similarly I think we can do without Noveseminary s bizarre obsession with this person I m going to give Novaseminary time to respond but I strongly lean towards a topic ban for both users Steel You know what I ll accept that If Novaseminary is topic banned I ll voluntarily self ban My only request is that the last edit before the ban is monitored reviewed by uninvolved 3rd party parties to insure no Novaseminary POV Thanks 2602 304 5EA1 52A9 3533 DED5 47AA B44 talk I ve never violated a single guideline or policy at this article The IP seems to care more about how this person is presented favorably than about the nietrality of WP but it tough to know what else if anything this IP has edited This article was one of several resume like PR POV articles i ve come across over the years I and others tried to make it neutral and then kept it on my watchlist Almost everything i ve done i ve discussed at talk I have only even edited this over the last few weeks because an IP came along and removed well sourced text without discussion until posted at a NB Novaseminary talk I would also point out I only nominated this article for deletion once with no consensus I actually came across it at the first successful AfD nom made not by me but another editor The IP seems to think I have had it out for this person but I have been only one of several editors to do things the IP apparently disapproves of but that I think comply with policy At one point the article cited several non RS articles written by a single publicist for instance Novaseminary talk Our IP user has agreed to a self ban from this article providing you do the same From your comments above that the IP s edits are the only reason you ve even been editing the page recently this should be an acceptable resolution for you too Right Steel Yes Novaseminary I do agree that you have an all too strong interest in that article Drmies talk 17 16 13 October