Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~ ), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * , also editing as, and

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
Aggressive POV editing and apparent article ownership on Paul Weyrich and Dominionism-related articles.

Description
Pravknight, a relatively new editor and who has admitted an intimate connection to Paul Weyrich,,  has made it his mission to whitewash any mention of sources linking Weyrich to Dominionism. He does this by removing or weakening well-supported content that is verifiable by numerous independent and significant sources. He insists on ignoring WP:NPOV and edit warring to impose his personal viewpoint, repeatedly removing well-supported content endorsed by at least 7 other contributors. His daily reversions, misuse of templates (VAND, NPOV, Disputed) and refusal to engage in constructive discussion or consensus building, instead accusing the contributors who do not agree with him of waging "POV campaigns" to smear Weyrich, has become disruptive and wastes the time of good faith contributors. His arguments to support his actions are tendentious and reveal a flawed, shallow understanding of WP:NPOV. The repeated calls of those who regularly contribute to the article for him to take the time to better understand WP:NPOV are met with his accusations that they are the ones violating it, ignoring WP:AGF. Were he to become better acquainted with our core policies, his objections to the article's content would evaporate.

Pravknight also ignores and dismisses the WP:AUTO guideline, which covers editing articles in which you are personally connected: "''Avoid writing or editing articles about yourself, since we all find objectivity especially difficult when we ourselves are concerned. Such articles frequently violate neutrality, verifiability, and notability guidelines.

Considering his admitted personal connection to Weyrich, his stated mission to stop a "smear campaign" with the clear pro-Weyrich bias apparent in his rhetoric and edits, a number of editors have called for Pravknight to limit his participation to the talk page, not editing the article, in accordance with WP:AUTO, something he doggedly refuses to consider.

Evidence of disputed behavior
As 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

As and 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:AUTO
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:CON
 * WP:DIS
 * WP:VAND

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * FeloniousMonk 03:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * JoshuaZ 04:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Guettarda 04:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * FloNight  talk  16:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * This appears to be a correct summary of the matter. Will Beback 04:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * KillerChihuahua?!? 07:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 10:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Addhoc 16:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the dispute is characterised accurately above. Guy 19:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Response
I am being accused of violating rules that I had no idea existed when I started editing on Wikipedia. Instead of cutting me some slack to learn the rules, User:FeloniusMonk has instead waved his interpretations of the rules in my face.

He has accused me of vandalism, but according to his narrow interpretation of those rules. He has failed to assume that I have been editing in good faith. He has failed to say how I violated this rule

User:FeloniusMonk's failure to act in good faith
There's a slight problem with the assume good faith rule in User:FeloniusMonk's application, what happens when a user demonstrates they have no intention of acting in good faith?

I innocently posted a comment objecting to the inclusion of the controversial material, and User:FeloniusMonk told me he had well-referenced information.

His next comment when I challenged him on what I believed was a biased source, that I still believe violates Wikipedia rules was a personal attack.

He additionally succeeded in undermining his objectivity and sense of good faith with the following comment:"Anyone who thinks David Horowitz's site, frontpagemag.com, is a more credible, less biased source than Cornell's TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League is an "an anti-Christian hate group" is not likely going to be swayed by reasoning that rests on our policies, but I suggest you read our Verifiability and Reliable Sources policies." [He additionally succeeded in undermining his objectivity and sense of good faith with the following comment:"Anyone who thinks David Horowitz's site, frontpagemag.com, is a more credible, less biased source than Cornell's TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League is an "an anti-Christian hate group" is not likely going to be swayed by reasoning that rests on our policies, but I suggest you read our Verifiability and Reliable Sources policies." 

The problem here is both sites are definitely biased in their respective directions, and instead of respecting my opinion, he impugned my opinion. Additionally, he established himself as a partisan administrator in my view who wasn't interested in constructively addressing my perceived problem.

The point here being both sides have their biases. And instead of being sensitive to my complaint, User:FeloniusMonk chose to attack me, telling me that I "was not objective enough to opine on what constitutes a biased source in my opinion."

He poisoned the well with me from the outset by refusing to constructively work with me, both as a newcomer and as someone who had serious reservations about the sources he had cited.

User:FeloniusMonk never sought to work with me on the controverted issue, and when I pointed out TheocracyWatch's bias using an article from FrontPageMag.com he proceeded to launch the edit war with a personal attack against me.

I attempted to explain how Mr. Weyrich didn't fit the bill, and the source's credibility was debateable. To date, no Third-party, non-partisan source has been added to the article substantiating the partisan claims.

I pointed out that political groups without proper attribution was not in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. Instead of fairly applying the rules, User:FeloniusMonk has capriciously applied the rules to his own advantage, ignoring Wikipedia guidelines that do not fit with the agenda he demonstrated to me right out of the gate.WP:CIVIL


 * Citing political groups without attribution is a potential violation of the rule regarding reliable sources. No non-partisan secondary sources apart from TheocracyWatch and the ADL have been provided.


 * "Partisan, religious and extremist websites


 * The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source.


 * Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist groups, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is to say they may be used in articles discussing the opinions of that organization. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources."WP:RS


 * Furthermore, I contend it violates the WP:LIVING RULE: "Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors


 * The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics in case you represent a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.


 * Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association."


 * Right now, all that exists connecting Mr. Weyrich with Dominionism is an ad hominem attack by TheocracyWatch backed up with [[straw man] arguments. Consequently, the citations are a matter of guilt by association. There's no whitewashing in my edits, only an effort to maintain a fair tone that properly attributes comments without giving WP:NPOV#Undue weight to TheocracyWatch and the ADL's views in an article where they are of secondary importance.

Additionally, User:FeloniusMonk and the other editors on his side of the issue have capriciously removed a properly cited sentence where Mr. Weyrich specifically states "he would not be part of any movement that would establish an Iran-style theocracy in America."

What is so harmful about including that little sentence in the article? Unless something more behind that omission than "not wanting to whitewash" the article. Actions here speak louder than words.

Despite my numerous attempts to point out the fact the wording of the following paragraph violates the spirit of both the WP:LIVING and WP:RS rules, my complaints were brushed aside.

No constructive attempts to resolve the dispute have been made by any of the above users, and I have offered to work with them, to no avail.

My relationship with Mr. Weyrich
Yes, I have a long-standing relationship with Mr. Weyrich, but his having been my deacon at Holy Transfiguration Melkite Church in McLean, Va., gave me an insight into his thinking. If it were as TheocracyWatch claims, a factual statement, I would have said nothing. As a reporter, I deal with contentious issues daily, and I always have to fairly and accurate represent both sides of an issue

I always do. I do not object to opposing information being in the article, but I do object to POV pushing that is unattributed and the arbitrary application of the rules.

Conclusion
User:FeloniusMonk has not acted in good faith by acting in an uncivil manner at the outset of these discussions, which in turn increased my anger with his refusal to meet me half-way. Additionally, User:FeloniusMonk has resorted to this proceeding, not because he really tried to resolve the disagreement, but because he has demonstrated by his actions a desire to censor authentic NPOV language.

The only disruption I have brought to Wikipedia is a desire to fairly and accurately represent both sides of the issue and a challenge to the groupthink and stereotypes entertained by User:FeloniusMonk and the other editors.--Pravknight 08:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --Balance001 00:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply by FeloniousMonk
RFC is not a trial or a form of personal attack, but an opportunity for Pravknight to see and learn from what the community thinks of his actions and this situation. Despite that he chooses to view it as an opportunity to personalize his difficulties and blame others. Still, I'm optimistic he will glean some insight as to how Wikipedia works and ultimately chose to abide our policies and guidelines.

To clarify a single point, Pravknight is not accused of vandalism. WP:VAND it is listed as a applicable policy and guideline here not for vandalism, but for his misuse of the vandalism template covered at the vandalism guideline.

Pravknight faults me for failing to cut him some slack to learn the rules. This may or may not be the case. He was directed to the policies and prodded to learn them early on. Yet yesterday he said "Nope, Felonius this has been going on for weeks. I really don't care what you think." Reasonable editors generally do not take until they are in the project's dispute resolution process to learn the project's rules, and Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes are a poor method for educating editors with our policies. Rather they come here because they have failed to apply them properly. Pravknight was given every opportunity to familiarize himself with the policies and abide by them. Instead, he has chosen to continue his mission outlined above. At some point it becomes foolish for the Wikipedia community to continue trying to educate an editor on the finer points of policy, especially in the face of ongoing tendentious editing and multiple refusals to follow the rules and to cooperate or act constructively in a meaningful way.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) FloNight 03:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Forward looking, I'm still hopeful this editor will follow standard methods of solving content disputes. Strongly encourage editor to limit himself to comments on talk page of Paul Weyrich article since he has a close relationship.

Rebuttal
Wikipedia's rules are tedious and many. Editors such as FeloniousMonk who have edited on Wikipedia for years take them for granted. They are many and confusing. Rules as they say are meant to be broken or applied according to the situation. He could have just as easily tried dialoguing with me about how best to address.

He failed from the outset to show WP:Love. Instead of greeting my concerns with understanding, he greeted them with WP:Hate. He left me without recourse except for the dispute resolution system. I said that I didn't care what he thought about the dispute resolution process because he had refused to budge one inch on his side. I have abided by the rules to the best of my ability, but the real issue as I see it is User:FeloniousMonk's arbitrary application of the rules to treat poorly sourced resources as primary support for his argument.

TheocracyWatch's own website defines Dominionism in the following manner:
 * "Christian Reconstructionism does not represent one particular denomination.


 * "Its most common form, Theonomic Reconstructionism, represents one of the most extreme forms of Fundamentalist Judaism thought. The followers are attempting to peacefully convert the laws of United States so that they match those in the Hebrew Scriptures. They intend to achieve this by using the freedom of religion in the US to train a generation of children in private Jewish religious schools. Later, their graduates will be charged with the responsibility of creating a new Bible-based political, religious and social order. One of the first tasks of this order will be to eliminate religious freedom. Their eventual goal is to achieve the "Kingdom of God" in which much of the world is converted to Judaism...."

If you ask me, this is a bigoted statement that shows hatred of Christianity, which teaches that Christians need to spread their faith and not be silent about it. I changed Christian to Jewish to make a point via reductio ad absurdum. It sounds more like the Learned Protocols of the Elders of Zion to me than an unbiased source. TheocracyWatch is a hate group that twists people's words to suit its prejudices, and citing it as a primary source is a POV violation unless its beliefs are properly attributed.

And I felt he was trying to enforce his perspective at the expense of accuracy and use of a poorly sourced and researched article. We need articles based upon facts, not opinions. An examination of Weyrich's "The Next Conservatism" series shows his antipathy to large corporations, his concern for the poor and his belief that power is best held at the lowest level of authority, not to mention his antipathy for neoconservative foreign policy.

Compare the tone here with this  from the John Birch Society.

Would it conversely be appropriate to cite the JBS as a first reference in an article about Global Warming or the United Nations? If not, then why should a bitterly partisan organization such as TheocracyWatch be given credibility as an unattributed source of first record?

Had User:FeloniousMonk applied the rules in a fair and balanced way and shown WP:LOVE on the talk page instead of dictating terms, none of this would have been necessary. I believe he has demonstrated a condescending attitude ever since our first encounter and has not demonstrated a willingness to compromise.

My mission has been to bring fairness and even-handedness, not to engage in bitter partisan debates where the other side refuses to budge and arrogantly considers its biases as NPOV. It takes two people working together who have very different views to maintain NPOV, something my opponents don't seem intereste in doing.

FeloniousMonk routinely violates the following:WP:CITE,WP:WTA,WP:NOR, and his Wikiquote shows his vehement disdain for organized religion:"I am opposed to irrationalism, be it in the form of organized religion, miracle healers or postmodernism."

What does Mr. Weyrich stand for that FM disdains so readily? Organized religion. As an administrator, FeloniousMonk can be shown to arbitrarily use his power to advance his atheistic worldview. My only crime has been to stand up to his bullying.

I should remind any person reading this page that numerous individuals raised serious questions regarding FM's judgment and maturity to be a Wikipedia administrator. I quote from his request for admin page, from those who opposed his election because I concur with their observations:

User:Silverback's observations about FM's behavior still stand: "He will probably trade protection tit-for-tat, communicating behind the scenes, pretending to be a disinterested neutral admin, when he shows up at a page he hasn't been editing to impose protection right after a timely revert to the "right" version. --Silverback 18:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)"

"# Strong Oppose. Feloniousmonk might be a good editor, but his character is unfortunately unsuited to adminship. He cannot deal with conflict. Felonious appears obsessed with Sam. Disruptive. Partisan. WAS 4.250 14:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)"

Here's the kicker that has been at the crux of my beef with FM, recorded over a year ago on his request for adminship page: "Strenuously oppose. You have got to be kidding me. This is the editor who told me that Wikipedia is here to record "the facts", not understanding or eliding that there is disagreement over "the facts" and that this disagreement is what makes Wikipedia different from other encyclopedias. FeloniousMonk does not understand NPOV. He doesn't recognize the distinction between facts and values. He boasts on his userpage of "opposing irrationality, including organized religion." (Yes — I know the text is borrowed from User:Eloquence.) That opposition manifests itself in his edits. That is to say: FeloniousMonk is an anti-religous POV warrior. To grant FeloniousMonk adminship is for Wikipedia to take a step away from NPOV. Additionally, his repeated insistence on "justice" in the tiff with SS is troubling — should justice be understood as retribution? --goethean ॐ 16:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)"

"Strongly oppose. (no number since anons are not accorded voting rights). FM's continuous disruption of Wikipedia to "prove his point" shows a lack of the maturity that I would expect an admin to have. withdrawn but not absent 01:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)"

The issue here is FM's cabal-style tactics and abuse of his authority as an admin, not my efforts to bring balance and fairness to Wikipedia. FM deserves to lose his adminship.

--Pravknight 23:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)--

Users who endorse this summary: "

Outside view by Ed Poor
This seems like typical mistreatment by FeloniousMonk of a well-intentioned newbie. It is hypocritical and disingenuous, as is much of FM's behavior.


 * RFC is not a trial or a form of personal attack, but an opportunity for Pravknight to see and learn from what the community thinks of his actions and this situation.
 * Actually FM uses RFC as both trial and personal attack. He has demonized others this way, and then accused his targets of "ignoring the community" when it's actually him and a few like-minded POV pushers who participated.


 * Despite that he chooses to view it as an opportunity to personalize his difficulties and blame others.
 * Actually it is FM who is personally giving Pravknight a hard time. An administrator should pave the road, not throw up roadblocks. If Pravknight has made errors, these should be pointed out gently (at least at first). I see nothing above (unless it's hidden in uncommented [1] [2] [3] ref's) about this.


 * Still, I'm optimistic he will glean some insight as to how Wikipedia works and ultimately chose to abide our policies and guidelines.
 * Wikipedia is not supposed to work by intimidation, although if Pravknight "loses" this RFC and it goes to arbitration, he'll glean some insight into wikilawyering and gaming the system - two of FM's most frequent misbehaviors.
 * Our policies and guidelines are determined by consensus, not by FM's ideosyncratic interpretation - even if supported by other Wikipedians pushing the same POV. --Uncle Ed 17:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Response to Ed Poor
Ed, per WP:DR, I have followed the dispute resolution process to the letter in trying to resolve the issues caused by Pravknight's disruptive behavior. Your action's at this page today and elsewhere have clearly sought to undermine this attempt at DR and have not been helpful:

Since WP:NPA clearly says "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks" I fail to see why you think it was somehow uncivil for me or anyone else to identify disruptive editors as a "disruptive editors" when there is ample evidence that such is the case, as here.

I can completely see why you'd prefer to have the fact that disruptiveness that earns problematic editors the RFCs and RFARs be hidden away completely and never referred to, but that is hardly called for by WP:CIVIL, and doesn't help making surly and refractory editors into members of the community who make positive contributions. FeloniousMonk 23:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  11:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Jim62Sch
Again Ed misrepresents what the problems have been with Pravknight -- in this case by attempting to tar another editor with lies. Have you no shame, Mr Poor, have you, at long last, no decency?

Users who endorse this summary:

Recent incidents
Sadly Pravknight has dismissed this RFC, see Rebuttal above. Through his recent actions he has shown his contempt for the community and its policies and processes by continuing his pov campaign and increasing the disruption by now wikilawyering, trolling, making personal attacks and trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it by attempting to expand the conflict by seeking out and recruiting editors with possible personal grudges and fanning the flames causing more disruption to the project.

Pravknight has admitted a personal relationship that motivates his actions, see My relationship with Mr. Weyrich, above. As upheld by recent arbcom rulings, WP:AUTO requires that editors should not edit topics in which they are personally involved. Pravknight is personally involved with Paul Weyrich and was warned about WP:AUTO several times, once at Talk:Paul Weyrich and here at his RFC in particular. Yet as of August 28 he is still editing the Paul Weyrich article not neutrally, disrupting its talk page with personal attacks, and is now spreading the disruption to include other pages and users.

The disruptive behavior needs to end. Pravknight needs to participate in a way that respects the community's policies and goals. There are currently 1,350,871 articles on the English Wikipedia, That leaves 1,350,870 articles that Pravknight is not personally involved in that he is free to edit. Surely that affords him ample opportunities where he can contribute to the project more constructively. FeloniousMonk 05:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * FloNight 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Hopefully this type of behavior has stopped after getting feedback on this RFC.
 * &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 13:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Wish in one hand, defecate in the other, see which fills up faster.
 * KillerChihuahua?!? 14:31, 10 September 2006
 * ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional evidence of recent disputed behavior

 * Chip Berlet: 15:28, 22 August
 * Chip Berlet: 18:07, 23 August
 * User talk:FeloniousMonk: 10:24, 24 August 2006 Calling for a "truce," claiming to drop the issue. Followed by more POV editing of Paul Weyrich within 48 hrs...
 * Paul Weyrich:11:26, 26 August Violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:AUTO
 * Paul Weyrich: 11:27, 26 August Violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:AUTO
 * Paul Weyrich: 11:30, 26 August Violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:AUTO
 * Paul Weyrich: 11:32, 26 August Violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:AUTO
 * Paul Weyrich: 11:34, 26 August Violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:AUTO
 * Paul Weyrich: 13:54, 28 August Violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:AUTO
 * Paul Weyrich: 14:24, 28 August Violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, spurious use of templates to force the issue, WP:AUTO
 * Paul Weyrich: 15:49, 28 August Deleting the talk page comments of others, personal attack.
 * User talk:Pravknight: 16:11, 28 August Violating WP:NPA
 * Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight: 20:51, 28 August Violating WP:NPA.
 * User talk:Goethean: 20:55, 28 August Violating WP:DR: Trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it: Expanding the conflict by recruiting editors with possible grudges and fanning the flames
 * User talk:Trödel: 20:49, 28 August Violating WP:DR: Trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it: Expanding the conflict by recruiting editors with possible grudges and fanning the flames
 * Talk:Paul Weyrich: 21:56, 28 August Violating WP:NPA, WP:POINT

September

 * Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy: 15:01, 1 September WP:NPOV, WP:V Adding a criticism of the group that criticizes his pet topic Paul Weyrich, that not only rests on biased language by is not supported by the cite.
 * Dominionism: 15:56, 1 September WP:NPOV
 * Dominionism: 21:18, 1 September WP:NPOV, weakening, discrediting the viewpoint that Dominionism is an actual issue, concern.
 * Dominionism: 22:03, 1 September WP:NPOV, edit warring, same edit as above
 * Paul Weyrich: 08:48, 7 September WP:NPOV, WP:AUTO misuse of "disputed" template.
 * Talk:Paul Weyrich: 08:56, 7 September Tendentious arguments, ignoring consensus.
 * Dominionism: 09:27, 7 September WP:NPOV, WP:CON. Again restoring his above edits that failed to make consensus that weakened, discredited the viewpoint that Dominionism is an actual issue, concern.
 * Dominionism: 09:28, 7 September WP:NPOV, WP:CON. More of the same.
 * Dominionism: 09:29, 7 September WP:NPOV, WP:CON. Again, continuing more of the same.
 * Dominionism: 10:00, 7 September Edit warring over the above.
 * Talk:Dominionism: 15:00, 7 September WP:NPA, personal attack
 * Requests for comment/Pravknight: 13:56, 7 September WP:POINT Dishonest attempt to imply support for his activities by placing his response directly above endorsements of the summary he's replying to, making it look like the endorsements were of his reply.
 * Paul Weyrich: 12:19, 9 September WP:NPOV, WP:POINT. Deleting cite to primary source of Weyrich's own article calling for boycott which the article quotes, subsituting a link to secondary source, the American Atheists website in an attempt to poison the well by making it seem as if the issue is being driven by atheists, not Weyrich's own call for a boycott. Also, misuse of "weasel" template, justified as "Weasel tag added because following graph is riddled with passive voice."
 * Paul Weyrich: 12:22, 9 September WP:POINT. Misuse of "fact" template, source is already in the article.
 * Paul Weyrich: 12:23, 9 September WP:POINT. Again, misusing of "fact" template, ignoring that a primary source for the statement is already provided in the article.
 * Talk:Paul Weyrich: 14:09, 9 September] WP:POINT, misleading claims. Claiming he did not place a dispute template in the article, when in fact he did: Also, tendentious arguments, quibbling.
 * Talk:Paul Weyrich: 14:33, 9 September WP:POINT, tendentious argument, quibbling.
 * Paul Weyrich: 19:10, 9 September WP:NPOV, WP:POINT. Misusing "fact" templates, ignoring that the content is already supported by Weyrich's own words which are already cited.
 * Talk:Paul Weyrich: 19:45, 9 September WP:POINT, WP:NPA. Tendentious arguments, quibbling, personal attacks.
 * User talk:Rednblu: 15:25, 22 September WP:POINT, WP:DR. Fanning the flames, attempting to expand the conflict to include others who've had past conflicts.
 * Wikipedia talk:Verifiability: 15:49, 22 September WP:POINT, moving the comments of others, disrupting the flow of discussion.

October

 * Consensus: 14:02, 4 October WP:CON, WP:POINT, unilaterally restoring rejected changes to a central guideline that weaken it.
 * Neutral point of view: 14:13, 4 October WP:CON, WP:POINT, unilaterally making changes to a central policy without discussion.
 * Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy: 12:06, 4 October WP:NPOV, restoring a non-notable factoid he'd added previously that uses non-neutral language in an attempt to poison the well.
 * Paul Weyrich: 14:26, 4 October WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV As seen on this page and elsewhere, there is broad consensus that Pravknight should not be editing this article given his admitted close personal friendship with the subject and documented inability to remain neutral on the topic. This is done after his biased editing there resulted in a 24 hr block.
 * User talk:FeloniousMonk: 08:39, 5 October WP:HAR, WP:NPA, WP:POINT Going through the history of User:FeloniousMonk to find a past RFAR ruling and misquoting it in a personal attack meant to derail FM's attempts to get Pravknight to abide by policy.
 * User talk:Ed Poor: 12:36, 5 October WP:DR, WP:CIVIL, WP:HAR, WP:POINT Expanding the conflict, seeking out sources of past conflicts/disputes and fanning the flames.
 * User talk:Rednblu: 12:46, 5 October WP:POINT, WP:NPOV Expanding the conflict, fanning the flames, seeking out editors to carry on his pov campaign in his place.
 * User talk:FloNight: 13:24, 5 October WP:DR, WP:NPA Dismissing attempts at dispute resolution, personal attacks.
 * Consensus: 10:14, 24 October Set irony meter shield on "high": unilateral changes to the Consensus guideline, muddying, weakening it.
 * Dominionism: 20:00, 24 October WP:NPOV, WP:NOR Mis-attributing Dominionism as a largely "Calvinist" movement.
 * Dominionism: 07:21, 25 October WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, edit warring Restoring the inaccurate, pov content made above, with a personal attack
 * Talk:Dominionism: 07:19, 25 October WP:NPA, WP:POINT Religious-based personal attack and inflamatory language, dismissing notable, reliable sources.

November

 * Paul Weyrich: 12:42, 2 November WP:POINT, WP:AUTO Restoring misused POV tag, again ignoring broad consensus on the talk page and elsewhere that the tag is not warranted.
 * Dominionism: 12:57, 2 November WP:POINT Restoring misused POV tag, again ignoring broad consensus that the tag is not warranted.
 * Requests for comment/Pravknight: 12:02, 3 November Dismissing this RFC
 * Dominionism: 12:02, 3 November WP:POINT Restoring misused POV tag
 * Talk:Dominionism: 12:07, 3 November WP:DR, WP:NPA Dismissing this RFC
 * Dominionism: 12:09, 3 November WP:NPOV, Restoring content previously rejected as pov
 * Requests for comment/Pravknight: 12:14, 3 November WP:POINT, WP:DR, Again dismissing this RFC
 * User talk:FeloniousMonk: 12:32, 3 November WP:POINT, WP:DR, WP:NPA Aggressive rant and dismissing the RFC
 * User talk:68.45.161.241: 19:41, 3 November WP:SOCK Using anon sock to evade block
 * Requests for comment/Pravknight: 19:51, 3 November WP:SOCK, WP:POINT Using anon sock to evade block, rant
 * User talk:68.45.161.241: 14:07, 4 November WP:SOCK, WP:POINT Using anon sock to evade block, restoring removed rant
 * User talk:68.45.161.241: 14:08, 4 November WP:SOCK, WP:POINT, WP:NPA Using anon sock to evade block, personal attack
 * User talk:68.45.161.241: 14:17, 4 November WP:SOCK, WP:POINT, WP:NPA Using anon sock to evade block, personal attack
 * Requests for comment/Pravknight: 11:55, 3 November WP:POINT Blanking this RFC page
 * User talk:64.93.1.67: 11:58, 3 November WP:SOCK, WP:POINT Using anon sock to evade block, rant
 * User talk:68.45.161.241: 14:07, 4 November WP:POINT, WP:NPA Rants, personal attacks
 * User talk:68.45.161.241: 14:08, 4 November WP:POINT, WP:NPA Rants, personal attacks
 * User talk:68.45.161.241: 14:17, 4 November WP:POINT, WP:NPA Rants, personal attacks
 * User talk:68.45.161.241: 19:41, 4 November WP:POINT, WP:NPA Rants, personal attacks
 * User talk:68.45.161.241: 21:27, 4 November WP:POINT, WP:NPA Rants, personal attacks
 * User talk:68.45.161.241: 21:31, 4 November WP:POINT, WP:NPA Rants, personal attacks

Pravknight's expansion of his campaign to policy pages
In a troubling turn, after being temporarily blocked by FloNight for biased editing while violating WP:AUTO at Paul Weyrich, Pravknight returned to expand his campaign to now include policy pages like WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:AUTO trying to reshape policy to allow for his campaign and disallow the content at Paul Weyrich he objects to. There's too many individual edits to list, so I'll provide links to his contributions to the project talk namespace, which show the pattern: As Pravknight, As User:146.145.70.200, As User:68.45.161.241. Normally this wouldn't be an issue worth noting, but some clear issues have arisen out of his participation at policy pages. They include disingenuous suggestions, personal attacks, at mild sockpuppetry. At Wikipedia talk:Autobiography, this suggestion is clearly meant to circumvent the first policy that's hamstrung his campaign. There is broad consensus that Pravknight's editing of Paul Weyrich is proscribed by this guideline as a conflict of interest due to his close friendship with Weyrich and his documented history of being unable to contribute neutrally to the topic. His changing this policy to remove that prohibition is also a conflict of interest. Along the usual personal attacks which have already been discussed above, Pravknight has several times proposed policy changes as 68.45.161.241 or 146.145.70.200. He then logs in as Pravknight and comments in support without disclosing he's the same person as the IP who made the proposal, giving the false impression of more support for his proposals than there really is.

Instead of abiding by policies and finding ways to contribute in a constructive manner, Pravknight has continued to seek to expand the conflict and circumvent WP:DR. The behavior listed here is no more acceptable than that detailed in the previous evidence presented above, and needs to cease.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Guettarda 23:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like my old friends are at it again
Mild sockpuppetry. Has anyone ever forgotten to login? I have a lot going on in my life that goes beyond Wikipedia, and I frequently forget to login. BTW, one of the IPs is my work and the other is my home.

The only thing for me to get out of this RfC is that some people are fearful of change and the restoration of balance. Let's let the wider community decide whether they like my ideas or dislike them. This cabal really doesn't count for much.

It's funny that you all think I shouldn't be allowed to participate on Wikipedia because I see the inherent weakness of some of the rules here. Maybe there's a fear that I will end biased editing once and for all.

Perhaps there is a feeling of threat because many of my ideas on the rule pages have found takers. It seems this faction represented on this RfC is a minority. The fact you folks continue to harass me over this is a bit ridiculous. --Pravknight 03:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, if the content you are afraid I am after is indeed kosher, then there would be no doubt that Abcomm would rule in your favor. It, though, seems the consensus favors my perspective on defining consensus such that cliques cannot railroad people just because they don't like them. This whole thing is very personal and has nothing to do with the guidelines. Following the guidelines is at the participants discretion. WP:IAR This RfC is meaningless.--Pravknight 04:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Political witchhunting
On one hand FeloniousMonk says all verifiable perspectives are permissable, yet on the other hand, he excises perspectives that do not advance his POV. He's more interested in continuing disputes than resolving them, and this page is evidence of that.

Everything that FeloniousMonk touches is a POV edit, considering he quickly censors perspectives he doesn't like.

FeloniousMonk escalated this from the moment he brought Killer Chihauhua, Jim68sch,etc., in to create his predetermined artificial consensus.

Now I simply add a well-sourced series of references that disagree with his POV, and he has the audacity to accuse me of starting an edit war. Dominionism's threat to society is a POV, not an objective truth. --Pravknight 20:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So, what makes objecting to bad grammar a crime. It's not a personal attack. It's an observation of the problem here with the text? HMMM.--Pravknight 20:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Question: Why is Leftism NPOV?
Explain something here, why is it that only Left-wing POVs are permitted on Wikipedia? Why is it that I constantly get harrassed, picked on and intimidated for trying to bring things back to the center by excising the hate-filled, bigoted rhetoric that populates the articles about Christians in politics? This is extremely personal and hate-filled, and I'm sick of this harrassment.--Pravknight 19:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Objection to "Political witchhunting"
I strongly object to being accused of being "brought in" I am an administrator in good standing, and have been editing these articles for some time. I am not a constant contributor due to r/l concerns, but to accuse me of being FM's lap dog is insulting in the extreme. This is yet another example of Pravknight attacking individuals rather than adressing his behavior. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  16:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)  Endorse and echo KC's outrage.
 * 2) ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Addhoc 13:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Partial endorsement:
 * 1) If Pravknight literally used the term lap dog to describe KillerChihuahua he ought to apologize. I myself made a joke on her name once, which was not appreciated, and I was made to understand that I had given offense. However, the bulk of this RFC amounts to a personal attack on Pravknight rather than addressing his edits.
 * 2) *The most recent diff cited, which I checked, had nothing to do with the description given it. Perhaps the citer thought no one would actually click on the diff to check? Pravknight objected to an unsourced "anti-gay" quotation. Instead of following the guidelines for reverted edits, however, FeloniousMonk misbehaved by putting the disputed text right back. This, coming from an admin, is egregious, because we expect higher standards. FM should not be edit-warring. Rather he should set the good example of discussing the content dispute on the talk page. But there we find a personal attack on someone for a proposed edit!!!
 * 3) *Still, I agree that we should not attack individuals when discussing their behavior. I hope FM will abide by this, and stop attacking people who disagree with him. He should refrain from responding, or respond politely. --Uncle Ed 22:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have followed the dispute resolution process to the letter in trying to resolve the issues caused by Pravknight's disruptive behavior. As mentioned elsewhere your action's today have sought to undermine this:  And now are you pretending that you have a good history on disruptive editing? Are you under the impression that you are named in your arbitration case because you have a good record as regards disruptive editing? WP:NPA says "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks" I fail to see why you think it was somehow uncivil for me or anyone else to identify you or Pravknight as a "disruptive editors" when there is ample of this in evidence here, validated by the many disparate endorsements, and at your arbitration case. It's not as if your very pronounced history as a disruptive editor with a problem with NPOV is irrelevant to the fact that you're trying to derail an ongoing RFC  on another disruptive editor. My history of discussion at Talk:Paul Weyrich stands in contrast to your claim that I've failed to properly discuss controversial edits. Had I followed your problematic technique of making many controversial edits without regard for prior agreement on the matter (failing the "don't be reckless" clause of Be Bold) and repeated the disputed edits despite consensus against them then our situations would be reversed. I can completely understand why you'd want to have references to the disruptiveness that earns problematic editors their RFCs and RFARs be never referred to, but that is not called for by WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA and doing so becomes necessary when they try to change the very policies that they are transgressing. FeloniousMonk 23:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You've done nothing except to push your POV and censor my efforts to remove your polemeics. I don't respect this RfC as anything but pure harassment.--Pravknight 19:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's your option.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong
The fact you can't see the POV editing in the relevant articles shows a certain lack of professionalism, not to mention objectivity or fairness.

I have done nothing wrong here except to stick up for myself against admins who abuse their powers. I'm simply a threat to Left-wing POV pushing, that's the only reason this RfC exists. --Pravknight 20:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk's discussion page is enough to lend suspicion that he has worked to create an editing cabal to give me the shaft. It's suspicious that the same people who awarded him a barnstar for his work in the Intelligent Design are the same folks who have been hounding me here. 

I should point out the NPOV rule is a myth and even some academics have begun to notice. WP:IAR "Many Wikipedians defend their claims to truth not by following the NPOV policy or by allowing the system to self-correct but by “squatting” specific topics. Alone or through political alliances with other members, using bureaucratic manipulation and persistence Wikipedians often attempt to make sure that their own perspective of certain issue is preserved. A keen participant-observer describes this process very vividly while recounting the story of a representative dispute on Wikipedia, that surrounding the term “swastika...The creation of political alliances and of cliques, by which “turf” is appropriated and defended creates not one, but multiple claims to truth, which continuously chase each other. In this context, what some thought to be an expression of pure non-directed “emergence”—rapid reverts of significant editing—can be reinterpreted in a very different way. For example, Viegas et al.’s (2004) observation that massive edits tend to be reverted after 3 minutes, compared to 90 minutes, in median, for regular edits, can be explained by the fact that such reverts are more likely to occur in more heavily “patrolled” articles, where one or more members actively control the content and the editorial process. This assumption seems to be verified by Stvilia et al.’s findings (2005). Comparing a random sample of 834 entries to a subsample of “featured” (heavily edited and patrolled) articles, Stvilia et al. found that the median number of reverts for random articles was 0, compared to 12 for “featured” articles."[LINK REMOVED DUE TO TRIPPING WP SPAMFILTER - SEE PAGE HISTORY TO RETRIEVE LINK]

I vote for changing NPOV to LPOV=Left-wing points of view only. At least the policy would be honest. --Pravknight 05:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Motion to close
It is clear from the above that Pravknight is unwilling to recognise that there is any problem with his editing, and asserts that it is everybody else, not him, who is biased. Attempts to enforce though blocks lead to block evasion, a violation of policy on evasion of blocks. I propose a community sanction per disruptive editing as follows:


 * Pravknight restricted from directly editing political biographies; apart from minor and uncontentious errors of fact (e.g. dates or spelling), Pravknight should propose changes on Talk and achieve consensus before any text is added to or removed from articles
 * Pravknight placed on standard civility parole
 * Pravknight may not evade blocks by editing anonymously or under another account; any such evasions will result in alternate acocunts being indefinitely blocked and IPs and the main account being blocked as appropriate.

Above to be enforced by blocks, as usual. If Pravknight restricts himself to discussing the articles, rather than ascribing motives to individual editors, then we should have no further problem. If he continues in his current his pugilistic style then I suggest an outright ban.

If a community sanction is agreed, then Pravknight may appeal to ArbCom. Restrictions would remain in force during the case, to prevent further disruption.

Proposed:
 * Guy 10:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse:
 * &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 11:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * KillerChihuahua?!? 12:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Guettarda 13:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * FloNight 13:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 *  Durova  15:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * FeloniousMonk 16:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am normally against these kind of restrictions, but from reading the above, they seem entirely appropriate. I'm also more-than-happy to reconsider my position in a couple of months, if everything runs peacefully. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:
 * per Ed Poor. Pravknight has less than 500 edits under as a logged in user. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your proposal, then? Note the comments above: Pravknight clearly perceives his own bias as neutral. Guy 16:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is a common enough newbie mistake, I think. I would prefer attempting to explain the neutrality and civility to Pravknight.  If a mentor could be found, that would be good.  I don't think I could handle an involuntary mentorship, though.  However, if Pravknight were to agree, I would be wiling to mentor him/her for a few months.  (Also, I notice that Pravknight's request for to medcab was forwarded to AMA, so perhaps someone from AMA could mentor him/her.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 16:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Armedblowfish, how closely have you reviewed this case? Are you aware of the fact that I attempted to work with Pravknight? Myself and others explained in detail about personal attacks and I said that I would help him if he would stop making them. He showed no interested in following through on my specific suggestions about how to get his changes in articles. He did not make any effort to find reliable sources that addressed the points he wanted to add. Instead he continued attacking an evergrowing number of editors and started rewriting policy. This RFC was started a couple a months ago to give him broad feedback. It had no effect. I finally blocked him to try and get his attention. After that point he put me in the category of a "secular antichristian Wikipedian". He has continued to make highly offensive comments about editors religious beliefs. I request that you not agree to work with him until he agrees to stop these disruptive personal attacks. --FloNight 17:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Armedblowfish, see Pravknight's take on this RfC &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * FloNight, I'm sure you've tried to help Pravknight, and that now you don't think it's possible. Please do not interpret my vote as criticism of you.  Obviously, mentoring Pravnight would require community consensus as well as Pravnight's consent.  As for comments that people find offensive, I could refactor them (with notice that they have been refactored).  Hopefully, refactoring would help Pravnight learn nicer ways of putting things.  And Jim - would it help if I said I am neither Christian nor liberal? Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Mentoring only works on those who contribute in good faith but just don't get it. The problem here is that Praviknight has shown he gets it, but has nothing but contempt for the community... He has shown no interest in contributing to the project in a larger sense, only a few articles, and those he only contributes to because he feels that they have a "liberal pov" that needs to corrected, resulting in several months of disruption and ultimately this RFC. Also, using anon sockpuppets to avoid blocks as Pravknight has is by definition an act of bad faith. Considering the scope and range of his disruption, dismissal of our policies, number of personal attacks and use of sockpuppetry, mentoring is an inappropriate response to this sort bad faith activity and waste of the community's time and patience.  Pravknight has already been given many chances to fall in line and wasted each one. It's time for the disruption to end. FeloniousMonk 22:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your intent here: "And Jim - would it help if I said I am neither Christian nor liberal?" Are you saying that PK might feel more comfortable?  Personally, I don't care to what religion (if any) anyone belongs or where their political philosophy falls on the standard poli-sci spectrum.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.