User talk:Anyuse110

AN/I
Hi. Just to let you know I've made a report concerning the ongoing edit-warring at Cousin marriage. You can find it at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please note that I am not favoring any side in this content dispute - I'm just asking that everyone should stop the edit war and discuss individual changes and gain consensus before making them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

blocked again
You've been blocked before for edit warring (and sockpuppetry) at Cousin marriage. Since you've started up again (and haven't bothered to use the article talk page in ten days), I've blocked you for a week. I'm aware that you've taken the dispute to arbcom. However, I don't think you've tried any meaningful dispute resolution first. As a step forward, if you say you won't edit war anymore, but rather, try to reach consensus for your edits on the article talk page, I'll unblock you straight away. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm speaking purely as an outsider who just happens to have seen the edit war here and wants to try to stop it, and it seems to me that the "It's the other guy edit-warring, not me" excuse is a classic example of just not listening. Continuing to make changes to an article which are clearly contentious is edit-warring, and it's no use complaining that if nobody reverted you, there wouldn't be an edit war. Even if 10 days or more have passed since you were last reverted, your changes have still been contested and you must now discuss them on the article Talk page and try to achieve a consensus (which you can do when your block is lifted - there's really no urgency).

To choose just one simple example, I don't have any moral position on the topic of Cousin marriage, but purely on Wikipedia style terms I think your moving of the Darwin illustration down the page is wrong. If you just look around Wikipedia, you'll see that it is standard to have an illustration at the head of an article (ideally we want an infobox, if there is a suitable one, with the illustration). Your suggestion that the Darwin one is promoting cousin marriage is very much a WP:POV issue, and seems unsupportable to me - to me it just looks like a good example of a well-known person who married his cousin. So, that change is now contested (by others and by me), and if you want to change it you must now go to the Talk page and discuss it - you must gain consensus to make the change, and not just keep repeating it after it has been reverted. And you must do the same with each of the changes you wish to make to the article - explain what you want to change, and why, on the Talk page.

If you agree to that - to unilaterally stop making controversial changes to the article and discuss each change individually on the Talk page and gain consensus for each one before making it - then I would support an early unblock. But if you refuse, and you continue to insist that it's all the other guy's fault and that you're allowed to make whatever changes you like regardless of what other editors think, you will surely not succeed. And if you continue the edit war after your block is released, you should expect a swift reblock for a longer period. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)