Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK/Evidence

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

20 June 2005

16.42

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=15441419.[[2]] Str1977 shows how good faith should try to work, demonstrates problem of off-topicality, and followed by EffK plea for good faith to (verifiable) sources http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=15515817,[[3]] , and provoked question:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=15517119,[[4]] are you paid.

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.

23 January 2006

A lengthy and largely incomprehensible post to an article talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ludwig_Kaas&diff=36356289&oldid=34610296

The post concludes: I find this an objectionable exercise, cleaning up mental excreta emanating from german clerical denialist revisionism, which deserves a page. I tell you that the Wikipedia is being colonised by the vatican, and if I cannot prevent it, I will remark it. This is one of several posts to article talk pages stating that the Wikipedia is "being colonized by the Vatican".

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 [5]

21 April 2005

reacts to John Kenney's recent criticism [6] with accusatins of bad faith and censorship [7] and threatening to switch from cooperating to disruptive behaviour, calling Wikipedia "a flaweed concept" [8]

22 April 2005

Calls for creation of a new article and states his indifference to incorrect facts[9], goes on to create stub with incorrect information (birth place, dates) [10]

24 April 2005

Objecting to John Kenney's edits (including rewrite and correction of errors [11]) as “sanitizing” and “beyond POV” [12]
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" [13]

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 [14], accordingly commented on by John Kenney [15]

25 April 2005

again asserting that Centre Party "only by reason of this Pacelli subversion does the Centre Party deserve importance". [16] 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" [17]

26 April 2005

Conciliatory post by John Kenney, complaining about about FK’s “papal conspiracy” accusations (John is not a Catholic) [18]

30 April 2005

Adding link to off-topic source (http://www.geocities.com/visplace/vatican10p2.htm) [19], 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[20]

31 May 2005

One of many examples of FK misinterpreting John Kenney's conciliatory message [21] ((24 April) as confirming his theories [22]. This was later repeatedly contradicted by John Kenney [23] (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)[24] (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 [25]

23 February 2005

Posting misrepresenting summary of a book Inaccurate information posted [26]

25 February 2005

Repeated unusual insertion of link to a discussion on a different topic [27], while himself admitting the criticism to be “not on this pope” [[28] (1 March)

13 April 2005

unauthorized posting of a “protected” flag, misleading since in fact the page was not protected [29]

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” [30]
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[31] and calling contradiction "censorship"[32] (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)[33]

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[34]
Insulting Wikipedia as "vanity pages where mascara hides the cracks“[35]
Posting our long discussion pn "Talk:Pius XII" over to "Talk:Benedict XVI", where it is off-topic and needlessly takes up space[36] (Behaviour parallels FK's "Question of the Law" spamming.)

14 May 2005

Creation of an article Edgar Ansel Mowrer [37]. 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 [38], a supposed Wikipedia policy inventend by FK himself [[39]].

15 May 2005

Posting of a strange poem, based on his "Question of the Law", with no bearing on the article [40].

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” [41]

18 May 2005

Early accusation of me (and implicitely all Catholics) acting under order "you fulfill your canonical order(even non clerical must obey )" [42], later repeated many times.
Refusing to answer a simple question, replying in bad faith ("Morally inferior defence")[43]

19 May 2005

Justifying his actions against Wikipedia rules (“Purely technical Wikipedia organisation”) as “the common good requires” [44]

30 May 2005

Creation of an article Hitler's Pope [45]. 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 [46] -- FK rejected any restriction of the article on the book as as “illogical” [47] (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 [48]. 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 [49]

7 July 2005

Open contempt for Wikipedia rules ("Ye who would cavil...") [50]

12 July 2005

Again open contempt for rules of Wikipedia ("Don't quibble about my breaking WP posting ettiquette") [51]
FK posts an argument solely on adding one word to a quote posted by me. [52], 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 [53]. FK

1 August 2005

Bad faith towards Robert McClenon based on his immediately asking specific questions [54].

2 August 2005

Example of his media conference conspiracy theory [55]

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" [56]

6 August 2005

Statement to uninvolved editor tbat he "can't handle agreement" [57]

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. [58] –

8 August 2005

Creation of a one line stub called Nazi Origin [59], again intended as platform for his message. After VfD FK withdraws to create another stub, as announced in article text [60]
FK answers a simple question whether some information is off-topic with a long rant; inidcates his difficulty with boundaries between topics. [61]

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. [62] 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" [63]

3 September 2005

FK posts a extremly positive section ("Good shepherd") on Pius XII[64]. This was not meant in earnest, as admitted at [65] and constituded a disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point.
FK refuses to reply, referring to my alleged prohibition in a non-existing post [66]

4 September 2005

As the wikipedia guideline is pointed out to him because the "Good shepherd" edit, FK replies with a "warning" [67]
Making the withdrawal of RfC on him condition for providing evidence, posted on another editor's talk page for no appearent reason [68]
Strange complaint against my talking about legality when in fact he has opened discussion over legality [69]

10 November 2005

series of bulk contribution in POV language, starting [70], since then integrated and de-poved or removed to which he reacted by assuming bad faith [71] (12 November), and by posting a strange list [72] (14 November)

12 November 2005

Creation of another soapbox article with the strange title "The Great scandal" [73], a filed VfD resulted in no consensus [74] (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 [75], 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 [76]

14 November 2005

creating another soap box article [77] – left orphaned after a few posts

starting to contribute to Nazism in relation to other concepts, producing either talk page material on article page [78] or completely off-topic [79] (28 November)

19 November 2005

FK reacts to my stylistic editing with the accusation of "denial" [80]. I put my edits open to discussion [81] and found agreement.

10 January 2006

False claim that I denied the existence of a secret annex [82], while in fact I only rejected FK's scandalising analysis on the talk page [83] and deleted it from an article where it was not immediately relevant, as explained here. Indicates FK's unwillingness to ponder different views and/or accept disagreement.

Evidence presented by EffK

7 August 2005

18.32

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XI&diff=20488467&oldid=20372898,[[84]] Shows Wikipdia's own acceptance that Murder is involved in this over-all subject, if not "widely believed". I had nothing to do with this edit, and I place it here in response to the evidence presented here by Musical Linguist, which without this knowledge of Wikipedia and the World, may indeed persuade Arbitration that I am the paranoid schizo etc as called between User:Patsw and the rest of this Cabal. He has not presented evidence, but Musical linguist now has, and I have no more diffs to counter and position her more correctly into her cabal of revisionist fellows, but this makes her a party due for her own scrutiny. I ask you - is JKenny a party ? I could fill another hundred diffs. And as further below, the rumour is a Primary Source, a witness's memoir, insinuating the murder was, even, effected by Cardinal camerlengo Eugenio Pacelli himself. EffK

11 January 2005

10.49

User:Musical Linguist presents at Evidence: This post and others also show that he was not "forced to abandon" Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence&diff=34739827&oldid=34738996#11_November_2005,[[85]]. This is an abuse of this User's Administrator capacity, is made in poor faith, is an attempt to lead/insert evidence whilst not becoming a party, and is a dishonestly described edit. This reveals the User's cabal membership and propensity for bad faith attack upon EffK. I request that this edit be adjudged as making of Musical Linguist a Party to this Arbitratation of me / ora Party to the denialist clerical revisionists in Wikipedia.

08 November 2005

14.50

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=27725732[[86]] Linked outside Source showing contemporary German Party Political (Controversy vector), proves neither EffK POV, nor Cornwell POV, not EffK obsession.

11 November 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=27975630,[[87]] typical example EffK good-faith sourceing, similar to sourceing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=27975630[[88]], and sourceing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=28016854.[[89]] and culminating in resultant good faith discussion for 3rd party (SamsSpade) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=28029725,[[90]]. Shows EffK good faith adherence to verifiability. Culminates in good faith protest analysis relevant to this Arbitration http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=28031804. [[91]] All 11 November prove EffK good faith/ and problem

30 August 2005

14.41

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_Kaas&diff=next&oldid=22177511. [[92]] ,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,[[93]], 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,[[94]] , and preceding history of denial

05 September 2005

15.09

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reichskonkordat&diff=prev&oldid=22623473,[[95]] "no one disputes" in contradiction of 30 August, followed by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=18825393&oldid=18693247,[[96]] where Str1977 admits, confirms secrecy/illegality of Secret Annexe

22 December 2005

11.36

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK&diff=32351128&oldid=30496156,[[97]] 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,[[98]] . 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,[[99]] excision catholic from Catholic Centre Party separation to Catholic politicians from Centre Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Centre_Party, [[100]], massage , provocative accusation ofPOV despite sourceing eg Sect:"Von Klemperer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reichskonkordat,[[101]] on discussion edited by user:Robert McClenon;sourced here to Megamemex , Mowrer's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ludwig_Kaas,[[102]] . 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,[[103]] . 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,[[104]] Provocative, irrational .

15.42

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theology_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI&diff=next&oldid=19647142,[[105]]

16.01

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theology_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI&diff=next&oldid=19647784,[[106]]

22.13

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theology_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI&diff=next&oldid=19649016,[[107]]

9 August 2005

00.13

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XII&diff=20581981&oldid=20581161,[[108]] 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,[[109]] 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,[[110]] .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,[[111]] Kindly= civility

5 April 2005

EffK Not obsessional,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pius_XII/Archive1#Dispute_:_The_Concordat,[[112]] 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,[[113]] & succeeding anon provocation by spam ,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XII&diff=prev&oldid=12526102,[[114]], User:Trodl re- balance http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XII&diff=next&oldid=12529252.[[115]]

25 April 2005

07.00

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=12829675.[[116]] Sourced for Jkenney , shows EffK good faith to verifiability, following shows Samspade attempt achieve to good faith http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=12833942[[117]]

14.40

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=12833942, civil apology attempt to Jkenney by EffK removed by JKenney (as below repeated)

27 April 2005

05.44

result of provocation , direct appeal to 'master' :http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=12872460,[[118]], Samspade Wikipedianship attempt against self-contradictory User:JKenney refusal of EffK inclusions followed by user:Str1977 admission Thats what Kaas did, he traded in his Party http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=13196342,[[119]], proves continuous Str1977 and general allies intense provocation/self-contradiction culminating 15 December 2005.

03 May 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=13552138,[[120]] Str1977 links to discussions, shows acceptance of inter-related articles/discussions despite off-topic reverts elsewhere. following goodwill Effk http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=13704234.[[121]], EffK prediction of this Arbitration removed from discussion where relevant by Str1977,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=13905090[[122]], Str1977 builds cabal reactions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=prev&oldid=13228285,[[123]] in assumption bad faith despite Jkenney source

14 June 2005

21.20

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=15195243,[[124]], Str1977 denies relevance to centre but admits relevance Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates elsewhere, then reverts his position Oh sillt me http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=15200432.[[125]], after assumption bad EffK faith by revert, then good faith EffK protest http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=15441419,[[126]]

20 June 2005

16.42

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=15441419.[[127]] Str1977 shows how good faith should try to work, demonstrates problem of off-topicality, and followed by EffK plea for good faith to (verifiable) sources http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=15515817,[[128]] , and provoked question:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=15517119,[[129]] are you paid. Then clear request Arbitration http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=15518359,[[130]] followed by good faith appeal and removal of request http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=15518729,[[131]].Answer was not being paid ie Str1977 is not a priest/nor professional historian. JKenney was appealed to in good faith http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=28017142&oldid=27969562,[[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=28017142&oldid=27969562]] .

12 August 2005

16.30 User:Str1977 ,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=prev&oldid=21323575,[[132]], 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 , [[133]] , supports defendant NPOV

21 December 2005

00.53

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&diff=prev&oldid=32175933,[[134]] represents a personal attack and shows User:Patsw to be another cabal member of the bad-faith denialism and clear dishonesty given Lulu of the Lotus Eaters etc and good faith source. This user with user musical Linguist, has joined in attack upon EffK probity, and with this is therefore a party to the general bad faith by co-ordinatated co-religionists. These are User:Str1977, Robert McClenon, Musical Linguist and Patsw. I consider user John K /JohnKenney has more reluctantly joined with the others, who were clearly acting in joint venture cabal against Wikipedia and EffK. All these Users are in my view, now without Wikipedia probity.

18 August 2005

23.23

Musical Linguist/ Anne Heneghan/? ,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=next&oldid=21324367,[[135]] is cabal ? denial provocation

21 April 2005

06:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=12601337&oldid=12601151,[[136], 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,[[137]], 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,[[138]] Cabal(?) group provocation by Kenney support of denial of sourced info, known to reverter from Centre Party Germany sourceing , despite Jkenney knowing of his personal attack on EffK http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=13788679,[[139]]

10 December 2005

20.09

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=30850688&oldid=30848368,[[140]] cabal policy JohnKenney provocation by term "garbage" re sourced, reasoned discussion archive. Assumption of bad-faith.

10 May 2005

23.27

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theology_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI&diff=prev&oldid=13579187,[[141]] 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,[[142]]

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,[[143]] 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,[[144]] 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,[[145]]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,[[146]] 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,[[147]] 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,[[148]] Unexpressed Relationship Vatican Agency to Intellect definition/proof

18 July 2005

21.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=prev&oldid=19106614,[[149]] 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,[[150]] 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,[[151]]. 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 [[152]] 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,[[153]], Canonical answers

3 November 2005

02.01

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Str1977&diff=27212299&oldid=27210352,[[154]], 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,[[155]] Un-hesitating VfD

10 November 2005

23:20

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=27969562&oldid=27874522,[[156]] harrassment after reappearance

2 November 2005

22:27

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Patsw&diff=27195951&oldid=27063356,[[157]] 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,[[158]] denialism of correction and source {Add re supposed corrective evidence user:Andrew_pmk} :Adolf Hitler removed, not redundant, it is known that Hitler promised eradication of Jews in 1933 to 2 of the Catholic Hierarchy, sourced, it is indisputable that AH was chief(Fuhrer) of all including this longstanding Holocaust policy; IBM turned into un-recognisable German name, accession is misleading, longstanding dispute with Str1977 who defended earlier accession to power following elections http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=19460820&oldid=19423159[[159]] and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=19460820&oldid=19423159*19:08[[160]] marked dubious,& discussed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=19573589&oldid=19573254[[161]] I still discuss objection to accession when it links to German expression saying seizure, therefore is a form of denialism. Any sourceing is 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,[[162]] 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,[[163]] .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]

14 July 2005

23.14

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=18825393&oldid=18693247.[[164]] misleading, and, bad faith edit by Str1977,removes quid pro quo accepted by him , as shown diff 15 December, following , from original Jkenney sourceing diff ditto below .Provocation .

11 June 2005

Str1977 - I also know that some books portray it the way FK thinks fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=next&oldid=15026689,[[165]] reveals duplicity, denialism, and bad faith provocation in joining this RfArbitration and continuously using Strawman argument and ad hominem against EffK. UserJKenney following reveals flimsiness of denialism "It's a very general book," http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Str1977&diff=next&oldid=15028516,[[166]], Str1977 shows edited results of his provocation of EffKhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Str1977&diff=prev&oldid=14537260,[[167]], not minorand relates to bad-faith str1977 removals typified by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germany&diff=prev&oldid=14225567,[[168]]

24 July 2005

23.09

Robert McClenon building cabal reaction in bad faith http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=19536022&oldid=19421943,[[169]]and follows with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=19731477&oldid=19711181,[[170]] despite 11 June above, both are provocation and case building cabalism , not Article building good faith , repeated later http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=28696024&oldid=28655206,[[171]] ban EffK, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=28700800&oldid=28696024,[[172]]

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,[[173]] counter to link to provided source, known to this editor, [[174] 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 ,[[175]].

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,[[176]] proved/sourced User:JKenney originally http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=prev&oldid=12790003,[[177]],after later followed by User:JKenneyprovocative removal discussionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29&diff=next&oldid=12794544,[[178]] Str1977 knows the "quid pro quo" certainly was there in the concordat negotiations http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Kenney&diff=28017142&oldid=27969562,[[179]], and "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, [[180]]. 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,[[181]] Massage down-grade in POV , cumulative massage,r after: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=prev&oldid=31501620 ,[[182]]. 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 Adressed to Robert MacLeNon 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 .

18 January

15.59

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler&diff=35685791&oldid=35685237,[[183]], conclusive statement by Str1977 that he is actively guarding Wikipedia from source presented by EffK.

03 Febuary 2006

22.34

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ludwig_Kaas&diff=38061777&oldid=38060961[[184]] An Archive of on-topic qualifying source made within 6 minutes , represents clerical denialist harassment from Robert McClenon . Epitomises the activity suffered by EffK throughout.

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]

Evidence presented by Musical Linguist

Please note:

I refer to the subject of this arbitration as EffK, regardless of what name (or IP address) he posted under.
Not all my "evidence" is intended as evidence of wrongdoing, although I do include evidence of personal attacks. Some evidence is simply to show that it was highly disruptive to Wikipedia to have so many long, off-topic posts which people simply could not understand. This is not intended to question EffK's sincerity. There is little doubt that he believes his Vatican-colonizing-Wikipedia theories and holds them honestly. That does not mean he should be allowed to continue his disruption, waste server space, and possibly drive away genuine editors.

26 April 2005–30 April 2005

EffK started cluttering the Pope Benedict XVI talk page with off topic posts of variable length but invariable irrelevance. Although they were often difficult to understand, they seemed to be concerned with a wish that Pope Benedict would posthumously excommunicate Pope Pius XII. [185], [186], [187], [188], [189].

11 May 2005

EffK copied from Pope Pius XII talk to Pope Benedict XVI talk an extremely long, extremely irrelevant post (in which he had attacked Str1977 with phrases such as "you are a source of moral pollution" "you are shocking" "You are deeply immoral" "dangerously immoral" "You will have to be controlled, like an extremist organisation" "casuistical self-justification to the point of mental sickness" "You read Hitler's mind and you reveal his thoughts but they are yours" "Will you stop being like the brother of the murderer" "You are immoral and shameless" "this reveals the deep despair hiding in your catholic soul" "we should really make more effort to bring you lost sheep back into the fold of humanity before you commit further acts of harm") [190]. (Note: the emphasis is mine, not his.)

This post was removed by Conf as irrelevant to the Pope Benedict XVI article. [191]

13 May 2005

EffK posted another question asking about posthumous excommunication.[192], and I queried the relevance of his post to the topic of the article (my first direct encounter with him).[193] He replied [194]. All of this was taking up server space (as each edit is stored in the history), and was in no way helping to improve the article about Pope Benedict XVI.

4 September 2005

SlimVirgin posted an NPA warning to EffK after seeing his "Go clean your mouth out with soap and say a hundred rosary's for your lie to the Wikipedia" message to Robert McClenon.[195]

10 November 2--5

EffK posted to Sam Spade: "I believe that Str1977 is a clear enemy to truth and understanding , and i regret to ask for you to assist in extracting the mental vandalism, albeit of the highest possible order, from polluting this organ . Please now call for study of his editing however so tedious and let's hopefully have him permanently removed from WP."[196]

EffK made eleven consecutive edits to Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, presented here as one diff[197]. It was, in my view, a mixture of accuracy, possible accuracy, original research, sensational language, and incomprehensible sections.

11 November 2005

EffK posted to Sam Spade: "Str is indeed a contumately devious and dishonest apologist in defence of the C.church . . . I am blocked by this educated (clerically positioned ) vandalism . . . Turf the apologist out. . . I demand an end to such whitewash . Help the WP, Sam , we owe it to those who suffered , if not to ourselves . I served my discussions and was threatened for my trouble by Jimbo . I still try to explain to him that this whitewash is an attack on him, more than on me , so I could , finally , ask you to consider Jimbo's benefit in this."[198]

EffK sent a message to El C: "I'm Famekeeper, lost my cookie again. Do help me protect WP from the whitewashing: I call for final "arbitration" against Str1977, no more dilly dally , all the way out with him . No reply needed."[199]

EffK complained to Fred Bauder about Str1977 and asked him to "back me in chucking this apologist as far as we can."[200]

EffK told Sam Spade that he would "leave off belting old Str openly."[201]

12 November 2005

I edited the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal article, removing klemping and plenking, tidying language, removing POV language, removing unsourced claims (though some may have been true), removing bits that I considered to be off topic, and removing anything where the wording was so unclear that I could not work out what it was trying to say.[202] It was not a revert to a previous version. I went through the entire article and changed where I felt it was appropriate.

EffK protested against my edit on the talk page and called for an explanation[203]. As making an explanation would have been time consuming, and as I was busy with university work, I did not reply quickly.

EffK made an incomprehensible post to Fred Bauder: "my nemesis is indeed a technical vandal , for whatever resasons he has" [204] (It emerged later that EffK had been unable to find the page he had created — The Great Scandal — and assumed that it had been deleted through what he believes to be a Vatican conspiracy at Wikipedia. In fact, it had not been deleted.)

EffK made another post to Fred Bauder: "it did not occur to me that that such a work would be entirely deleted, poof, like that. . . Well well, Rome rules here" [205]

14 November 2005

EffK opposed my RfA with an incoherent, semi-hysterical outburst.

Oppose . Absolute shame, for user's outrageous apologious editing that most seriously emasculates the Roman Catholic church sex abuse scandal User rmd 31 and reverted to one number of Priests , re Ferns report, rmd scandalous governmental deal made some period ago for Church property against Irish state payment of the compensation to other victims, rmd "and other Abuse of the pontifical secret may lead to formal (automatic) excommunication" , see Pope Benedict XVI and see my accusation re elision of same subject to understand how pernicious this removal remains ,rmd facts of current irish priestly mini-rebellion re diocesacan disobedience/ non-collaboration with diocescan letter,rmd celibacy balance rmd more look yourselves . User is incredible in this case , and if the User keeps such company as people who write , and keep this , confronted with a series of allegations concerning sexual abuse of children under the legal age of consent ¹ by Catholic clergy and religious. in the preamble ,well , I ask you all to oppose . I do not want more church war right now, but I wrote to this editor on the relevant talk requiring sanity . Oppose firmly , despite User's skills. Sorry but this represents live editor conflict]] and I respectfully request the pro votders to quickly arbitrate this user onto the satraight and noarrow, as I do not wish to post an rapid PoV tag . Represents execrable apologia of the worst order, as was the BXVI elision by a.n.other as of yesterday .Free the WP! Winnow the arbitrators ! EffK 19:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC) [206] (Emphasis EffK's.)[reply]

Please note that this is not offered as evidence of wrongdoing. I had no problem with his opposition, and sent him a few friendly messages afterwards. It is offered as a classic example of his writing style and of the difficulties people may have in understanding his posts. There is also some reason to believe that he found the RfA through wiki-stalking Str1977, as the latter had voted in support an hour before,[207] and as EffK had no prior history of voting in RfAs.

22 November 2005

EffK called again for justification of my edit to Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal.[208]

25 November 2005

EffK asked me again to justify my edit. [209] I replied, explaining some of the points, but saying that for the moment I was too busy for lengthy discussions.[210]

3 December 2005

EffK posted a comment under one of my messages on his own talk page, in which he seemed to compare my promotion to adminship to Hitler's rise to power.[211] This post was made while not logged in, but the next edit, made later that day by EffK in his own name, seems to acknowledge the anonymous one as his.

19 January 2006

EffK posted on the Adolf Hitler talk page, advising Lacatosias to edit under a different name. He suggested that the Catholic Church might succeed in removing him (EffK), but that, regardless, Lacatosias would "have to use another anonymous username".He called Robert McClenon Str1977's "sidekick".[212] Lacatosias replied that he did not need to change his username, as he was not afraid of being kicked out of Wikipedia.[213]

20 January 2006

EffK clarified his sockpuppet suggestion of the previous day by saying "I was in no way referring to being thrown out of wikipedia- more like out of a train. I am sorry that I am assumed to be suggesting the former. Never mind, but there are murders associated with these people, at least one in the course of being investigated."[214]

22 January 2006

EffK made a very long off-topic post to The Great Scandal talk page. The basic gist is that Str1977 was commissioned by the Catholic Church to enter Wikipedia for the purpose of targeting EffK specifically by name, and that Robert McClenon is simply Str1977's "alloted internet -enforcer type". He also seems to suggest that members of this Catholic conspiracy (I'm not sure whether he means the Catholics on Wikipedia or the people he thinks sent Catholic to Wikipedia) might wish to kill him if they discovered his identity.[215]

Later that day, he posted again to The Great Scandal talk page, referring to Str1977 as "a scurrilous intellectually dishonest user", and to Robert McClenon as "a self-appointed Wiki-cop [whose] job was to come in here and study Arbitration , to inveigle himself into Arbitration processes, thereby to effect the removal of [EffK].[216]

Later, he posted to the Adolf Hitler talk page, stating that Str1977 represents a clear and present intellectual danger to Wikipedia (emphasis his) with "contumate hypocrisy", and that Robert McClenon is Str1977 "side-kick".[217]

Later, he posted a completely incomprehensible post to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.[218]

23 January 2006

EffK posted to Talk:The Great Scandal: "you both are guys who sunk your rabid little teeth into my departed corpse for all you were worth. . . . Unfortunately it comes down to this :the Wikipedia has been colonised by the Vatican, and I at least choose that this should not go unremarked even if it cannot be prevented."[219] (Emphasis his.)

EffK posted to Talk:Centre Party (Germany) "I may not be able ever to see that these concerns are dealt with, beacause I am under grievous danger, largely of my own honest making. I call a spape a spade, but nor a bloody shovel. I am being hit by a spade all the way through this Wikipedia, every day I have known it. I really have come to the briefest conclusion: Wkipedia is being colonised by the vatican (from the Pontifical Council for Social Communications through papal instructions from 21 Febuary 2005, and certain Jesuit military internet guidance )."[220]