Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:18, 11 January 2006

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Robert McClenon

20 April 2005

A revert to the Pope Pius XII stating that it is a revert of anonymous vandalism, but with no apparent evidence of vandalism being repaired: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XII&diff=prev&oldid=12559273

Instead, the diff appears to indicate content issues.

A request for page protection of the Pope Pius XII page, alleging vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=12557094

The history of the page shows no vandalism, only a content dispute.

26 April 2005

Using an article talk page to post an inquiry for Pope Benedict XVI to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of his predecessors (not related to the content of the article). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI&diff=prev&oldid=13864370

14 May 2005

One of various posts arguing, based on a novel reading of canon law, that Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII had excommunicated themselves and should be disinterred: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI&diff=prev&oldid=13864913

17 May 2005

An allegation that Catholic editors including Str1977 were acting in accordance with Church policy to suppress truth in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI&diff=prev&oldid=13865010

14 June 2005

A lengthy and largely incomprehensible post. Elements are the claim of a "whitewash" and the demand that "that these two Popes, by Canonical law, should be dug up and removed from the Basilica of St. Peter . Ludwig Kaas too". The repeated demand that Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII should be disinterred was irrelevant to article content and was using talk pages as a soapbox. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ludwig_Kaas&diff=15180178&oldid=15147636

19 June 2005

A lengthy post in which he accuses another editor of "being an agent of the Vatican", both a personal attack and a refusal to assume good faith http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ludwig_Kaas&diff=15431801&oldid=15431530

23 July 2005

Using an AfD on an article of his origination as a soapbox. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FPope%27s_Hitler&diff=19447073&oldid=19439011

Vandalizing the NPOV policy to insert a complaint http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=19419918&oldid=19413306

Calling the majority of Wikipedians who disagreed with him on an AfD "cyborgs" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FPope%27s_Hitler&diff=19455663&oldid=19453589

27 July 2005

A threat to use a German court to charge Wikipedia with "holocaust denial": "I mean I could go to a court and make Jimmy Wales hand over his IP address , maybe , and DO him/her/them - it's literally a crime in Germany to deny or pervert the history " http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&diff=19720017&oldid=19632981

5 August 2005

A claim that he is being censored "I cannot be blocked from attempting to resolve the issue as requested and insulted for not working towards an outside understanding . I consider myself blocked by Str1977 as of this minute at discussion ": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ludwig_Kaas&diff=20368065&oldid=20367229

The real problem was that he and another editor were posting to the same talk page, resulting in edit conflicts, and he was claiming ownership in order to respond to earlier questions.

26 August 2005

A request to lock the Pope Pius XI page permanently: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII&diff=21888274&oldid=21250003

27 August 2005

Statement of contempt for the arbitration process as "arbitration doesn't achieve anything, a little mental spank and a few days in the can at best" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon/Crisis&oldid=21991491

2 September 2005

Calling another editor "untrustworthy" and a "bully" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ludwig_Kaas&diff=22486964&oldid=22364512

3 September 2005

A rant about "intellectual dishonesty" on an article talk page, entitled "Intractable Dispute" containing bracketed false wiki-links as highlight http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ludwig_Kaas&diff=22535426&oldid=22490582

Calling another editor "very naughty" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=22496960&oldid=22494854

4 September 2005

A lengthy and vituperative attack on a user talk page including the command "wash your mouth with soap" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&diff=22546962&oldid=22526422

An insult to the Wikipedia community, accusing them of "closed minds" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII&diff=22510163&oldid=22504727

5 September 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=22631872&oldid=22610240 A post to the talk page of User talk:Jimbo Wales that is difficult to summarize but appears to state a conspiracy theory about papal interference in US politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=22637626&oldid=22631872 An edit to the previous post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=22642314&oldid=22637626 Jimbo Wales replies to Famekeeper

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=22654888&oldid=22649905 Robert McClenon comments on Jimbo Wales talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=22656649&oldid=22656163 Famekeeper states that I am asking Jimbo Wales to arrest him.

6 September 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=22667692&oldid=22657301 Jimbo Wales replies: Famekeeper, may I please recommend to you that you leave the Wikipedia community with your head held high, dignity intact. You tried to warn us, we didn't listen. So be it. I really do not find your words to be particularly interesting nor persuasive and you seem to me to be quite destined to be banned from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=22698961&oldid=22698900 Using the user name PureSoupS, replies to Jimbo.

5 November 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=27238657 Under the user name EffK, advises Jimbo Wales that he is returning.

21 November 2005

A lengthy diatribe on an article talk page, including an accusation that a (German) editor was acting in bad faith to protect the reputation of his (German) grandfather "is your grandaddy some CDU figure you have to protect ? What's the big deal with you.?" : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enabling_Act&diff=next&oldid=28899540

1 December 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Great_Scandal&curid=3142287&diff=29857559&oldid=29853602 A hostile reply to a reasoned reply by Str1977.

2 December 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=29898169&oldid=27679248 A claim that the objective of this arbitration proceeding is an effort by the Church to suppress the truth.

11 December 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=30880733&oldid=30850731 An insulting reply to John Kenney after John Kenney had archived the talk page for Centre Party (Germany) because it consisted largely of ranting monologues by EffK

13 December 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enabling_Act&curid=218916&diff=31272428&oldid=31243040 An extremely long post to Talk: Enabling Act of questionable relevance to the article presenting opinions as the "legality" of the Nazi rise to power in 1933, apparently intended to argue a point about moral culpability. This post is typical of Flamekeeper/Famekeeper/EffK posts in that it is not directly related to article content, but intended to prove what appears to be a conspiracy theory.

16 December 2005

Multiple posts to various talk pages stating that EffK is being forced to abandon a corrupted Wikipedia:

For evidence as to the length of this series of repetitive posts, see the user history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=EffK&limit=50

03 January 2006

A lengthy rambling, condescending, and uncivil post in response to a reply for a clarification, concluding with the following allegation of dishonesty and irrationality: "Sorry- WP should not be this way, but what choice is there? Dishonesty? It is very sad to see a grown human being openly disown the truth, and it is sad to see a cabal of users do so. I remind you that you imperill your position and mind as entirely as your conscience extends. For you own sake I suggest you return to a rational path.".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII&diff=33665937&oldid=33655038

This post and others also show that he was not "forced to abandon" Wikipedia.

Evidence presented by Str1977 from Flamekeeper's confrontation with John Kenney

27 November 2004

Correcting other editors' error - not assuming an honest mistake but ulterior motives = unprovoked assumption of bad faith [2]

21 April 2005

reacts to John Kenney's recent criticism [3] with accusatins of bad faith and censorship [4] and threatening to switch from cooperating to disruptive behaviour, calling Wikipedia "a flaweed concept" [5]

22 April 2005

Calls for creation of a new article and states his indifference to incorrect facts[6], goes on to create stub with incorrect information (birth place, dates) [7]

24 April 2005

Objecting to John Kenney's edits (including rewrite and correction of errors [8]) as “sanitizing” and “beyond POV” [9]
Rant against John Kenney, a historian, including a self-potrayal as representing “justice and truth against a platitudinous obfuscation which has reluctantly been abandoned” (by John Kenney, as the first line indicates), states "no communication as being possible to you" [10]

Comments indicating his disregard an article's topic (biography), appearently not caring about his error, reducing Kaas and his party to one function and one event [11], accordingly commented on by John Kenney [12]

25 April 2005

again asserting that Centre Party "only by reason of this Pacelli subversion does the Centre Party deserve importance". [13] This emphasis suggests an obsessive pushing of a single pet issue and was criticized by John Kenney as trying "to use wikipedia as a platform for original research on this particular issue" [14]

26 April 2005

Conciliatory post by John Kenney, complaining about about FK’s “papal conspiracy” accusations (John is not a Catholic) [15]

30 April 2005

Adding link to off-topic source (http://www.geocities.com/visplace/vatican10p2.htm) [16], as indicated by John Kenney
Posting a disparaging comment on empty Brüning talk page, dismissing the work of others instead of filling up gaps himself[17]

31 May 2005

One of many examples of FK misinterpreting John Kenney's conciliatory message [18] ((24 April) as confirming his theories [19]. This was later repeatedly contradicted by John Kenney [20] (11 June). FK denied this contradiction and continues to post Kenney's reference as supporting him. FK also claimed to have no interpretation (which is epistomologically impossible)[21] (8 July)

Evidence presented by Str1977 from before his confrontation with Flamekeeper

21 November 2004

Self-description on user page already indicates tendency to disprutive behaviour and conspiracy theories [22]

23 February 2005

Posting misrepresenting summary of a book Inaccurate information posted [23]

25 February 2005

Repeated unusual insertion of link to a discussion on a different topic [24], while himself admitting the criticism to be “not on this pope” [[25] (1 March)

13 April 2005

unauthorized posting of a “protected” flag, misleading since in fact the page was not protected [26]

Evidence presented by Str1977 from his confrontation with FK

4 May 2005

Posting speculations about actions since 1925 without any evidence teogether with immunization to such criticism by suggestin "great care by the vatican to avoid evidential remains” [27]
In the same post misrepresentation of source by calling the inflammatory wording “Christian dictatorship” an “abbreviation” of an encyclical (which neither contains these words or something similar nor is addressed at Germany); demanding protection for his misrepresentation[28] and calling contradiction "censorship"[29] (6 May).

10 May 2005

Posting of inaccurate information (absolute number of votes for Centre party were stable) and turning them into a motive in his speculations (therefore also Original research)[30]

11 May 2005

A long discussion with a series of personal attracks against me ("source of moral pollution", "sinister", my "morality is highly objectionable" “Shocking” “deeply immoral”, “dangerous immoral people” that “need to be controlled”, “read Hitler's mind and you reveal his thoughts but they are yours “, “mental sickness”, “shameful language”. “the brother of the murderer”, “immoral and shameless“, „deep despair hiding in your catholic soul“, „lost sheep“ that need to be brought „back into the fold of humanity“), together with a denial of basic facts (Stalin and WOrld War II) and strange references to Pol Pot, the Chinese ("re going to come and get you") and milk from Siberian trees[31]
Insulting Wikipedia as "vanity pages where mascara hides the cracks“[32]
Posting our long discussion pn "Talk:Pius XII" over to "Talk:Benedict XVI", where it is off-topic and needlessly takes up space[33] (Behaviour parallels FK's "Question of the Law" spamming.)

14 May 2005

Creation of an article Edgar Ansel Mowrer [34]. The title suggests a biographical article but FK rather started to post a summary of one of Mowrer's books, intending this as a platform for his message, under the cover of Wintess POV [35], a supposed Wikipedia policy inventend by FK himself [[36]].

15 May 2005

Posting of a strange poem, based on his "Question of the Law", with no bearing on the article [37].

16 May 2005

Greeting my first post on "Centre Party" with accusations of bad faith and “Anti-social activities” and calling for me to be “hauled up” [38]

18 May 2005

Early accusation of me (and implicitely all Catholics) acting under order "you fulfill your canonical order(even non clerical must obey )" [39], later repeated many times.
Refusing to answer a simple question, replying in bad faith ("Morally inferior defence")[40]

19 May 2005

Justifying his actions against Wikipedia rules (“Purely technical Wikipedia organisation”) as “the common good requires” [41]

30 May 2005

Creation of an article Hitler's Pope [42]. The title suggests an article on the book by John Cornwell but is intended as a twin article to Pope Pius XII, as platform to present his message unhindered, as evidenced by the original talk page [43] -- FK rejected any restriction of the article on the book as as “illogical” [44] (2 August)

31 May 2005

FK uses the fact that the Vatican has not spoken up against his accusations on Wikipedia as evidence in favour of his views [45]. Indicates obsession with this issue and his own role.

20 June 2005

unwarranted change from Social Democrats to Socialist, just because he said so – minor but indicative [46]

7 July 2005

Open contempt for Wikipedia rules ("Ye who would cavil...") [47]

12 July 2005

Again open contempt for rules of Wikipedia ("Don't quibble about my breaking WP posting ettiquette") [48]
FK posts an argument solely on adding one word to a quote posted by me. [49], this also cross-posted at various talk pages.

22 July 2005

Creation of an article of the strange title Pope's Hitler, again as a platform for his message. This article underwent a VfD and was deleted by consensus, including FK's acquiesence, on 29 July [50]. FK

1 August 2005

Bad faith towards Robert McClenon based on his immediately asking specific questions [51].

2 August 2005

Example of his media conference conspiracy theory [52]

5 August 2005

FK refuses a summary of his views, claiming that Robert McClenon wants to use discussion to "avail of the case for defensive purposes" [53]

6 August 2005

Statement to uninvolved editor tbat he "can't handle agreement" [54]

7 August 2005

Creation of article Bill Dorich. Title again suggests a biographical, but the text rather advertises the man's lawsuit, even including a contact address. Possibly just copied over from somewhere. [55] –

8 August 2005

Creation of a one line stub called Nazi Origin [56], again intended as platform for his message. After VfD FK withdraws to create another stub, as announced in article text [57]
FK answers a simple question whether some information is off-topic with a long rant; inidcates his difficulty with boundaries between topics. [58]

10 August 2005

FK proposes to split the Pius XII issue into a pro-Pius and an anti-Pius article, which conforms with Wikiinfo’s SPOV but not with not Wikipedia’s NPOV. [59] Proposal rejected by me.

29 August 2005

personal attack against Robert McClenon as "Foolish , disingenuous or ouright-dishonest", vowing to continue until "slung out", repeat of legal threat "Let it all go to court, as mentioned in another of my edits upon this article". Potraying himself as Christ or others as devils with the allusion "Get behind me , as once was said" [60]

3 September 2005

FK posts a extremly positive section ("Good shepherd") on Pius XII[61]. This was not meant in earnest, as admitted at [62] and constituded a disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point.
FK refuses to reply, referring to my alleged prohibition in a non-existing post [63]

4 September 2005

As the wikipedia guideline is pointed out to him because the "Good shepherd" edit, FK replies with a "warning" [64]
Making the withdrawal of RfC on him condition for providing evidence, posted on another editor's talk page for no appearent reason [65]
Strange complaint against my talking about legality when in fact he has opened discussion over legality [66]

10 November 2005

series of bulk contribution in POV language, starting [67], since then integrated and de-poved or removed to which he reacted by assuming bad faith [68] (12 November), and by posting a strange list [69] (14 November)

12 November 2005

Creation of another soapbox article with the strange title "The Great scandal" [70], a filed VfD resulted in no consensus [71] (19 November)
Panic reaction on having lost an article, claims that "Rome rules here" and has delted it, when in fact he had misspelled the name (not for the first time). He had to admit this in the following post [72], demonstrates proneness to "paranoia"

13 November 2005

post on Sebastian Haffner book demonstrates non-comprehension of NPOV and his unawareness of disputes between Intentionalists and Structuralists in Holocaust research (as include in the article), but still demands privileged inclusion of his point [73]

14 November 2005

creating another soap box article [74] – left orphaned after a few posts

starting to contribute to Nazism in relation to other concepts, producing either talk page material on article page [75] or completely off-topic [76] (28 November)

19 November 2005

FK reacts to my stylistic editing with the accusation of "denial" [77]. I put my edits open to discussion [78] and found agreement.

10 January 2006

False claim that I denied the existence of a secret annex, while in fact I only rejected FK's scandalising analysis on the talk page. Indicates FK's unwillingness to ponder different views and/or accept disagreement. [79]

Evidence presented by EffK

30 August 2005=

14.41

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_Kaas&diff=next&oldid=22177511. [[80]] ,Str1977 removes 'Secret Annexe' to Reichskonkordat' and denial of doing so, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=34635854,[[81]], represents denial of denialism (Secret Annexe existed at Reichskonkordat placed earlier by 3rd Party, provocative, no reason ,no talk despite http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Principle_of_double_effect&diff=22172799&oldid=21984474,[[82]] , and preceding history of denial

22 December 2005

11.36

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK&diff=32351128&oldid=30496156,[[83]] Third party comment re;Wikipedia denialism :"...There may in fact not be any agents of the vatican here, but looking at a page like that on Pius XII you'd be forgiven for doubting. There is a very strong positive bias on that, and other, pages dedicated to Catholic leaders. If EffK has a POV he is pushing in the other direction, it is more than outweighed......

03 January 2006

01.00

Visible 1 1 2006 Impossibility of a Serious Article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII&diff=33665937&oldid=33655038,[[84]] . Demonstrates the entire dispute down to the edits of 15 December 2005, and give understanding to the problem.

15 November 2005

< 01:34>
- Provocation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=28329870,[[85]] excision catholic from Catholic Centre Party separation to Catholic politicians from Centre Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Centre_Party, [[86]], massage , provocative accusation ofPOV despite sourceing eg Sect:"Von Klemperer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reichskonkordat,[[87]] on discussion edited by user:Robert McClenon;sourced here to Megamemex , Mowrer's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ludwig_Kaas,[[88]] . Censoring refused source NPOV .

2 September 2005

00:09

- RE RfC/Evidence of trying and failing to resolve a dispute see:McClenon states that he did not try to mediate with EffK , but gave his opinion http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ludwig_Kaas&diff=22364512&oldid=22364248,[[89]] . The User was directed to source on-page at his arrival,and he required it be repeated ,un-reasonably.

26 July 2005

15.31

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theology_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI&diff=19647142&oldid=19636333,[[90]] Provocative, irrational .

15.42

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theology_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI&diff=next&oldid=19647142,[[91]]

16.01

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theology_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI&diff=next&oldid=19647784,[[92]]

22.13

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theology_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI&diff=next&oldid=19649016,[[93]]

9 August 2005

00.13

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XII&diff=20581981&oldid=20581161,[[94]] Robert McClnon provocationin classing sourced as POV, no attempt at correction towards presentation of sourced NPOV, only accusation of being 'POV' removal

00.18

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XII&diff=next&oldid=20581981,[[95]] McClenon Ditto, and worse denial sourced (known to accuser/provoker). Denialism.

00.25

Robert McClenon Whitewashes accepted Reichskonkordat secret annexe,to RKKdt,stated as my POV, severe provocation inducing soap-box disputation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XII&diff=next&oldid=20582400,[[96]] .Removes Euronews ,provocation, denialism NPOV facts . Soap said "This rv however has simply a quality of denial , of going against a very simple wikipedianess . Would you kindly justify your rv of source , as much as Str1977 would have to justify should he have done it ?" Famekeeper 23:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC from: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII&diff=20733765&oldid=20720932,[[97]] Kindly= civility

5 April 2005

EffK Not obsessional,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pius_XII/Archive1#Dispute_:_The_Concordat,[[98]] following sections shows behaviour prior to provocation/concerted whitewash next evidence

19 April 2005

Whitewash of vatican "Document War", Mowrer witness source, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XII&diff=next&oldid=12507877,[[99]] & succeeding anon provocation by spam ,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XII&diff=prev&oldid=12526102,[[100]], User:Trodl re- balance http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XII&diff=next&oldid=12529252.[[101]]

12 August 2005

16.30 User:Str1977 ,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=prev&oldid=21323575,[[102]], NPOV tag contrary link sourced

18 August 2005

22.59

Good faith User:Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=next&oldid=20862383 , [[103]] , supports defendant NPOV

18 August 2005

23.23

Musical Linguist/ Anne Heneghan/? ,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=next&oldid=21324367,[[104]] is cabal ? denial provocation

14 November 2005

19.32

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=next&oldid=28320331,[[105]] fellow/group harrassor innuendo/reaction NPOV 3rd party

21 April 2005

06:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=12601337&oldid=12601151,[[106], original John Kenney reversion of sources

11 May 2005

11.09

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=13607731&oldid=13552138,[[107]], Example of Str1977 opinion in talk defeating source in article, provocation[to "soap-box"]

11 November 2005

02:27

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reichskonkordat&diff=prev&oldid=27985120,[[108]] Cabal(?) group provocation by Kenney support of denial of sourced info, known to reverter from Centre Party Germany sourceing

10 May 2005

23.27

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theology_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI&diff=prev&oldid=13579187,[[109]] Reversion of talk ,"Vandalism" provocations,

18 July 2005

05.53

Canon request http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=prev&oldid=19062928,[[110]]

8 November 2005

10.07

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=27703162,]]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=27703162]] Denialism

16 November 2005

10:20

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reichskonkordat&diff=28493537&oldid=28478546,[[111]] at bottom ,whitewashed "..Kaas drafted.." to "negotiated draft"...with Papen. In truth , he "drafted" it himself over 3 months in the Vatican ,with assistance . All whitewash pivots over 9 April : whitewash maintains as in this article now :"In April he[Hitler] sent his vice-chancellor .....

I used to call it obfuscation, but this is whitewash- denial of source, repeatedly provided since April (Kenney) amd May (Str1977). This is censorship, and all articles in the dispute/RfA,RfC are related to the one point in time: to remain untainted , the negotiations have to begin in this Papen arrival [secretly, in point of fact , and be separated at all costs from sourced Klemperer, Mowrer, Shirer, Toland, Tallet , Cornwell, Manhattan,Margaret Lambert,Wheeler-Bennett texts provided by EffK. All such reputable published authors estimate the link between the Speech of Midday 23 march by Hitler , with the u-turn in Vatican policy, and the resulting over-turning of it's Hierarchy at the German Bishop's 'Fulda Conference', sourced by Humanitas International and since April , by Megamemex Timebase as from Guenter Lewy. This is the entire and central censorship, read your timelines.

No contrary source has been provided contradicting the historical elision which pivots around 15 March Hitler cabinet,17-22 March meetings with Kaas and Hitler both co-chairman, 23March Enabling Act pro-Christian and Rome referencing Hitler Speech , Kaas 24 disappearance to Rome,"% March cardinal bertram definitions pro-Nazism ,28 March Fulda conference u-turn allowing Catholic membership of NSDAP& etc , Kaas final return to 2 Aprilprivate (v.rare) Hitler interview ,April 8/9 secret meeting and journey with Papen to Rome, 10 April approval of Hitler by Pius XI, 23 April Birthday greeting from Kaas in exile assuring Vatican co-operation with Hitler , all with extras such as Cardinal Faulhaber u-turn, Hitler genocidal anti-semitic reference made to churchmen, anti-semitic pogroms etc .

This is all behind the small variation here at [[Reichskonkordat and excision of source everywhere.The history is widely known.

17 November 2005

22.42

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=27703162,[[112]] Whitewashes sourced http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ludwig_Kaas#Dispute ,[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ludwig_Kaas#Dispute, denialism

16 July 2005

18.42

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=prev&oldid=18985145,[[113]]Summary ,hard Source justifying NPOV, (same page diff)time 00:00

17 July 2005

03.24

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=next&oldid=18985145,[[114]] McClenon POV classification Moral.Canonicals are NPOV fact.Central issue.

17 July 2005

03.34

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=next&oldid=18993135,[[115]] Kantean definition goodwill.

1 December 2005

Current Revision

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazism_in_relation_to_other_concepts&diff=29900667&oldid=29852980,[[116]] Unexpressed Relationship Vatican Agency to Intellect definition/proof

17 July 2005

09.21

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=next&oldid=18993503,[[117]] Defence Wikipedia.

18 July 2005

21.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=prev&oldid=19106614,[[118]] McClenon POV contrary sourced.

19 July 2005

08.13

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=19138118&oldid=19106614,[[119]] Summary provided, goodfaith question mcCelon

19 July 2005

17.54

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=prev&oldid=19165962,[[120]]. Answer to last diff : disingenuous, provocative,badfaith.

19 July 2005

23:49

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=19188679&oldid=19176634 [[121]] Summary of motive.

26 August 2005

15.33

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theology_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI&diff=next&oldid=21596121,[[122]], Canonical answers

3 November 2005

02.01

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Str1977&diff=27212299&oldid=27210352,[[123]], McClenon bad faith against Famekeeper after he acceded to Jimbo's request to leave.Is provocation and harrassment , necessitated return as EffK .

===13 November 2005

19.52

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Great_Scandal&diff=28231255&oldid=28117957,[[124]] Un-hesitating VfD

10 November 2005

23:20

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=27969562&oldid=27874522,[[125]] harrassment after reappearance

2 November 2005

22:27

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Patsw&diff=27195951&oldid=27063356,[[126]] harassment - v.serious attempt un-cover IP , failed . WP and anyone acting through it note well that EffK left instructions to corporate learning depending as to his person. The fact that this user admits to failure does not minimise the effort.

14 November 2005

18:36

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=next&oldid=28320331,[[127]] denialism of correction and source {Add re supposed corective evidence user:Andrew_pmk :Adolf Hitler removed, not redundant; IBM turned into un-recognisable German name, accession is misleading, longstanding dispute with Str who defended earlier accession to power following elections http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=19460820&oldid=19423159[[128]] and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=19460820&oldid=19423159*19:08[[129]] marked dubious,& discussedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=19573589&oldid=19573254[[130]] I still discuss objection to accession when it links to German expression saying seizure, therefore is a form of denialism.Any sourceing known to opposing editor Str1977. (Provocation)EffK 04:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&diff=28325328&oldid=28323126,[[131]] denial source , POV/ denialism in "generally" [add per user:Andrew_pmk Str1977's contradictory reasoning = Certainly Hitler is essential,but here the context is generally on the "country" level.. This is an attempt to present the Holocaust as non-emanating clearly from the "essential" Dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. Historically, this is incorrect. All collaboration was with this Dictator, or was not. No refusal to collaborate could be/was allowed. All authority led to Hitler, all collaboration with authority was therefore to Hitler as Dictatator. It is shameful, and of dubious legality in some European Countries, to argue this point . Provocation through contradiction.EffK 04:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 December 2005

00.50

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=next&oldid=29968841,[[132]] .Extreme Harrassment -logic infers devil is he(me) . "He is watching us. God is also watching us." . This user is a known bully, I say this after providing earlier RfC proof.This editor warrants immediate RfA for this edit . I prove a Catholic has Laws, but there is no proof that I am the devil . signed :EffK 17:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

15 December

18.38

Denialism of sectioning esp Letter of Guarantee, bad faith http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=31498074&oldid=31497463,[[133]] counter to link to provided source, known to this editor, [[134] POV obstruction /harassment . removed All parties , Bruning's abuse . admission confronted' argument was brought to the table. Wikipdia waste of space and time , as in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler&diff=30092497&oldid=30051908 ,[[135]].

19.06

Denialist removal by editor knowingly in wrong: unlimited bad faith,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=next&oldid=31500520,[[136]] proved/sourced User:John Kenney originally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29/Archive1#Some_perspective...,[[137]] proved by thanks , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29/Archive1#Constitution_party,[[138]]. Str1977 knows "Centre Party's existence on bargaining table" the Kick-back scheme, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=prev&oldid=19162910, [[139]]. Str1977 Irrationality, abdication of Intellect, contumate bad-faith re: 19.06.

21.02

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=next&oldid=31506325,[[140]] Massage down-grade in POV , cumulative massage,r after: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=prev&oldid=31501620 ,[[141]]. Shows typical provocative creeping Opus moderandi of POV massage. V.sad 4 WP .NO MORE EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT USER FK CANNOT CONTRIBUTE TO WIKIPEDIA, AND THAT WIKIPEDIA IS CORRUPTED BY CONCERTED INTELLECTUAL /REVISIONIST / GERMAN / CLERICAL DISHONESTY . FK SHALL MAKE NO MORE ATTEMPT TO EDIT TO ANY ARTICLES UNTIL THIS IS SORTED BY WIKIPEDIA. FK RESERVES THE RIGHTS TO HIS OWN CONTRIBUTIONS THAT THEY BE PUBLISHABLE FREELY BY FK HOWSOEVER HE CHOOSES. FK RESERVES HIS RIGHT TO SELF DEFENCE, AND TO EDIT TALK PAGES AND CALL FOR FURTHER ABITRATION. FK'S MESSAGE TO ARBITRATION ENDS WITH THIS TRUTH FROM[[142]]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope/Archive2, Adressed to Robert Mac-Le-Non McClenon I remind you that good action must not only conform to moral law , but be done for the sake of moral law . That good will is good not by what it performs but simply by virtue of the volition , and that the function of reason is to produce a will good in itself , for reason recognises the establishment of a good will as its highest practical destination .

Evidence presented by Andrew_pmk

Response to evidence presented by EffK: 14 November 2005

18:36

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=next&oldid=28320331 denialism of correction and source

- This is rather misleading because here, User:Str1977 is reverting User:EffK's edit saying that Adolf Hitler was specifically responsible for the Holocaust, even though the article already stated that Nazi Germany was responsible. The previous revision is clearer because many Nazi officials were responsible for the genocide and the first paragraph is an introduction. Furthermore, Str1977 is not denying a source because EffK did not cite one. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19:08

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&diff=28325328&oldid=28323126, denial source , POV/ denialism in "generally".

- Str1977 is denying nothing, just explaining why EffK's edits are redundant/unclear. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 381: / Line 381: @@
 ==Evidence presented by [[User:EffK|EffK]]==
+==30 August 2005===
+*14.41
+http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_Kaas&diff=next&oldid=22177511. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_Kaas&diff=next&oldid=22177511]] ,Str1977 removes 'Secret Annexe' to [[Reichskonkordat]]' and denial of doing so, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=34635854,[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=34635854]], represents denial of denialism (Secret Annexe existed at Reichskonkordat placed earlier by 3rd Party, provocative, no reason ,no talk despite http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Principle_of_double_effect&diff=22172799&oldid=21984474,[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Principle_of_double_effect&diff=22172799&oldid=21984474]] , and preceding history of denial
 ===22 December 2005===