2790:"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 Knowledge, 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."
3018:, 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. --
926:
disagreement over "the facts" and that this disagreement is what makes
Knowledge 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 Knowledge 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)"
812:"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...."
3071:
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.
3049:, 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?
739:
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
Knowledge 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.
1659:. 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."
793:. 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.
2416:
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.
915:'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)"
2993:
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
1100:
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
838:
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
166:
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
2564:
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
781:
Knowledge's rules are tedious and many. Editors such as
FeloniousMonk who have edited on Knowledge 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
3070:
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
2708:
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
606:
I pointed out that political groups without proper attribution was not in keeping with
Knowledge's policies. Instead of fairly applying the rules, User:FeloniusMonk has capriciously applied the rules to his own advantage, ignoring Knowledge guidelines that do not fit with the agenda he demonstrated
723:
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
38:
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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted.
2496:
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
627:
Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist groups, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Knowledge, except as primary sources, that is to say they may be used in articles discussing the opinions of that organization. Even then they
2693:" 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
2415:
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
2549:
Explain something here, why is it that only Left-wing POVs are permitted on Knowledge? 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
1119:
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 Knowledge, That leaves 1,350,870 articles that Pravknight is not personally involved in that he is free to edit.
925:
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 Knowledge is here to record "the facts", not understanding or eliding that there is
578:
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.
2419:
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.
1858:
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
738:
Reasonable editors generally do not take until they are in the project's dispute resolution process to learn the project's rules, and Knowledge'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
143:
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
3084:
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
2637:
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,
687:
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
649:
Right now, all that exists connecting Mr. Weyrich with Dominionism is an ad hominem attack by TheocracyWatch backed up with 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
638:
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
908:
I should remind any person reading this page that numerous individuals raised serious questions regarding FM's judgment and maturity to be a Knowledge administrator. I quote from his request for admin page, from those who opposed his election because I concur with their observations:
2638:
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
2780:
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.
2839:
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.
1025:, 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:
654:
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."
929:"Strongly oppose. (no number since anons are not accorded voting rights). FM's continuous disruption of Knowledge 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)"
982:
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 ref's) about
2515:
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.
144:
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
2633:
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.
139:, 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
904:
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.
582:
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."
2478:
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.
920:"# 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)"
518:
I am being accused of violating rules that I had no idea existed when I started editing on Knowledge. Instead of cutting me some slack to learn the rules, User:FeloniusMonk has instead waved his interpretations of the rules in my face.
2486:
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.
727:
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.
872:
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.
161:
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.
2649:
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.
602:
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.
2935:
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.
2482:
It's funny that you all think I shouldn't be allowed to participate on Knowledge 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.
993:
Knowledge 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
818:
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
2525:
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.
2474:
Mild sockpuppetry. Has anyone ever forgotten to login? I have a lot going on in my life that goes beyond Knowledge, and I frequently forget to login. BTW, one of the IPs is my work and the other is my home.
967:
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
2823:
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
2403:
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
1041:
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
3123:. 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.
2834:
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
2669:
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
639:
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.
621:
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
522:
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
611:
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.
2705:
731:
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 "
148:. 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
658:
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.
672:
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
1081:
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?
861:
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
1642:
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.
1038:" 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.
2771:
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. --
2691:
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
1036:
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
586:
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.
676:
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
661:
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.
1880:
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.
530:
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?
932:
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 Knowledge. FM deserves to lose his adminship.
899:, 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."
876:
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
1108:, 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
768:
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
679:
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.
2994:
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.)
964:
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.
997:
Our policies and guidelines are determined by consensus, not by FM's ideosyncratic interpretation - even if supported by other Wikipedians pushing the same POV. --
3120:
644:
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."
1827:
1472:
2843:
If a community sanction is agreed, then Pravknight may appeal to ArbCom. Restrictions would remain in force during the case, to prevent further disruption.
2678:
2388:
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:
533:
I innocently posted a comment objecting to the inclusion of the controversial material, and User:FeloniusMonk told me he had well-referenced information.
1101:
expand the conflict by seeking out and recruiting editors with possible personal grudges and fanning the flames causing more disruption to the project.
2726:
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.--
1572:. Again restoring his above edits that failed to make consensus that weakened, discredited the viewpoint that Dominionism is an actual issue, concern.
1112:
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
960:
This seems like typical mistreatment by FeloniousMonk of a well-intentioned newbie. It is hypocritical and disingenuous, as is much of FM's behavior.
538:
His next comment when I challenged him on what I believed was a biased source, that I still believe violates Knowledge rules was a personal attack.
1436:: Trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it: Expanding the conflict by recruiting editors with possible grudges and fanning the flames
1422:: Trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it: Expanding the conflict by recruiting editors with possible grudges and fanning the flames
650:
attributes comments without giving WP:NPOV#Undue weight to TheocracyWatch and the ADL's views in an article where they are of secondary importance.
2768:
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.
2439:
2522:
FeloniousMonk escalated this from the moment he brought Killer Chihauhua, Jim68sch,etc., in to create his predetermined artificial consensus.
839:
poor and his belief that power is best held at the lowest level of authority, not to mention his antipathy for neoconservative foreign policy.
691:
The only disruption I have brought to Knowledge is a desire to fairly and accurately represent both sides of the issue and a challenge to the
1116:
article not neutrally, disrupting its talk page with personal attacks, and is now spreading the disruption to include other pages and users.
664:
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.
2535:
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.--
557:
policies." [He additionally succeeded in undermining his objectivity and sense of good faith with the following comment:"Anyone who thinks
271:
72:
565:
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
549:
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
2807:
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
285:
86:
990:
Still, I'm optimistic he will glean some insight as to how Knowledge works and ultimately chose to abide our policies and guidelines.
2963:
2411:
is clearly meant to circumvent the first policy that's hamstrung his campaign. There is broad consensus that Pravknight's editing of
2497:
whole thing is very personal and has nothing to do with the guidelines. Following the guidelines is at the participants discretion.
194:
100:
58:
3058:
3003:
2973:
1810:
541:
He additionally succeeded in undermining his objectivity and sense of good faith with the following comment:"Anyone who thinks
2709:
to the disruptiveness that earns problematic editors their RFCs and RFARs be never referred to, but that is not called for by
30:, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the
824:
27:
17:
1732:. Misusing "fact" templates, ignoring that the content is already supported by Weyrich's own words which are already cited.
1685:. Again, misusing of "fact" template, ignoring that a primary source for the statement is already provided in the article.
2405:
1769:
2028:
Restoring misused POV tag, again ignoring broad consensus on the talk page and elsewhere that the tag is not warranted.
152:. Were he to become better acquainted with our core policies, his objections to the article's content would evaporate.
1046:, and doesn't help making surly and refractory editors into members of the community who make positive contributions.
2519:
Everything that FeloniousMonk touches is a POV edit, considering he quickly censors perspectives he doesn't like.
2697:
disruptive editor with a problem with NPOV is irrelevant to the fact that you're trying to derail an ongoing RFC
1227:
Calling for a "truce," claiming to drop the issue. Followed by more POV editing of Paul Weyrich within 48 hrs...
2704:
stands in contrast to your claim that I've failed to properly discuss controversial edits. Had I followed your
265:
66:
3054:
2999:
2969:
2603:
2435:
2339:
2322:
2305:
2288:
2271:
2254:
2203:
2182:
2165:
2135:
2114:
1862:
1220:
1182:
279:
80:
921:
916:
1922:
Expanding the conflict, fanning the flames, seeking out editors to carry on his pov campaign in his place.
831:
is a hate group that twists people's words to suit its prejudices, and citing it as a primary source is a
562:
546:
724:
glean some insight as to how Knowledge works and ultimately chose to abide our policies and guidelines.
688:
disagreement, but because he has demonstrated by his actions a desire to censor authentic NPOV language.
261:
62:
3050:
3015:
2995:
2965:
1949:
Set irony meter shield on "high": unilateral changes to the Consensus guideline, muddying, weakening it.
1837:, restoring a non-notable factoid he'd added previously that uses non-neutral language in an attempt to
1120:
Surely that affords him ample opportunities where he can contribute to the project more constructively.
561:'s site, frontpagemag.com, is a more credible, less biased source than Cornell's TheocracyWatch and the
545:'s site, frontpagemag.com, is a more credible, less biased source than Cornell's TheocracyWatch and the
275:
76:
2793:
I vote for changing NPOV to LPOV=Left-wing points of view only. At least the policy would be honest. --
1699:, misleading claims. Claiming he did not place a dispute template in the article, when in fact he did:
975:
Despite that he chooses to view it as an opportunity to personalize his difficulties and blame others.
2717:
and doing so becomes necessary when they try to change the very policies that they are transgressing.
633:
Furthermore, I contend it violates the WP:LIVING RULE: "Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors
2982:
Your proposal, then? Note the comments above: Pravknight clearly perceives his own bias as neutral.
2891:
2794:
2772:
2727:
2630:
2566:
2551:
2536:
2527:
2502:
2488:
2237:
1387:
1168:
936:
820:
696:
467:
188:
184:
94:
90:
52:
48:
3097:
3075:
3062:
3041:
3022:
3007:
2988:
2977:
2942:
2930:
2922:
2910:
2902:
2894:
2886:
2859:
2797:
2775:
2747:
2730:
2721:
2654:
2615:
2607:
2589:
2569:
2554:
2539:
2530:
2505:
2491:
2463:
2447:
2364:
In a troubling turn, after being temporarily blocked by FloNight for biased editing while violating
1766:. Fanning the flames, attempting to expand the conflict to include others who've had past conflicts.
1186:
1160:
1143:
1124:
1070:
1050:
1001:
939:
790:
765:
757:
712:
699:
505:
494:
486:
470:
462:
442:
428:
420:
412:
2811:, not him, who is biased. Attempts to enforce though blocks lead to block evasion, a violation of
1942:
1793:
1425:
134:
Pravknight, a relatively new editor and who has admitted an intimate connection to Paul Weyrich,
3072:
2938:
2927:
2718:
1925:
1838:
1411:
1121:
1047:
855:
842:
589:
User:FeloniusMonk never sought to work with me on the controverted issue, and when I pointed out
440:
409:
2000:
Religious-based personal attack and inflamatory language, dismissing notable, reliable sources.
2701:
1908:
1905:
Expanding the conflict, seeking out sources of past conflicts/disputes and fanning the flames.
1883:
1752:
1735:
1705:
1688:
1548:
1439:
2067:
1986:
1619:
594:
459:
2710:
2599:
2431:
2346:
2329:
2312:
2295:
2278:
2261:
2248:
2231:
2214:
2193:
2176:
2159:
2121:
2104:
2061:
2038:
2021:
1997:
1915:
1902:
1894:
1877:
1821:
1804:
1776:
1759:
1742:
1729:
1712:
1696:
1682:
1669:
1656:
1639:
1451:
1368:
1347:
1326:
1305:
1284:
1263:
1242:
1178:
1043:
912:
709:
2786:
I should point out the NPOV rule is a myth and even some academics have begun to notice.
2550:
politics? This is extremely personal and hate-filled, and I'm sick of this harrassment.--
2041:
Restoring misused POV tag, again ignoring broad consensus that the tag is not warranted.
847:
813:
2899:
2812:
2444:
2381:
2373:
2365:
2244:
2210:
2189:
2172:
2155:
2142:
2091:
2025:
1983:, edit warring Restoring the inaccurate, pov content made above, with a personal attack
1976:
1959:
1919:
1855:
1851:
1834:
1725:
1652:
1599:
1582:
1565:
1542:
1538:
1525:
1512:
1500:
1479:
1372:
1364:
1351:
1343:
1330:
1322:
1309:
1301:
1288:
1280:
1267:
1259:
1246:
1238:
888:
869:
862:
828:
796:
786:
673:
590:
558:
542:
425:
358:
338:
333:
168:
156:
145:
140:
3086:
3046:
3030:
3019:
2984:
2907:
2875:
2855:
2787:
2736:
2714:
2686:
2578:
2498:
2452:
2350:
2333:
2316:
2299:
2282:
2265:
2218:
2197:
2129:
2078:
1993:
1980:
1963:
1936:
1898:
1873:
1869:
1817:
1800:
1746:
1626:
1603:
1586:
1569:
1515:, weakening, discrediting the viewpoint that Dominionism is an actual issue, concern.
1447:
1405:
1395:
1149:
1140:
1059:
1031:
896:
892:
762:
746:
501:
475:
433:
353:
348:
343:
149:
733:
Nope, Felonius this has been going on for weeks. I really don't care what you think.
2816:
2651:
2412:
2385:
2369:
2125:
2108:
2074:
2014:
1932:
1890:
1844:
1763:
1718:
1675:
1662:
1645:
1531:
1487:
1433:
1419:
1377:
1356:
1335:
1314:
1293:
1272:
1251:
1230:
1113:
1109:
1022:
998:
769:
570:
554:
417:
119:
2677:
history on disruptive editing? Are you under the impression that you are named in
628:
should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources."WP:RS
880:. It takes two people working together who have very different views to maintain
840:
159:
guideline, which covers editing articles in which you are personally connected: "
2916:
2612:
2377:
2084:
2054:
2031:
1969:
1952:
1807:, unilaterally restoring rejected changes to a central guideline that weaken it.
1609:
1592:
1575:
1558:
1518:
1505:
1493:
1483:
1211:
1202:
1104:
Pravknight has admitted a personal relationship that motivates his actions, see
800:
566:
550:
491:
123:
2384:
trying to reshape policy to allow for his campaign and disallow the content at
1146:
Hopefully this type of behavior has stopped after getting feedback on this RFC.
2595:
2427:
2372:, Pravknight returned to expand his campaign to now include policy pages like
1174:
868:
Had User:FeloniousMonk applied the rules in a fair and balanced way and shown
692:
3119:
signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to
2782:
807:"Christian Reconstructionism does not represent one particular denomination.
789:. Instead of greeting my concerns with understanding, he greeted them with
1490:, that not only rests on biased language by is not supported by the cite.
695:
and stereotypes entertained by User:FeloniusMonk and the other editors.--
597:
he proceeded to launch the edit war with a personal attack against me.
327:{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
2565:
Pravknight attacking individuals rather than adressing his behavior.
1824:, unilaterally making changes to a central policy without discussion.
1163:
Wish in one hand, defecate in the other, see which fills up faster.
1779:, moving the comments of others, disrupting the flow of discussion.
109:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
881:
877:
865:
be given credibility as an unattributed source of first record?
2962:. Pravknight has less than 500 edits under as a logged in user.
900:
1966:
Mis-attributing Dominionism as a largely "Calvinist" movement.
1672:. Misuse of "fact" template, source is already in the article.
1486:
Adding a criticism of the group that criticizes his pet topic
852:
850:
832:
1939:
Dismissing attempts at dispute resolution, personal attacks.
1384:
Deleting the talk page comments of others, personal attack.
2700:
on another disruptive editor. My history of discussion at
2359:
118:
Aggressive POV editing and apparent article ownership on
884:, something my opponents don't seem intereste in doing.
3028:
2698:
2671:
2409:
2397:
2393:
2389:
2343:
2326:
2309:
2292:
2275:
2258:
2241:
2228:
2207:
2186:
2169:
2152:
2139:
2118:
2101:
2088:
2071:
2058:
2048:
2035:
2018:
1990:
1973:
1956:
1946:
1929:
1912:
1887:
1866:
1848:
1831:
1814:
1797:
1773:
1756:
1739:
1722:
1709:
1700:
1692:
1679:
1666:
1649:
1636:
1623:
1613:
1596:
1579:
1562:
1552:
1535:
1522:
1509:
1497:
1476:
1443:
1429:
1415:
1401:
1391:
1381:
1360:
1339:
1318:
1297:
1276:
1255:
1234:
1224:
1215:
1206:
1164:
1026:
736:
598:
574:
534:
389:
385:
381:
377:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
172:
137:
135:
2360:
Pravknight's expansion of his campaign to policy pages
2179:
Using anon sock to evade block, restoring removed rant
835:
violation unless its beliefs are properly attributed.
1749:. Tendentious arguments, quibbling, personal attacks.
458:
This appears to be a correct summary of the matter.
367:
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
499:
Yes, the dispute is characterised accurately above.
402:{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
3027:Armedblowfish, see Pravknight's take on this RfC
1371:, spurious use of templates to force the issue,
526:User:FeloniusMonk's failure to act in good faith
2221:Using anon sock to evade block, personal attack
2200:Using anon sock to evade block, personal attack
1195:Additional evidence of recent disputed behavior
887:FeloniousMonk routinely violates the following:
2094:, Restoring content previously rejected as pov
2831:Pravknight placed on standard civility parole
2828:any text is added to or removed from articles
1828:Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy
1473:Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy
1096:Sadly Pravknight has dismissed this RFC, see
8:
2959:
2470:It looks like my old friends are at it again
525:
171:, something he doggedly refuses to consider
2673:And now are you pretending that you have a
1400:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Pravknight:
616:"Partisan, religious and extremist websites
397:Users certifying the basis for this dispute
1555:Tendentious arguments, ignoring consensus.
772:article since he has a close relationship.
155:Pravknight also ignores and dismisses the
2225:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Pravknight
2149:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Pravknight
2098:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Pravknight
2045:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Pravknight
1633:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Pravknight
1702:Also, tendentious arguments, quibbling.
825:Learned Protocols of the Elders of Zion
2815:. I propose a community sanction per
2685:record as regards disruptive editing?
2625:If Pravknight literally used the term
2132:Aggressive rant and dismissing the RFC
2560:Objection to "Political witchhunting"
1606:. Again, continuing more of the same.
607:to me right out of the gate.WP:CIVIL
7:
2251:Using anon sock to evade block, rant
2162:Using anon sock to evade block, rant
1133:Other users who endorse this summary
451:Other users who endorse this summary
1715:, tendentious argument, quibbling.
1528:, edit warring, same edit as above
785:He failed from the outset to show
323:Applicable policies and guidelines
24:
2574:Users who endorse this summary:
2423:Users who endorse this summary:
1106:My relationship with Mr. Weyrich
1084:Users who endorse this summary:
1055:Users who endorse this summary:
1009:Users who endorse this summary:
945:Users who endorse this summary:
742:Users who endorse this summary:
704:Users who endorse this summary:
668:My relationship with Mr. Weyrich
1811:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
827:to me than an unbiased source.
2798:05:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
2776:20:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
2608:04:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
2592:Endorse and echo KC's outrage.
2590:16:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
2570:14:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
2545:Question: Why is Leftism NPOV?
2540:20:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
2440:04:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
2145:Using anon sock to evade block
1545:misuse of "disputed" template.
1187:04:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
593:'s bias using an article from
41:21:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
39:The current date and time is:
28:Knowledge:Requests for comment
18:Knowledge:Requests for comment
1:
2531:20:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
1161:13:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
1144:03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
766:03:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
178:Evidence of disputed behavior
26:In order to remain listed at
3098:23:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
3076:22:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
3063:21:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
3042:20:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
3023:17:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
3008:16:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
2989:16:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
2978:15:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
2943:00:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
2931:16:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
2923:15:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
2911:13:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
2903:13:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
2895:12:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
2887:11:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
2860:10:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
2748:22:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
2731:19:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
2555:19:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
2406:Knowledge talk:Autobiography
1770:Knowledge talk:Verifiability
1616:Edit warring over the above.
3121:this page's discussion page
2813:policy on evasion of blocks
2722:23:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
2655:22:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
2616:13:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
2506:04:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
2492:03:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
2464:23:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
2448:23:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
2111:, Again dismissing this RFC
1125:05:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
1071:11:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
1051:23:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
1002:17:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
940:23:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
758:22:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
700:08:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
506:19:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
495:16:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
487:10:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
471:07:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
463:04:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
443:16:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
429:04:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
421:04:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
413:03:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
3137:
2501:This RfC is meaningless.--
823:. It sounds more like the
713:00:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
371:(provide diffs and links)
2064:Restoring misused POV tag
978:Actually it is FM who is
803:in the following manner:
1171:14:31, 10 September 2006
1077:Outside view by Jim62Sch
114:Statement of the dispute
2353:Rants, personal attacks
2340:User talk:68.45.161.241
2336:Rants, personal attacks
2323:User talk:68.45.161.241
2319:Rants, personal attacks
2306:User talk:68.45.161.241
2302:Rants, personal attacks
2289:User talk:68.45.161.241
2285:Rants, personal attacks
2272:User talk:68.45.161.241
2268:Rants, personal attacks
2255:User talk:68.45.161.241
2204:User talk:68.45.161.241
2183:User talk:68.45.161.241
2166:User talk:68.45.161.241
2136:User talk:68.45.161.241
2115:User talk:FeloniousMonk
1863:User talk:FeloniousMonk
1221:User talk:FeloniousMonk
956:Outside view by Ed Poor
799:'s own website defines
2511:Political witchhunting
2394:As User:146.145.70.200
2234:Blanking this RFC page
719:Reply by FeloniousMonk
563:Anti-Defamation League
547:Anti-Defamation League
2735:That's your option.
2706:problematic technique
2679:your arbitration case
2621:Partial endorsement:
2398:As User:68.45.161.241
1225:10:24, 24 August 2006
846:Compare the tone here
782:how best to address.
2238:User talk:64.93.1.67
1460:Continuing incidents
1388:User talk:Pravknight
821:reductio ad absurdum
3085:poli-sci spectrum.
2681:because you have a
2081:Dismissing this RFC
2051:Dismissing this RFC
1943:Knowledge:Consensus
1794:Knowledge:Consensus
1774:15:49, 22 September
1757:15:25, 22 September
1589:. More of the same.
1017:Response to Ed Poor
126:-related articles.
61:), also editing as
2817:disruptive editing
2408:, this suggestion
1926:User talk:FloNight
1740:19:45, 9 September
1723:19:10, 9 September
1710:14:33, 9 September
1693:14:09, 9 September
1680:12:23, 9 September
1667:12:22, 9 September
1650:12:19, 9 September
1637:13:56, 7 September
1624:15:00, 7 September
1614:10:00, 7 September
1597:09:29, 7 September
1580:09:28, 7 September
1563:09:27, 7 September
1553:08:56, 7 September
1536:08:48, 7 September
1523:22:03, 1 September
1510:21:18, 1 September
1498:15:56, 1 September
1477:15:01, 1 September
1412:User talk:Goethean
856:John Birch Society
2702:Talk:Paul Weyrich
2642:on someone for a
2606:
2438:
2344:21:31, 4 November
2327:21:27, 4 November
2310:19:41, 4 November
2293:14:17, 4 November
2276:14:08, 4 November
2259:14:07, 4 November
2242:11:58, 3 November
2229:11:55, 3 November
2208:14:17, 4 November
2187:14:08, 4 November
2170:14:07, 4 November
2153:19:51, 3 November
2140:19:41, 3 November
2119:12:32, 3 November
2102:12:14, 3 November
2089:12:09, 3 November
2072:12:07, 3 November
2059:12:02, 3 November
2049:12:02, 3 November
2036:12:57, 2 November
2019:12:42, 2 November
1991:07:19, 25 October
1974:07:21, 25 October
1957:20:00, 24 October
1947:10:14, 24 October
1909:User talk:Rednblu
1884:User talk:Ed Poor
1753:User talk:Rednblu
1736:Talk:Paul Weyrich
1706:Talk:Paul Weyrich
1689:Talk:Paul Weyrich
1629:, personal attack
1549:Talk:Paul Weyrich
1440:Talk:Paul Weyrich
1185:
3128:
3095:
3092:
3089:
3039:
3036:
3033:
2919:
2884:
2881:
2878:
2745:
2742:
2739:
2598:
2587:
2584:
2581:
2461:
2458:
2455:
2430:
2068:Talk:Dominionism
1987:Talk:Dominionism
1930:13:24, 5 October
1913:12:46, 5 October
1888:12:36, 5 October
1867:08:39, 5 October
1849:14:26, 4 October
1832:12:06, 4 October
1815:14:13, 4 October
1798:14:02, 4 October
1620:Talk:Dominionism
1444:21:56, 28 August
1430:20:49, 28 August
1426:User talk:Trödel
1416:20:55, 28 August
1402:20:51, 28 August
1392:16:11, 28 August
1382:15:49, 28 August
1361:14:24, 28 August
1340:13:54, 28 August
1319:11:34, 26 August
1298:11:32, 26 August
1277:11:30, 26 August
1256:11:27, 26 August
1235:11:26, 26 August
1216:18:07, 23 August
1207:15:28, 22 August
1177:
1158:
1155:
1152:
1092:Recent incidents
1068:
1065:
1062:
755:
752:
749:
595:FrontPageMag.com
571:Reliable Sources
555:Reliable Sources
484:
481:
478:
438:
42:
3136:
3135:
3131:
3130:
3129:
3127:
3126:
3125:
3114:
3093:
3090:
3087:
3037:
3034:
3031:
2917:
2892:KillerChihuahua
2882:
2879:
2876:
2805:
2803:Motion to close
2766:
2743:
2740:
2737:
2640:personal attack
2631:KillerChihuahua
2585:
2582:
2579:
2567:KillerChihuahua
2562:
2547:
2513:
2472:
2459:
2456:
2453:
2362:
2009:
1839:poison the well
1788:
1467:
1462:
1197:
1169:KillerChihuahua
1156:
1153:
1150:
1135:
1094:
1079:
1066:
1063:
1060:
1019:
958:
913:User:Silverback
779:
753:
750:
747:
721:
685:
670:
528:
516:
482:
479:
476:
468:KillerChihuahua
453:
434:
399:
369:
325:
180:
132:
116:
40:
34:dispute with a
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3134:
3132:
3113:
3110:
3109:
3108:
3107:
3106:
3105:
3104:
3103:
3102:
3101:
3100:
3094:sch•
3088:•Jim
3082:
3081:
3080:
3079:
3078:
3038:sch•
3032:•Jim
3010:
2948:
2947:
2946:
2945:
2933:
2925:
2913:
2905:
2897:
2889:
2883:sch•
2877:•Jim
2865:
2864:
2863:
2862:
2837:
2836:
2832:
2829:
2809:everybody else
2804:
2801:
2765:
2762:
2761:
2760:
2759:
2758:
2757:
2756:
2755:
2754:
2753:
2752:
2751:
2750:
2744:sch•
2738:•Jim
2660:
2659:
2658:
2657:
2647:
2619:
2618:
2610:
2593:
2586:sch•
2580:•Jim
2561:
2558:
2546:
2543:
2512:
2509:
2471:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2460:sch•
2454:•Jim
2450:
2442:
2361:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2337:
2320:
2303:
2286:
2269:
2252:
2235:
2222:
2201:
2180:
2163:
2146:
2133:
2112:
2095:
2082:
2065:
2052:
2042:
2029:
2008:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
1984:
1967:
1950:
1940:
1923:
1906:
1881:
1860:
1842:
1825:
1808:
1787:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1767:
1750:
1733:
1716:
1703:
1686:
1673:
1660:
1643:
1630:
1617:
1607:
1590:
1573:
1556:
1546:
1529:
1516:
1503:
1491:
1466:
1463:
1461:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1437:
1423:
1409:
1398:
1385:
1375:
1354:
1333:
1312:
1291:
1270:
1249:
1228:
1218:
1209:
1196:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1172:
1166:
1157:sch•
1151:•Jim
1147:
1134:
1131:
1129:
1093:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1078:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1067:sch•
1061:•Jim
1034:clearly says "
1018:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
995:
987:
986:
985:
984:
972:
971:
970:
969:
957:
954:
950:
949:
863:TheocracyWatch
829:TheocracyWatch
816:
815:
809:
808:
797:TheocracyWatch
778:
775:
774:
773:
760:
754:sch•
748:•Jim
720:
717:
716:
715:
684:
681:
674:TheocracyWatch
669:
666:
652:
651:
646:
645:
641:
640:
635:
634:
630:
629:
624:
623:
618:
617:
613:
612:
591:TheocracyWatch
559:David Horowitz
543:David Horowitz
527:
524:
515:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
497:
489:
483:sch•
477:•Jim
473:
465:
452:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
431:
423:
415:
398:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
387:
383:
379:
368:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
356:
351:
346:
341:
336:
324:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
262:146.145.70.200
257:
256:
255:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
179:
176:
131:
128:
115:
112:
106:
105:
104:
63:146.145.70.200
45:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3133:
3124:
3122:
3118:
3111:
3099:
3096:
3083:
3077:
3074:
3073:FeloniousMonk
3069:
3066:
3065:
3064:
3060:
3056:
3052:
3051:Armedblowfish
3048:
3045:
3044:
3043:
3040:
3029:
3026:
3025:
3024:
3021:
3017:
3016:Armedblowfish
3014:
3011:
3009:
3005:
3001:
2997:
2996:Armedblowfish
2992:
2991:
2990:
2987:
2986:
2981:
2980:
2979:
2975:
2971:
2967:
2966:Armedblowfish
2964:
2961:
2957:
2956:
2955:
2954:
2953:
2952:
2944:
2941:
2940:
2939:Daniel.Bryant
2934:
2932:
2929:
2928:FeloniousMonk
2926:
2924:
2921:
2920:
2914:
2912:
2909:
2906:
2904:
2901:
2898:
2896:
2893:
2890:
2888:
2885:
2874:
2873:
2872:
2871:
2870:
2869:
2861:
2858:
2857:
2853:
2852:
2851:
2850:
2849:
2848:
2844:
2841:
2833:
2830:
2827:
2822:
2821:
2820:
2818:
2814:
2810:
2802:
2800:
2799:
2796:
2791:
2789:
2784:
2783:
2778:
2777:
2774:
2769:
2763:
2749:
2746:
2734:
2733:
2732:
2729:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2720:
2719:FeloniousMonk
2716:
2712:
2707:
2703:
2699:
2696:
2692:
2688:
2684:
2680:
2676:
2672:
2668:
2667:
2666:
2665:
2664:
2663:
2662:
2661:
2656:
2653:
2648:
2645:
2644:proposed edit
2641:
2636:
2635:
2632:
2628:
2624:
2623:
2622:
2617:
2614:
2611:
2609:
2605:
2601:
2597:
2594:
2591:
2588:
2577:
2576:
2575:
2572:
2571:
2568:
2559:
2557:
2556:
2553:
2544:
2542:
2541:
2538:
2533:
2532:
2529:
2523:
2520:
2517:
2510:
2508:
2507:
2504:
2500:
2494:
2493:
2490:
2484:
2480:
2476:
2469:
2465:
2462:
2451:
2449:
2446:
2443:
2441:
2437:
2433:
2429:
2426:
2425:
2424:
2421:
2417:
2414:
2410:
2407:
2401:
2399:
2395:
2391:
2390:As Pravknight
2387:
2383:
2379:
2375:
2371:
2367:
2352:
2348:
2345:
2341:
2338:
2335:
2331:
2328:
2324:
2321:
2318:
2314:
2311:
2307:
2304:
2301:
2297:
2294:
2290:
2287:
2284:
2280:
2277:
2273:
2270:
2267:
2263:
2260:
2256:
2253:
2250:
2246:
2243:
2239:
2236:
2233:
2230:
2226:
2223:
2220:
2216:
2212:
2209:
2205:
2202:
2199:
2195:
2191:
2188:
2184:
2181:
2178:
2174:
2171:
2167:
2164:
2161:
2157:
2154:
2150:
2147:
2144:
2141:
2137:
2134:
2131:
2127:
2123:
2120:
2116:
2113:
2110:
2106:
2103:
2099:
2096:
2093:
2090:
2086:
2083:
2080:
2076:
2073:
2069:
2066:
2063:
2060:
2056:
2053:
2050:
2046:
2043:
2040:
2037:
2033:
2030:
2027:
2023:
2020:
2016:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2006:
1999:
1995:
1992:
1988:
1985:
1982:
1978:
1975:
1971:
1968:
1965:
1961:
1958:
1954:
1951:
1948:
1944:
1941:
1938:
1934:
1931:
1927:
1924:
1921:
1917:
1914:
1910:
1907:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1889:
1885:
1882:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1868:
1864:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1850:
1846:
1843:
1840:
1836:
1833:
1829:
1826:
1823:
1819:
1816:
1812:
1809:
1806:
1802:
1799:
1795:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1785:
1778:
1775:
1771:
1768:
1765:
1761:
1758:
1754:
1751:
1748:
1744:
1741:
1737:
1734:
1731:
1727:
1724:
1720:
1717:
1714:
1711:
1707:
1704:
1701:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1687:
1684:
1681:
1677:
1674:
1671:
1668:
1664:
1661:
1658:
1654:
1651:
1647:
1644:
1641:
1638:
1634:
1631:
1628:
1625:
1621:
1618:
1615:
1611:
1608:
1605:
1601:
1598:
1594:
1591:
1588:
1584:
1581:
1577:
1574:
1571:
1567:
1564:
1560:
1557:
1554:
1550:
1547:
1544:
1540:
1537:
1533:
1530:
1527:
1524:
1520:
1517:
1514:
1511:
1507:
1504:
1502:
1499:
1495:
1492:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1478:
1474:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1464:
1459:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1438:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1424:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1410:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1386:
1383:
1379:
1376:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1355:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1334:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1313:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1292:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1271:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1250:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1229:
1226:
1222:
1219:
1217:
1213:
1210:
1208:
1204:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1194:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1173:
1170:
1167:
1165:
1162:
1159:
1148:
1145:
1142:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1132:
1130:
1127:
1126:
1123:
1122:FeloniousMonk
1117:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1102:
1099:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1082:
1076:
1072:
1069:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1053:
1052:
1049:
1048:FeloniousMonk
1045:
1039:
1037:
1033:
1028:
1027:
1024:
1016:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1003:
1000:
996:
994:misbehaviors.
992:
991:
989:
988:
981:
977:
976:
974:
973:
968:participated.
966:
965:
963:
962:
961:
955:
953:
948:
947:
946:
943:
941:
938:
933:
930:
927:
923:
922:
918:
917:
914:
910:
906:
902:
901:
898:
894:
890:
885:
883:
879:
874:
871:
866:
864:
859:
857:
853:
851:
848:
844:
843:
841:
836:
834:
830:
826:
822:
814:
811:
810:
806:
805:
804:
802:
798:
794:
792:
788:
783:
776:
771:
767:
764:
761:
759:
756:
745:
744:
743:
740:
737:
734:
729:
725:
718:
714:
711:
707:
706:
705:
702:
701:
698:
694:
689:
682:
680:
677:
675:
667:
665:
662:
659:
656:
648:
647:
643:
642:
637:
636:
632:
631:
626:
625:
620:
619:
615:
614:
610:
609:
608:
604:
600:
599:
596:
592:
587:
584:
580:
576:
575:
572:
568:
567:Verifiability
564:
560:
556:
552:
551:Verifiability
548:
544:
539:
536:
535:
531:
523:
520:
513:
507:
504:
503:
498:
496:
493:
490:
488:
485:
474:
472:
469:
466:
464:
461:
457:
456:
455:
454:
450:
444:
441:
439:
437:
432:
430:
427:
424:
422:
419:
416:
414:
411:
410:FeloniousMonk
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
396:
390:
388:
386:
384:
382:
380:
378:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
366:
360:
357:
355:
352:
350:
347:
345:
342:
340:
337:
335:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
322:
316:
314:
312:
310:
308:
306:
304:
302:
300:
298:
296:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
287:
284:
281:
277:
276:68.45.161.241
273:
270:
267:
263:
253:
251:
249:
247:
245:
243:
241:
239:
237:
235:
233:
231:
229:
227:
225:
223:
221:
219:
217:
215:
213:
211:
209:
207:
205:
203:
202:
201:
200:
199:
198:
196:
193:
190:
186:
177:
175:
173:
170:
164:
163:
158:
153:
151:
147:
142:
138:
136:
129:
127:
125:
121:
113:
111:
110:
102:
99:
96:
92:
88:
85:
82:
78:
77:68.45.161.241
74:
71:
68:
64:
60:
57:
54:
50:
47:
46:
44:
37:
33:
29:
19:
3116:
3115:
3067:
3012:
2983:
2950:
2949:
2937:
2915:
2867:
2866:
2854:
2846:
2845:
2842:
2838:
2835:appropriate.
2825:
2819:as follows:
2808:
2806:
2792:
2785:
2779:
2770:
2767:
2694:
2690:
2682:
2674:
2643:
2639:
2629:to describe
2626:
2620:
2573:
2563:
2548:
2534:
2524:
2521:
2518:
2514:
2495:
2485:
2481:
2477:
2473:
2422:
2418:
2413:Paul Weyrich
2402:
2386:Paul Weyrich
2370:Paul Weyrich
2363:
2224:
2148:
2097:
2044:
2015:Paul Weyrich
1845:Paul Weyrich
1719:Paul Weyrich
1676:Paul Weyrich
1663:Paul Weyrich
1646:Paul Weyrich
1632:
1532:Paul Weyrich
1488:Paul Weyrich
1378:Paul Weyrich
1357:Paul Weyrich
1336:Paul Weyrich
1315:Paul Weyrich
1294:Paul Weyrich
1273:Paul Weyrich
1252:Paul Weyrich
1231:Paul Weyrich
1128:
1118:
1114:Paul Weyrich
1110:Paul Weyrich
1105:
1103:
1097:
1095:
1083:
1080:
1054:
1040:
1035:
1029:
1020:
1008:
979:
959:
951:
944:
934:
931:
928:
924:
919:
911:
907:
903:
886:
875:
867:
860:
845:
837:
817:
795:
784:
780:
770:Paul Weyrich
741:
732:
730:
726:
722:
703:
690:
686:
678:
671:
663:
660:
657:
653:
605:
601:
588:
585:
581:
577:
540:
537:
532:
529:
521:
517:
500:
435:
401:
400:
370:
326:
282:
268:
259:
258:
191:
182:
181:
165:
160:
154:
133:
120:Paul Weyrich
117:
108:
107:
97:
83:
69:
55:
35:
31:
25:
2085:Dominionism
2055:Dominionism
2032:Dominionism
1970:Dominionism
1953:Dominionism
1610:Dominionism
1593:Dominionism
1576:Dominionism
1559:Dominionism
1519:Dominionism
1506:Dominionism
1494:Dominionism
1212:Chip Berlet
1203:Chip Berlet
801:Dominionism
573:policies."
460:Will Beback
130:Description
124:Dominionism
3112:Discussion
2795:Pravknight
2773:Pravknight
2728:Pravknight
2552:Pravknight
2537:Pravknight
2528:Pravknight
2503:Pravknight
2489:Pravknight
1446:Violating
1432:Violating
1418:Violating
1404:Violating
1394:Violating
1363:Violating
1342:Violating
1321:Violating
1300:Violating
1279:Violating
1258:Violating
1237:Violating
980:personally
937:Pravknight
849:with this
710:Balance001
697:Pravknight
693:groupthink
683:Conclusion
185:Pravknight
91:64.93.1.67
49:Pravknight
2900:Guettarda
2847:Proposed:
2596:≈ jossi ≈
2445:Guettarda
2428:≈ jossi ≈
1465:September
1175:≈ jossi ≈
854:from the
426:Guettarda
3047:FloNight
3020:FloNight
2908:FloNight
2868:Endorse:
2711:WP:CIVIL
2652:Uncle Ed
2347:WP:POINT
2330:WP:POINT
2313:WP:POINT
2296:WP:POINT
2279:WP:POINT
2262:WP:POINT
2249:WP:POINT
2232:WP:POINT
2215:WP:POINT
2194:WP:POINT
2177:WP:POINT
2160:WP:POINT
2122:WP:POINT
2105:WP:POINT
2062:WP:POINT
2039:WP:POINT
2022:WP:POINT
2007:November
1998:WP:POINT
1916:WP:POINT
1903:WP:POINT
1895:WP:CIVIL
1878:WP:POINT
1822:WP:POINT
1805:WP:POINT
1777:WP:POINT
1760:WP:POINT
1743:WP:POINT
1730:WP:POINT
1713:WP:POINT
1697:WP:POINT
1683:WP:POINT
1670:WP:POINT
1657:WP:POINT
1640:WP:POINT
1452:WP:POINT
1369:WP:POINT
1348:WP:POINT
1327:WP:POINT
1306:WP:POINT
1285:WP:POINT
1264:WP:POINT
1243:WP:POINT
1141:FloNight
1098:Rebuttal
1044:WP:CIVIL
1021:Ed, per
999:Uncle Ed
777:Rebuttal
763:FloNight
514:Response
436:FloNight
286:contribs
272:contribs
195:contribs
101:contribs
87:contribs
73:contribs
59:contribs
3068:Comment
3013:Comment
2960:Ed Poor
2951:Oppose:
2627:lap dog
2382:WP:AUTO
2374:WP:NPOV
2366:WP:AUTO
2245:WP:SOCK
2211:WP:SOCK
2190:WP:SOCK
2173:WP:SOCK
2156:WP:SOCK
2143:WP:SOCK
2092:WP:NPOV
2026:WP:AUTO
1977:WP:NPOV
1960:WP:NPOV
1920:WP:NPOV
1856:WP:NPOV
1852:WP:AUTO
1835:WP:NPOV
1786:October
1726:WP:NPOV
1653:WP:NPOV
1600:WP:NPOV
1583:WP:NPOV
1566:WP:NPOV
1543:WP:AUTO
1539:WP:NPOV
1526:WP:NPOV
1513:WP:NPOV
1501:WP:NPOV
1480:WP:NPOV
1373:WP:AUTO
1365:WP:NPOV
1352:WP:AUTO
1344:WP:NPOV
1331:WP:AUTO
1323:WP:NPOV
1310:WP:AUTO
1302:WP:NPOV
1289:WP:AUTO
1281:WP:NPOV
1268:WP:AUTO
1260:WP:NPOV
1247:WP:AUTO
1239:WP:NPOV
889:WP:CITE
870:WP:LOVE
791:WP:Hate
787:WP:Love
622:source.
418:JoshuaZ
359:WP:VAND
339:WP:AUTO
334:WP:NPOV
169:WP:AUTO
157:WP:AUTO
146:WP:NPOV
141:WP:NPOV
2918:Durova
2826:before
2788:WP:IAR
2715:WP:NPA
2689:says "
2687:WP:NPA
2613:Addhoc
2499:WP:IAR
2380:, and
2351:WP:NPA
2334:WP:NPA
2317:WP:NPA
2300:WP:NPA
2283:WP:NPA
2266:WP:NPA
2219:WP:NPA
2198:WP:NPA
2130:WP:NPA
2079:WP:NPA
1994:WP:NPA
1981:WP:NPA
1964:WP:NOR
1937:WP:NPA
1899:WP:HAR
1874:WP:NPA
1870:WP:HAR
1859:block.
1818:WP:CON
1801:WP:CON
1747:WP:NPA
1627:WP:NPA
1604:WP:CON
1587:WP:CON
1570:WP:CON
1448:WP:NPA
1406:WP:NPA
1396:WP:NPA
1032:WP:NPA
1030:Since
897:WP:NOR
893:WP:WTA
492:Addhoc
354:WP:DIS
349:WP:CON
344:WP:AGF
274:) and
150:WP:AGF
89:) and
36:single
2764:Wrong
2670:this:
2126:WP:DR
2109:WP:DR
2075:WP:DR
1933:WP:DR
1891:WP:DR
1764:WP:DR
1434:WP:DR
1420:WP:DR
1023:WP:DR
983:this.
167:with
16:<
3059:mail
3055:talk
3004:mail
3000:talk
2974:mail
2970:talk
2958:per
2695:as a
2683:good
2675:good
2378:WP:V
1484:WP:V
882:NPOV
878:NPOV
569:and
553:and
280:talk
266:talk
189:talk
122:and
95:talk
81:talk
67:talk
53:talk
32:same
3117:All
2985:Guy
2856:Guy
2713:or
2646:!!!
2368:at
942:--
833:POV
502:Guy
260:As
183:As
75:),
3091:62
3061:)
3035:62
3006:)
2976:)
2880:62
2741:62
2650:--
2602:•
2583:62
2526:--
2487:--
2457:62
2434:•
2400:.
2396:,
2392:,
2376:,
2349:,
2342::
2332:,
2325::
2315:,
2308::
2298:,
2291::
2281:,
2274::
2264:,
2257::
2247:,
2240::
2227::
2217:,
2213:,
2206::
2196:,
2192:,
2185::
2175:,
2168::
2158:,
2151::
2138::
2128:,
2124:,
2117::
2107:,
2100::
2087::
2077:,
2070::
2057::
2047::
2034::
2024:,
2017::
1996:,
1989::
1979:,
1972::
1962:,
1955::
1945::
1935:,
1928::
1918:,
1911::
1901:,
1897:,
1893:,
1886::
1876:,
1872:,
1865::
1854:,
1847::
1830::
1820:,
1813::
1803:,
1796::
1772::
1762:,
1755::
1745:,
1738::
1728:,
1721::
1708::
1695:]
1691::
1678::
1665::
1655:,
1648::
1635::
1622::
1612::
1602:,
1595::
1585:,
1578::
1568:,
1561::
1551::
1541:,
1534::
1521::
1508::
1496::
1482:,
1475::
1450:,
1442::
1428::
1414::
1390::
1380::
1367:,
1359::
1350:,
1346:,
1338::
1329:,
1325:,
1317::
1308:,
1304:,
1296::
1287:,
1283:,
1275::
1266:,
1262:,
1254::
1245:,
1241:,
1223::
1214::
1205::
1181:•
1154:62
1064:62
952:"
935:--
858:.
751:62
708:--
480:62
174:.
43:.
3057:|
3053:(
3002:|
2998:(
2972:|
2968:(
2604:@
2600:t
2436:@
2432:t
1841:.
1408:.
1233::
1183:@
1179:t
895:,
891:,
735:"
288:)
283:·
278:(
269:·
264:(
197:)
192:·
187:(
103:)
98:·
93:(
84:·
79:(
70:·
65:(
56:·
51:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.