User:Amwestover/The Case Against Barack Obama

This is a whiteboard for the case against the POV pushers at Right-wing politics article who will be reported to incidents noticeboard.

The commonality between all the users is that they're constantly pushing the point of view that conservatism's tenets are true for all political philosophies in the right-wing. Trying to remove values of conservatism that aren't common to all right-wing philosophies and trying to include non-conservative values is frequently deemed "libertarian POV pushing" by the users who actually bother to discuss their edits. These users are disruptive and using Wikipedia as a platform, and their nonsense needs to be stopped.


 * 1) assumes bad faith, particularly of users with Libertarian views
 * 2) Diff Revision - A comment posted on Bobisbob2's user page where he claims that Libertarians can't be reasoned with and that their edits should be reverted.
 * 3) Diff Revision - His first comment on the talk page after many edits of the article where he expresses prejudiced opinions.
 * 4) Diff Revision - Another comment on the talk page where he insist that I can't be convinced (of what I don't know) and that he will revert my edits.
 * 5) uncited POV edits, claiming his ideas are "mainstream"
 * 6) Diff Revision - A post on the talk page claiming that his and Bobisbob2's ideology is "mainstream".
 * 7) Diff Revision - One of his first edits to the article, tacking on POV to an existing contribution and not citing a single source.
 * 8) dubious edit summaries
 * 9) returns uncited material
 * 10) removes cited and relevant material
 * 11) Rallies other editors to brute-force his POV on the article
 * 12) Diff Revision - Rallying Rick Norwood, claiming Libertarians were pushing their point of view on the article.
 * 13) Diff Revision - Rallying Sting au, claiming Libertarians were pushing their point of view on the lede. Also claims that a lede which summarizes the article's content isn't appropriate, contrary to WP:LEDE.
 * 14) Attributing material to sources dubiously
 * 15) Diff Revision - An edit of the lede that the right wing seeks to uphold or return to traditional values, overwriting a previous edit that was sourced. His source does not support this. Same revision done here.
 * 16) consistantly adds slanderous material
 * 17) frequently attributes religious conservatism to the right-wing
 * 18) frequently attributes racists to the right-wing
 * 19) doesn't partipate in talk
 * 20) mainly a lacky
 * 21) mainly a lacky with rollback priviledges that he abuses
 * 22) never participates in talk
 * 1) mainly a lacky
 * 2) mainly a lacky with rollback priviledges that he abuses
 * 3) never participates in talk
 * 1) never participates in talk

Tomfoolery that needs to be attributed to specific users:
 * 1) Lead paragraph tampering
 * 2) Attributing material to sources dubiously (i.e. claiming a source says something when it doesn't, particularly when the source is already in the article).
 * 3) POV concern template tampering