Sadly less than 24 hrs into this user conduct RFC and Pravknight shows his contempt for the Wikipedia community and its dispution resolution processes by pov campaigning and edit warring at Chip Berlet (again, a dominionism-related article).

I'll be documenting any continuing disruption below. FeloniousMonk 02:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought you said all significant POVs should be included in articles. What is fair is fair. How is this not whitewashing? I am all ears.--Pravknight 17:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pravknight, there is a Wikipedia policy called Point that says that users should not do something to prove a point and cause disruption. I'm thinking that your editing of Chip Berlet article falls under this policy. Of course you did not know about this policy so we can not hold it against you. I hope that you see the reason for this policy and will follow it in the future.

My offer to help you add content based on policy stands. Take care, FloNight ^talk 17:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Berlet

1. 15:28, 22 August
2. 18:07, 23 August

Paul Weyrich

10:24, 24 August 2006 Calling for a "truce," followed by more POV editing of Paul Weyrich:

1. 11:26, 26 August
2. 11:27, 26 August
3. 11:30, 26 August
4. 11:32, 26 August
5. 11:34, 26 August
6. 13:54, 28 August
7. 14:24, 28 August Spurious use of templates to force the issue
8. 15:49, 28 August Deleting the talk page comments of others, personal attack.

User talk:Pravknight

1. 16:11, 28 August Personal attack.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight

1. 20:51, 28 August Personal attacks.

Trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it: Expanding the conflict by recruiting editors with possible grudges and fanning the flames:

1. User talk:Goethean: 20:55, 28 August Expanding the conflict, spreading strife.
2. User talk:Trödel: 20:49, 28 August

In case you didn't know the first edit was a copyedit for proper grammar, and an effort to eliminate some weasel words. "Progressive," progressive to whom, I know folks who would call what you would say is progressive "neo-barbarianism" because of its manners and values. Progressive is a weasel word.

Also, using which instead of that is bad grammar.

I guess you want passive voice in the article too because that's precisely what you have below. I changed it to give it active voice.

"One conference speaker criticized by Kurtz is Katherine Yurica, who has written about the rise of Dominionism as a theocratic tendency in the Christian Right.[1][2] Yurica responded to Kurtz, saying she has not used the term "Christian Fascism" in her writings.[3] Yurica has noted fascistic tendencies in Christian Right Dominionism, but she does not consider the Christian Right to be "Christian." + Kurtz criticizes conference speaker Katherine Yurica, whose writings allege Dominionism's rise in the Christian Right has a theocratic tendency.[4][5] Yurica responded to Kurtz, saying that she has not used the term "Christian Fascism" in her writings.[6] Yurica has noted fascistic tendencies in Christian Right Dominionism, but she does not consider the Christian Right to be "Christian."

- Christian conservatives, however, are not the only people who suggest that some criticism of dominionism is hyperbolic. Even some progressive researchers warn of the tendency. + Christian conservatives, however, are not the only people who suggest that some criticism of dominionism is hyperbolic. Liberal researchers have also warned of the tendency. - ^[1] For example, two progressive websites that challenge the Christian Right but urge respectful rhetoric are Talk to Action and Campaign to Defend the Constitution"

The only reason FeloniousMonk has asked for a RFC for this section is what I added, although well-cited, undermines the negative viewpoint he by admission above seeks to present about Dominionism. What is so wrong with accurately portraying what the Dominionists themselves believe?

The fact is there was no established consensus in this article, with the exception of a group of people who have an established track record for picking edit wars.

I didn't post anything looking for an edit war. My edits conformed with the written rules, and I checked them myself before posting.

I think this comment "weakening, discrediting the viewpoint that Dominionism is an actual issue, concern" shows that FeloniousMonk is interested in POV editing aimed at advancing a Left-wing POV, instead of allowing a frank discussion of all perspectives on the issue. The concern about "Dominionism" is a POV issue because a plurality of Americans likely would side with the moderate Dominionists on the permissability of religion in society and government.

What use is it to censor court decisions the Dominionists cite in their own defense, except to advance a secularist POV article? --Pravknight 21:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:TE#Characteristics_of_problem_editors, specifically, You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts". and You repeatedly undo the "vandalism" of others. . KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from the main page:

None of these uncommented diffs provides "evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute". One of them shows FM telling Pravknight to stop editing - rather than offering to work together to resolve the dispute. Another is FM simply mentioning the 3RR rule.

• Then Jim writes, I do not need a friggin editorial/dissertation left on my user page. Take it to the appropriate talk page. As for your accusation of POV pushing, pot, meet shiny kettle. What part of this is "trying to resolve"?
• Only Flonight's diff shows evidence of trying - but it doesn't show failing.

So this RFC should be deleted at the end of the 48 hour period. --Uncle Ed 17:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there's been no shortage of people trying to get Pravknight from violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT and WP:AUTO. FeloniousMonk 20:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Ed at: Evidence of disputed behavior

NOTE: diffs cited in an RFC need comments, as the raw URL provides no context or explanation. (Uncle Ed 17:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

64.93.1.67 (talk · contribs), located in PA as well, is picking up where Pravknight left off. FeloniousMonk 18:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]