FeloniousMonk (talk | contribs) |
Pravknight (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 238: | Line 238: | ||
:#[[User talk:Trödel]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tr%C3%B6del&diff=prev&oldid=72538543 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 |
:#[[User talk:Trödel]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tr%C3%B6del&diff=prev&oldid=72538543 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]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APaul_Weyrich&diff=72546960&oldid=72544748 21:56, 28 August] Violating [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:POINT]] |
:#[[Talk:Paul Weyrich]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APaul_Weyrich&diff=72546960&oldid=72544748 21:56, 28 August] Violating [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:POINT]] |
||
==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. |
|||
--[[User:Pravknight|Pravknight]] 20:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
===Other users who endorse this summary=== |
===Other users who endorse this summary=== |
Revision as of 20:56, 7 September 2006
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. 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: 13:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC).
- Pravknight (talk · contribs), also editing as 146.145.70.200 (talk · contribs) and 68.45.161.241 (talk · contribs)
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, [1][2], 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 [3].
Evidence of disputed behavior
As Pravknight (talk · contribs)
As 146.145.70.200 (talk · contribs) and 68.45.161.241 (talk · contribs)
Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
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)
- •Jim62sch• 10:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Addhoc 16:25, 23 August 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 waived 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.[27]
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." [28]
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.[29]
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:
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."[30] 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:
- •Jim62sch• 22:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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...."[31]
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.[32][33]
Compare the tone here[34] with this [35] [36] 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."[37]
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)"[38]
"# 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)"[39]
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
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
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)
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
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)
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.
- •Jim62sch• 13:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Wish in one hand, defecate in the other, see which fills up faster. [40]
Continuing incidents
- 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.
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.