User talk:Str1977/ArchiveFK

Centre Party

Thanks for working on the Centre Party (Germany) article - it really needed a ton of work, and I'd gotten so frustrated that I had a hard time looking at it anymore. john k 22:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Flamekeeper is a difficult one. I don't know how to deal with him, either. john k 23:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Your interpretation is correct - the quid pro quo was only in 1933, after Hitler came to power. Kaas did not purposely allow Hitler to come to power (the Centre Party had, at any rate, no control over the machinations surrounding Hitler's coming to power, and calling Papen a Centre Party member at that point - he had been expelled from the party months before, and had always been a far right renegade within it - is simply incorrect). So, yeah, it was all in the Concordat negotiations, not before. john k 16:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't have the book anymore, so I can't look to find out for sure. I don't think it said there was an explicit quid pro quo at the time of the Enabling Act, though. It's a very general book, though, so it was not describing the precise sequence of events. john k 17:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pius XII

I salute you. Flamekeeper drove me away from the Pius XII page permanently. I just don't have the time or energy. Lawrence King 09:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. It seems to me that the recent activity around this issue is likely to end for now. The relevant posts probably should remain on the Pius XII talk page for considerable time. Personally, I think the historical problem and its influence on our times have their importance, but all the other issues are best to be ignored. Conf 13:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I want to start the Wikipedia:Requests for comments process on Pope Pius XII over the question of Talk:Pope Pius XII#Cornwell in the introduction. Will you join? patsw 04:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I've started the RFC on the article. patsw 22:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

When the RfC resolves (or after mediation if that becomes necessary) the article is going to need a overhaul to separate facts (i.e. what Pius said and did) from the analysis, criticism and speculation (why he did it, what were the consequences of what he did or didn't do, etc.) patsw 22:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Cornwell in the Introduction of Pope Pius XII. Is it time for mediation? Please discuss on my talk page. patsw 14:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the article has settled down. It needs an overhaul. I propose a section called "Life" that has the facts not in dispute, and another section called "Analysis" which covers the disputed questions of what he knew, what were his motives, judgments of the consequences of his actions, etc. Do you concur? patsw 23:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

FK

The neutrality of this post is in question. However this post wasn't meant to be neutral.

Hi there Str1977, yesI miss you too . I suggest that our communications that you have archived and the rest that remain on the other page , could be better placed on a special linked page . Our discussion which is so rich in analysis and detailed law could then remain useful towards a settlement of this matter .Just as John Cornwell's analysis is absent from the earlier Pacelli history , none of this is finished withneither us find it as useful ,however, to analyse each others motives , but the above , and your editing history , you evidently wish to keep in question . I agree , there is a question . And, this pompous name I took from a real person - I could revert to a variation of flamekeeper 's macafree-eaten cookie -say fiamekeeper , for ease of tracking my disquiet . Hitler's Pope , didn't you suggest ...Corecticus 21:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)=Fiamekeeper 21:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

In order to not give you any more ammunition, I withdraw from all two-way discussions with yourself and with others. I will use fair-use copyright extract from hereon, everywhere necessary. Your own actions hereon can speak enough without further human response. My actions hereon shall be limited strictly to references and citation. Goodbye Fiamekeeper 09:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade

Dear Sam, thanks for your welcome message back when I first logged onto Wikipedia.

I see, that my friend Fiamekeeper, once known as Flamekeeper or Correcticus, has already posted here, so I might as well give you the other side of the story.

There is nothing wrong with the Ludwig Kaas entry. I have done an overhaul lately (as I did of the Centre Party (Germany) and of Heinrich Brüning, including many things that weren't there (and in which FK has no interest)). Now he calls this entry disputed, but what he posted on the talk page doesn't warrant this call. He posts all the things he always posts (sorry for the complicated wording, but I'm trying to avoid a word he doesn't like) - the only substantial thing is a quote which he immediately misinterpretes - and which can be dealt with fairly easily. In fact, I have immediately included a sentence which gives the fact to which the quotes is refering.

Please do have a look into the Kaas page and see that there is nothing in need of dispute there. Of course, one could expand it, but then it'd be a replica of the Centre page to which there is a link. I focused on Kaas personally.

Thanks and greetings from Franconia to the Eifel.

Str1977 17:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating user page! Sam Spade 18:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Sam, I didn't have the time and/or energy to create a user page as great as Yours. And I don't have such a famous namesake. Originally it was empty (except for some gibberish some anon user posted there), but as someone gave me a lot of "presents", I started to put them on exhibition. Actually your page is really quite impressive with all these different options. Str1977 19:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Sam, I appreciate your edits on Kaas. It's always better to have more than one person editing - not just because of typos and idiosyncracies. However, I changed some things back, as you can see here. Str1977 19:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can feel free to copy any of the format or features that you might like from my page, and I'm pretty sure the same holds true for anyone elses (User:Jimbo has a nice page design... ;) What I did was I copied User:Angelas formatt, and then dumped in any links or templates or whatever I found handy. I like Fiamekeeper's descriptions of you quite a bit tho, it was a fascinating read.. In my experience contributers of bulk content tend to have complaints and POV/NPOV. I hardly ever contribute bulk content, and really am more of an editor than a writer. I'd like to see more attention paid to the division of labour on the wikipedia, w people accentuating their strengths, and minimizing their deficits, if you know what I mean ;) Sam Spade 19:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Sam, for the tips. As for bulk content: as I decided to overhaul these pages, I saved the source text to my PC and edited it there. Otherwise I might run into edit conflicts (it took me some time to edit), or crash my PC and lose it (something like this happened anyway) or some other Internet/wiki bug. Of course, I don't like the look of this bulk either (it it very annoying e.g. on the Germany talk page - some users post bulk with their post added. This makes it hard to find out what's new.)

And please don't You believe the things FK said about me (and that was before the bulky editing). And he has decided not to give me anymore ammunition.

I'm not blameless either and our previous discussion became very heated, but I honestly - POV :-) - tried not to attack him personally (apart from any policy) and only criticize his actions.

We all have strong opinions, but I think he is going too far. And I am not the only one who thinks that way. You know better, since you have been at wiki longer than I have.

PS. I have posted an explanation and alternatives on the Kaas talk page - and put in "pushing" as an alternative, at least for the moment. Feel free to improve the wording.

Str1977 20:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Famekeeper Disputes

Good afternoon. Thank you for responding on my talk page. FK is engaging in dialog directly on the Hitler's Pope talk page, which is what it is for.

Could you answer a few questions for me briefly:

1. What was the original thesis that FK was arguing about canon law?

2. Who posted the NPOV banner on the Hitler's Pope page, you or FK? I am assuming that it was you. However, the response that I am getting from FK is the sort of response that I normally get from a reasonable person in a dispute. In other words, he appears to be making an honest but completely ineffectual effort to strive for neutrality of point of view.

Robert McClenon 23:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I have posted a Request for Mediation concerning four articles cited by Famekeeper as non-neutral. Maybe a mediator can help him summarize what he thinks needs to be marked as POV and can caution him about soapboxing. Robert McClenon 17:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I am a patient man. I have lost all patience with Famekeeper and have posted a Request for Comment against him for filibustering the talk pages. Whether or not you are planning to try to edit the Church history articles later, could you please at least visit the RfC to sign it? Robert McClenon 19:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I need your help, or that of someone else who has had a problem with Famekeeper.

We disagree as to whether some of the leaders of the Church made moral errors about the Nazis and Hitler. I think we can also agree that responsible scholars disagree about whether there were moral errors. We are in agreement that Famekeeper's assessment of those moral errors is unsubstantiated and extreme and has aspects of a conspiracy theory.

I think that the discussion of the book Hitler's Pope summarizes it erroneously. I don't have the book in my possession, and will have to order another copy to read and assess. In the meantime, I would like, as I think you would, to work to present a neutral presentation of differing points of view. Famekeeper continues to say that he demands mediation or arbitration, and responds to all of my requests for summaries of the issues that he thinks are biased with more ranting.

Famekeeper is making the talk pages of articles with which he has an issue unusable by filling them with his soapboxing. I think that this will just continue and expand unless he can be dealt with. I think that we are in agreement on far more than we are in disagreement with.

I know that Famekeeper is misquoting me, so I assume that he is misquoting Cornwell. I told Famekeeper to drop it about his self-excommunication tirade. He says that he is being told to drop all issues.

Could you please visit Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper and either sign it or revise it and sign it or indicate what you think needs to be corrected?

Thank you. Robert McClenon 00:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert, thanks for all your efforts trying to find a solution and also for your kind posts.

Though we migh disagree about this and that (and about what is another question - maybe not about that much: we agree that there were moral errors, the disagreement is about which ones) I agree that it is possible to respectfully disagree. I have respectfully disagreed with many people (inside and outside of wiki) and I can and will do the same in your case. I (and others) have also tried to do the same with FK but to no avail. It's hard to even argue with someone who claims his POV is no POV and who claims that his (or rather his sources') interpretation of historical events is no interpretation, but history as such. To rephrase it: We have sources about historical events and we can reconstruct these events (to some extent). These events are dots on a white paper and some historians are connecting these dots this way and other that way and still others a third way. And discussion of these different views is valid and needed. FK draws connections between the dots too, but then he claims that the connecting lines he (or the books he cites, but unfortunately he misquotes them quite often) has drawn was there in the sources.

Yes, we agree about "conspiracy theory". Of course, there were real conspiracies, but there is a reason why we generally are skeptical about those theories. And despite FK's reiterated statement that he is not monocausalistic and only leaves other causes to other people, he definitely overstates his case and he does it everywhere (e.g. on The Holocaust - see his change at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=19460820&oldid=19423159 and the following revisions).

I haven't been posting much lately since I'm quite busy on other things, but when I find the time I will look (and write) into the Hitler's Pope entry.

"Famekeeper is making the talk pages of articles with which he has an issue unusable by filling them with his soapboxing."

That's exactly my problem with him. Maybe I never would have run into him if he hadn't posted a section called "The Question of the Law" from the Pius XII talk page over to the Benedict XVI page and the Theology of Benedict XVI page and so on. This post was hardly comprehensible even in its original context, let alone on other pages. After I found out about this cross posting I deleted the post where it was off topic to which FK shouted censorship. If you had witnessed our exchanges you would have noticed that they were hardly on the articles themselves, but on the talk pages and on what they are for and on questions acutally not relating the wiki articles (e.g. the canon law issue).

"I think that this will just continue and expand unless he can be dealt with."

I'm afraid so.

"I think that we are in agreement on far more than we are in disagreement with."

Yes, I think so.

"I know that Famekeeper is misquoting me, so I assume that he is misquoting Cornwell."

He is not only misquoting you, he is also misquoting me, Kaas, Pius XI (encyclical Dilectissima Nobis), wikipedian John Kenney. He also misrepresents some of the books he quotes, e.g. Klemperer, Lewy and even Mowrer.

"I told Famekeeper to drop it about his self-excommunication tirade. He says that he is being told to drop all issues."

Yes, I have experienced that too. He is very liberal in dishing out but very sensitive in receiving. I don't think "It is more blessed to give than to receive." was meant that way.

"Could you please visit Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper and either sign it or revise it and sign it or indicate what you think needs to be corrected?"

I agree with your summary as it gives the main problems with him and have signed it.

Thank you.

Str1977 09:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You signed in the wrong place. The place where you signed is for outside opinions who agree, not for people who have been directly involved in the controversy. Please move your signature to immediately under mine. Thank you. Robert McClenon 11:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert, since you started the RfC on FK I want to draw your attention to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Famekeeper&curid=2300712&diff=20140279&oldid=20023902

Is this proper usage of the RfC "rebuttal" space?

As for FK's accusations above (note that he accuses, not me), have a look at my answer to his allegedly "irrefutable proof" at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Famekeeper#Irrefutable_Proof

Thanks, Str1977 22:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert,

I think he's referring to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Yes:The_vatican.27s_Media_Conference_and__the_Wikipedia

and this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=20047180#Old_Media_-_New_Media

Goodnight

Str1977 00:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No. I do not think that Famekeeper is making a reasonable use of the rebuttal space. However, I am not concerned. It makes it easier for anyone to see what his style is. I don't know if he is saying that he has tried to get a message to Jimbo Wales. If he is trying to say that, he is lying. There is no such message in Jimbo Wales's talk page. I will just leave his extended comments on the RfC. I have not decided whether to leave them on my talk page or archive them.

He is not really doing any harm, because it does not appear that he is editing any article pages. I am willing to let him flame for a while. Robert McClenon 00:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert, it is like this: User:Jimbo Wales is his user page, while Jimmy Wales is a page on the founder of WP. But I also like your distinction paradox. Now, finally, goodnight Str1977 00:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for replying on my talk page. I do see his messages now. It appears that Jimbo Wales has at least two user talk pages. Since he owns Wikipedia, and does not own Wikipedia, he should have at least two talk pages, one where he owns it, one where he does not. I see no proof of anything except dates and anger.

If Pope John Paul II called a conference and mentioned that Internet projects such as Wikipedia should be noted by Catholics as well as by non-Catholics, then I think he was wise. We already knew that. Maybe he should be canonized. We already knew that.

I see no need to respond for a few days. Maybe he will give yet another answer, or maybe he will not. Robert McClenon 00:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I am now confused. Famekeeper had previously put together a timeline of events involving the Centre Party and the end of the Weimar Republic, and had put it in two of the article talk pages. I thought it was an accurate timeline of events. It was only a timeline, and so it did not prove causation. Using a timeline to prove causation is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Now that timeline appears to have been deleted or moved. Now his argument appears to rely on a meeting between Kaas and Hitler, followed by a meeting between Kaas and Pius XI. We don't know what was said at the meeting unless one of the participants wrote an account or letter about it.

However, at this point, all that he appers to be doing is taunting me. This is providing time for other Wikipedians to read the RfC. Robert McClenon 12:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert,

"Famekeeper had previously put together a timeline of events"

Yes, I don't know why but has replaced one timeline with another (at the RfC), though they seem to be the same contentwise. Yes, it's accurate on the whole, though unfortunately with some inappropriate language (Nazi police, Nazi trade) and sometimes takings things out of context (Dilectissima Nobis) without any explanations or qualifications (some Hitler Church quotes). I haven't perused it all (and I won't), but they also seems to be a bit to positive to Ernst Thälmann.

Anyway, yes "It was only a timeline, and so it did not prove causation". But that's unfortunately FK's method. He gather some reports about events, quickly draws his conclusions wihout any checking of possible alternative analysis, and then comes out with what "history says" and "history is against you" and "the historians" (which ones? why these? Why not others?) and - and that's the real kernel of the problem - he claims he hasn't got an interpretation, that he only gives facts.

"Now his argument appears to rely on a meeting between Kaas and Hitler, followed by a meeting between Kaas and Pius XI."

I agree with you on that meeting. I never disputed such meetings, in fact I even expanded some of the things on "Centre Party", mainly the second half of 1932. It's his interpretation (which he calls facts) I have a problem with.

"However, at this point, all that he appers to be doing is taunting me."

Yes, he taunts at a lot.

Str1977 12:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, old man ( obsolete term of affection, coll.,Eng,) ! Str, I didn't want in ant way to personalise any of this issue beyond ecclesiatical law . I tell you I'm very sorry I exceeded my exuberant typing and gave you all this ammunition. I am sorry that you must now think me uh uh user . I hope that the little dribbetts (Eng, Poetic licence , FK ) of welcome back always into the fray I gave to you were enough to persuade you that I'm ,somewhere , a human being 'neath all the headstrong ggnashing of teeth . What say we let settlement fall , and good faith reign for a while, at least ?

I judged you harshly by your edits because I let my fear feed on your distrust . My fear was that you represented an evil conspiracy of renegades within ecclesiastical law , desperate to subvert the WP from due recognition of awful mistakes , made even in relatively, but not ecclesiastical , good-faith . My belief does not allow me to avoid continuing to offer advice , simpleton I am .

I may be wrong , but your fear seemed to reside in my being a purely irresponsible interjector (poetic, FK) of innacurate , biased error upon all the articles .

I don't know really how to say this but , uh , the thing that I have noticed all my life , is , that no catholic ever tried to persuade me of anything . Until you . But you didn't do it for catholic faith reasons , I don't think . You did it to somehow just - stop me .

I don't have the time in my life to check on everything , so I don't know what Jimmy Wales thought he was going to achieve with this mega project . I always remember hearing , that some psychiatrist bought himself a mega property in bliss-land , and opened it as a cure centre for disturbed , wealthy , people who then queued up to come along to work there like slaves , and pay hugely to do so .

I realise that the WP is in a tricky position , and needs all the sad souls it can get to somehow level a civilised balance . That is what you thought you were doing with me . Trouble was , I filibustered , according to the accusation or definition . 'Course , I say well , uh , you used ad hominem conterraction .

No . Str , Let's stop this .... if in future you see me posting something , can you do me the good grace to retain the WP ground-rule of imagining good faith  ? Then , let me say , that I will consequently not feel your distrust comes just to smother .

None of this is to say that I don't take it upon myself to question, even though the WP is supposed to state rather than question , -imagine I question in good faith .

I cannot say that I have understood you yet - I don't . I think you have been able to understand me . I saw the question out there - it became apparent . That I am verbose , well , uh , it is a factor in my optimism .

I took it from you that you are a very deep considered person , and I have no pleasure in attacking you personally . I am one of those nasty little lawyery types , who are only too pleased to rake about in the muck , long after the fear and danger has gone . Full of indignation and supercilious superiority entirely divorced from the actual awful choices inherent to the muck ( mess) .

I hope I have learnt from you , and I say that in your part in any questioning and answering , you were the human who tried to explain that which was dependent on the purely human . But my fear leaps whenever someone speaks like that , as my own fear of my own " humanity " assaults me . All this , you , and your human understanding finds irresponsible because self-indulgent . I cannot justify myself further in my excuses against bad taste , WP or other-wise . And I couldn't in my own world , do other than that which I have done in this WP to question .

As far as I am concerned we could simply delete now , or hope it would become separated all the non-relevant and regrettable personal attack I made . But I could be wrong , and separation could be impossible ......we always knew that the essential question would need the answer , and that the answer would be terrible indeed .

Famekeeper 22:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, old Spaniard (I understand that quite well, FK, and I bear you no grudge for the things you said (though some of them were directed at me personally and some are dangerous, given that there are actually “totalitarian liberals” around that want to control). Anyway, Sometimes I even enjoyed your “verbosity”, though in a very “I marvel and can’t shut my mouth again” way. Also please take my “longest link” post not too seriously. I just had to post it, it beat all. But nevertheless, here’s my reply (to be read in parallel to your post): I hope you believe me by now that I am no evil conspiracy, certainly not of renegades in ecclesiastical law. Not in the least do I want to “subvert the WP from due recognition of awful mistakes, made even in … good-faith”. Mistakes are mistakes. Error of judgement is error of judgment, but conspiracy is another thing and that I am denying. No, I estimate you as an honest but easily inflammable editor who unfortunately all too often jumps too quickly and then is, to quote from Dilbert, “emotionally bound to his view.” History not just ‘’is’’ – it needs to be reconstructed. Scholarly historiography is not so unlike natural sciences. You oberseve, you set up hypothesis, you try to prove or falsify them. The result in physics is not “reality” but a “theory” resembling it, explaining it. The same with historiography, only that it’s not about repeatable experiments but about sources. The sources are dots on a scrap of paper – the historian has to connect these and often it is not clear which connections are the correct ones. As in our case, I think. I’m sorry that “catholic ever tried to persuade (you) of anything”. Unfortunately many Catholics are just “formal” Catholics or staying in the closet or try to ignore difficult issues, such as this. Well, we cannot control how we meet up, yes it was to stop something, what I consider inappropriate editing, or bring you to reasonable, NPOVish contribution I know that WP is in a tricky position … but the balancing has to go in both ways. I mean the internet is full of conspiracy stories and half-truths and bad history. You can get Edward Gibbon everywhere for free, but you cannot get any modern, more up-to-date work on the topic for free on the internet. If I really used “Ad hominem” then I’m sorry about that. I always tried to imagine good faith. Sometimes I thought otherwise, but then I took a breather and tried to leave that out of editing and comments. For the times I didn’t I do apologize. Never smother, but add balance. Questioning is good, but question everything and “keep the good” (Paul). You don’t understand me yet, maybe I can help? What exactly do you not understand? What our issue is?

• I agree with you and Robert that there were serious errors comitted by Kaas, many in the Centre Party, and too a lesser extent even by the two Pii (plural of Pius).
• Some of these errors than backfired, e.g. Kaas tried to “save” democracy by forming a coalition with the NS and combating the imminent Papen dictatorship – with the result that Papen fell and Schleicher fell and Hindenburg acquiesced into appointing “that Bohemian private” (and I protest against the President’s insult of all Bohemians, Moravians and Silesians). Hitler tricked him and the March elections dealt the death blow to his policy. Hitler‘s government had the majority and as they did away with the Communists (legal or not) they could do away with the Centre to. From that point onwards it was save what you can. Today we know what happened afterwards, the millions of dead, but a) Kaas and others could not see it then, and b) the question is what they could have done about it. Max Weber, the sociologian, distinsuished between “ethics of conviction” and “ethics of responsibility”. We all would have like to see Kaas, Brüning et al stand up like Wels did and to see Pius XII issue declarations like Gregory VII or Gregory IX. But it’s easy from today’s situation, with a full stomach and a soft bed and computer technology on our hand and really nothing to fear about (assuming now that you are Spanish, I estimate that your life is not in danger anytime in the foreseeable future) to demand that those of the past should have spoken out more vehemently, even if in vain. I don’t want to call on others to risk the lives of themselved and those them in their care.
• I agree that maybe there was too much of focus institutional things. However, I also understand that many clerics (Bertram) still had the Kulturkampf in mind, and Bismarck & Co., despite all their faults, were much much much more “civilized” that the Nazis expected to be.
• However, if I say I don’t want to call on others, that doesn’t mean that issues, like your canonical law suit, shouldn’t be discussed. But in a straightforward way, and one which does not claim more than it can. Unfortunately, I saw your case far from being “proved”. If you want to I can give you a brief outline of where it fails. Just post “yes” and I will provide.
• Even if you suit were substantiated it is another question how important it is to the present. You seem to imply that the Church has to take the actions you demanded in order to gain the right to speak. I, for my part, say that even if what you claimed were true that doesn’t affect her authority (it does affect the standing of the three in question and others). I see today (actually already since thirty years, though I wasn’t born then) policies not so unlike Nazi-policies coming back and almost the lone voice of protest is the Church (and the Italian referendum is just one example). It’s hard to listen to some politicians, especialls here in Germany, denouncing Hitler and at the same advocating plans Mengele would be proud of.
• I never had in mind to blacken those whom you quote. However, please understand, that I cannot take Hochhuth seriouly. His play is not history and he is notorious for smearing others, living or dead, and caring to incite too violence. His play unfortunately has changed the perception of Pius XII. No, not he alone. He had his adherents, usually at the left wing of the political spectrum that were only to happy to use him against the Church. (Compare how Communists in Eastern Germany used what they called “Anti-facism” – Fascists were those that disagreed with them, even there were not Nazis (and I’m not going to dip into the Fascism is not Nazism issue), and Anti-fascists were those that agreed and played along, even if they had been Nazis.)
• What we disagreed about in the historical field is: who did what, when and with what intention? And how important is what they did (once we have agreement) or: does it merit being included (that mainly was behing our minor squibbles about Kaas and Papen on the train, who talked to whom when)

I think I should stop now, before I don’t know anmore what to write and since others are lining up to use this PC. Goodday Str1977 14:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, I suppose the rfc still lives.. listen , it's you against source. Corwell has a history which he tells . That is not a POV , It may be wrong here or there, but it is for you to place contrary source, not remove good faith source. prove he is wrong , not that he has a history to tell . Otherwise return to my last edit please, forthwith . The discussion page is the appropriate place to disprove . When you can do so , do so. Ciau. Famekeeper 00:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Str! I agree we try and delete . I removed church from my rfc defence .

Do Tell me what that is on yr page :non abbiatta paura ?

I don't understand what you mean about religious frredom , nor where I bring it in to play ? Do you by chance mean that there has to be freedom to have an incorrect article...surely not? If I have attacked freedom I'd like to know where, so , let's go there now..

Str- you have to prove where Cornwell is wrong . You can't just say he's POV .I repeat , I simply report him as source . I ask you to be reasoned about PPXII . There is no law in WP (surely ?) that says [some] faithful adherents to [some] religion can have their own version of articles/history . Famekeeper 09:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Str, thanks . Lets try from the start then, I'm happier if you are . I shall certainly call an end to any accusations, remove any reference to you on the Rfc that I can touch or as much as I can do away with any vitriol , whichas it is quite embedded could be a job of work (and I'm in part a lazy uh ). It seemed it was not for me to do more in abolishing the Rfc than to cast the uh your way . It would be better to take it down , then I don't have to go on justifying myself .

I see what youve done on Kaas , and I see that you accept the increased load the poor uh has to bear . it has taken rather along time to arrive at this point and even cost Jimbo a wink of time and dough . A couple of things , tho. I am unsure , whch is embarrassing , whether Hitler spoke of christianity at midday or in the evening, and equally when the actual vote was .

The other thing is that I refer you to Weimar repb's disc. page with Wyss and from there to my reply to McC on the BXVI page . That is self explanatory and I guess not new ,to you .

The other thing is that I refer you back to Cornwell via this abridgement . Tt seems to me to include such a swath of accs and events and quotes pertinent exactly to that which we have confronted, that frankly , I think it needs to enter through the subject as much as any other historian . In the lack -unless you can provide contrary proof, it seems to me that Cornwell classes as a quotable source , as much as any one else . I fear he is of even greater opinion than I was made by mowrer , as to Pacelli's actual subversion of Kaas ,[[1]]

The MegaMemex post the Kaas secretaryship , but surely it comes with the whole effort, that which Cornwell describes , of the German concordats all throughout . Do a search for Ludwig Kaas , and that appears . You can only use the copy of Levy to dispute those guys - if they're wrong I'd be kind of surprised , as they have something to lose too . However- I don't have Lewy nor will .

I would invite you, say ,to undertake the more rigorous inclusion of Cornwell's stuff. It would save well... read the link and just imagine how it could encourage old FK to stutter all over again .

Whatever about you and me , I fear I still believe in the pacelli /pius cock up "theory" , and I am firmly of the opinion which I express there on BXVI and on Reichskonkordat discussion . Whatever about my judgement of you , my judgement of the sources leads me to inescapable conclusions .

Apropos Bruning- yes , it comes from Shirer the treachery etc . I dont think theres much dispute there , but there soon could be with what Cornwell quotes from his memoirs . If you are in germany maybe the sources you have aren't saying to you the same things as what was published outside . W Bennett and Shirer and Toland and Bullock all use Nuremburg affidavits , to the point of analysing the one's that lie because they contradict . Papen is taken generally to lie in his own behalf , whereas Schroder the banker probably did not . Anyway this is where it comes from , except for the Rosenberg (an academic out of Berlin university) Weimar Rep. history which seems to be where guys like Shirer get pointers . WBennettt of course was writing from within Germany / sourcing from , throughout . He is unimpeachable , far as I know .

I would be interested to see how you can blow my latest conclusion out of the water , the chicken come home to roost -Concordat legality . I don't , really don't ,go for AH acceeding legally to nothing except a minority chancellory under article 48 on 30th Jan . As soon as he exceeded the constitution , there is a Putsch against the Reichstag . I see this as quite formal now , and it is a chicken in so far as the concordat is still in force . Fraid to say , the vatican deserve now to regularise their civil contact , or expect the stench to come at them like a freight-train thru their big portal . In other words I understand the illegality to which you existentially refer .

I don't accept that Kaas wasn't playing a double game , nor that Pacelli is an innocent-I retain my canonical view of him and Pius , absolutely . And they are morally more contumate than Kaas . I am going to give it a rest and hope they get some rapid sense . I suggest you meanwhile take serious note of Cornwell , as true or not , it is reportable , so you may want to try and find balancing material . Fact is , christian dictatorship is an abbreviation of the DNobis encyclical whether you like it or not . And used as such . Ill end in saying that I am tiring of clean up jobs now needed all thru and I am going to concentrate on quoting German philosophy at you ! Famekeeper 16:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

What-say-you to this: You get your strictly ecclesiastical article . We remove controversy out of it completely - but both ways. All Cornwell?Mowrer?Centre whatever OUT.

We remove all defence as exists OUT.

We leave it as strict biographical listing of his life , so it looks like any other Pope. All Concordat politics becomes only v briefest references, with no conclusions whatever either way political . Leaver it Only to cover canon law and that which the Reichskonkordat covered . No refs to Hitler controversy nor Kaas nor no one . No letters of accusation, no defence .

Then we agree between you and me , that you have a [See also: whatever defence page u title it.....

Equally I put a [see also:Hitler's Pope ] link .

Both to be prominently included at the point where the Concordat story is briefly touched upon . Pius X! will need however to have equal see also .How about that ?

Oh-and you get McC to drop the Rfc...

Famekeeper 10:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hallo Mr Famekeeper, sorry I have been out of Wiki for a couple of days, so I can only answer you now. Here it is:

As for Cornwell. He is valid literature, but he is also controversial and his view, where not universally accepted, must be included as a POV. I have seen that Robert, who agrees with Cornwell's POV, agrees with me on that.

"I see what youve done on Kaas , and I see that you accept the increased load the poor uh has to bear . it has taken rather along time to arrive at this point"

That's what happens when tempers float. If you are now content with my edits on your edits than I'm happy too. I found something on the secretary in 1925 thing and I will post it later. Just quickly the working realtionship started in 1920 and lasted until 1929, when Pacelli returned to Rome. The friendship of course continued. As for the details you talk about, I don't think there's need for conflict on this. If my memory serves me right, there was first Hitler's speech, than the parties withdrew for dicussion, then the parliament meeting resumed and Kaas and Wels (and whoever else from the parties) gave their speeches declaring why they would vote the way they would and then the vote.

"I would invite you, say ,to undertake the more rigorous inclusion of Cornwell's stuff."

My offer still stands though at the moment I really don't have the time.

"Whatever about you and me , I fear I still believe in the pacelli ..."

That's fine and dandy. I'd love to convince you but if I can't then I can't. You are not obliged to give up your POV. It just has to be clear that it's not the sole truth.

"Whatever about my judgement of you , my judgement of the sources leads me to inescapable conclusions."

And that's where we differ. I don't see inescapable conclusions.

"Apropos Bruning- yes , it comes from Shirer the treachery etc . I dont think theres much dispute there , but there soon could be with what Cornwell quotes from his memoirs"

I guess you're right, it comes from his memoirs. That's the point. He wrote his memoirs in exile and generally they are considered to be not entirely trustworthy, especially during this period. As for treachery - granted, Brüning considered Kaas' behaviour in 1933 treachery but he did so when he wrote the book, so it comes from hindsight (he was not the only one to think that way, hence Kaas being shunned by his former fellow party members, as I included in the article (next to homesickness)). However during the EAct discussions there is no accusation of treachery on his part and hence it doesn't belong in a rendering of the event.

"If you are in germany maybe the sources you have aren't saying to you the same things as what was published outside"

Believe me, Germany is no secluded, totalitarian country where you can't get books or other information (that was another thing I objected about, when you off-handedly dismissed all of German historiography).

As for "Concordat legality": I can assure you that the concordat is legally binding, given that it has been tried in our highest court in the 50s. And I see no reason to touch upon it. But if you want I can later comment on the legal issues regarding dormancy, parliament etc (though I'm mo legal scholar)

As for your proposal:

1) I cannot do anything for you in regard to the RfC. I didn't start and I won't stop it. If Robert, who started it is content with your behaviour he will do so himself. And I guess I would acquiesce in this too.

2) I unfortunately cannot accept your proposal. We cannot create one article for your "accusations" and one for my "counter-point" - this would go against all Wiki principles I know: balance, NPOV. Two wrongs (in the sense that they are POV) don't make it right. Accusations should be included in the main article in a depov'ed language and counter-criticism should be next to it. (The same goes for a "Hitler's Pope" page - it covers the book and its accusations pluse a critical treatment of it - to make it NPOV). Apart from the fact that there probably is no fitting name for such a accusation page (Hitler's Pope is about the book, Pope's Hitler is -sorry to say it- nonsense and even "Catholic Holocaust complicity" doesn't actually say what the title suggests - our debate has never been about the Shoa (as I prefer to call it)). And I don't want to have to think of a catchy name for a defense page. Anyway, the main problem is that it'd violate NPOV.

I agree with you that the concordat should be included in Pius XI too (and Dilectissima certainly belong there - but in proper context). After all it was his concordat (like the others), though Pacelli did some negotiating. I though about this for some time. However, let us first settle the dispute on the other pages.

So, I'm afraid I have to say: no.

Str1977 12:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Class action suit against the Vatican Bank and others The user Famekeeper mentioned your name in relation to this stuff he wrote about the Vatican Bank claims, so I figured that you might want to have a look at that page. --Joy [shallot] 22:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I like you Str, because a battle is less boring that righteously bureaucratic farts. However you have given me the run-around too long . It is a waste of the resources all round. As far as my understanding has deepened during this battle, you are to be thanked for being the cause . Now , however , the intellectual denial of reason and sourced truth , so much your stock-in-trade, is un-bearable . I think you should be ashamed of yourself as a mind , because your bad faith is in complete contradiction with your avowed christianity . You have tried to sweetly patronise me to death many times, and you do not mend your ways , such as on the Reichskonkordat at present . You say you accept , now, the existence of the secret Annexe , but yet you even yesterday deny that it is relevant to the man who devised and drafted it,Ludwig Kaas , where you would at first deny , and then exclude it as irrelevant . This is but the latest example of a complete intellectual bad faith . There would seem to me to be no profit whatever anymore in stimulating this your intellectual bad faith . I am forced to preserve my time by abandoning all contributions to the WP , for you now to doubtless reverse and remove the secret annexe (placed by another editor in its Reichskonkordat article). You have throughoput my experience of you done nothing but damage or damage limitation to all associated articles, every one . I am shocked and amazed . I also appear to be alone . You share the mien of other users and you have tricked them into seeing you as benign , whereas in the very rarified field of my interests , no one is informed enough to come to my side. You have throughout capitalised on this one weaknes I have , and you have shown no quarter. Neither have I . But this cannot go on , either you accept the truth as sourced, or you are against the Wikipedia .Famekeeper 10:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Mr FK, if you value my input I am flattered.

However, mere disagreement with you is not "intellectual denial of reason and sourced truth". I have other things I might be ashamed of but that does not belong here. As for avowed christianity - the truth must be the basis for everything and this is were we had our dispute. Hence all further conclusions from them are wrongheaded (and indeed patronising). As for christianity - I am afraid I have to say that you haven't grasped it. You have dug into canon law (though jumped to conclusions from some things) but that christianity is not mere morals but "faith, hope and charity" I have at least not detected in your discourse.

As for the annex question: of course you could argue that anything about the concordat should be included in the Kaas article as he had a hand in it (though not he alone) but that means including the entire concordat article into Kaas. Encyclopediae don't work that way. This is why there are links. I never disputed that the secret annex belonged into the concordat article - I only countered your analysis which I see to be onesided. I will certainly not removed it from there and if someone else does will even restore it.

I have tricked no one into thinking me benign. Mere politeness is no trick. Concise statements are no tricks. Believe me, Robert agrees more with you that he agrees with me, but you have done everything you could to gain his antipathy. If this is the weakness you are referring to, you are right. I don't gloat over that. I'm even sorry about that. But that's the way it is.

I gave no quarter since I am defending the truth as I see it. You are doing the same but you don't have a monopoly on the truth. Str1977 08:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

FK's Letters to Jimbo Wales

Dear Robert, have you seen what he who needs not be named has posted today on poor Jimbo wales' page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Today_05_September__2005 Str1977 22:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about Jimbo Wales being flooded by the letters. He has already responded. Robert McClenon 23:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is his response, on the RfC page where it should be.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Famekeeper&diff=22666935&oldid=22666235

It appears that he has no idea what Famekeeper is trying to say, and thinks that Famekeeper is probably crazy. I will probably write up an RfAr soon enough. Robert McClenon 02:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Robert, I didn't worry about FK's letter to Jimbo. Firstly, Fk's post are hard to understand in general, as you found out when you were drawn into this muddle and, in fact, this was my first experience when "The Question of the Law" first appeared, without any prior context, on B16. This is were this whole thing began. Secondly, I think Jumbo is a busy man and cannot take care of everything that's being laid on his table.

What is an "RfAr"?

Str1977 08:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

An RfAr is a Request for Arbitration. It is the last step in dispute resolution, and is a request to the Arbitration Committee to block or ban a user. Jimbo Wales said that Famekeeper appears to be determined to get himself banned from Wikipedia. If Jimbo Wales thinks that he needs banning, I will not argue. Robert McClenon 11:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought the RfC on Famekeeper was going after the wrong thing (i.e. POV promoting a Catholic conspiracy to support Hitler) but ought to have concerned itself with this editor's inability or unwilliness to create edits which were factual, verifiable, relevant to the topic, well-written and neutrally worded. It doesn't appear to be a matter of an occaisional lapse among many good edits but almost a hubris for other editors to challenge all or almost all of the Famekeeper edits as being non-factual, unverifiable, irrelevant, poorly written or having a point of view. If this goes to arbitration, the low signal-to-noise ratio of the editing process in the articles Famekeeper has inserted himself into should be an issue. It's not a challenge to Str1977 or Robert McClenon, but to the idea that an editor who can't or won't edit according to the policies and guidelines should be held accountable. patsw 03:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Patsw, the problem with FK is a mixture of both things: his belief in a vast catholic conspiracy and his editing inabilities. He himself said somewhere that he wrote as he thinks, which explains his style quite well. I guess he also jumps to conclusions when listening to stuff and then is "emotionally bound to his opinion" (quote from Dilbert's boss). This is my explanation for the whole conspiracy thing and also for his latest post on Jimbo's page (I mean: the CDU party is "the christian right"? Please!) Also, his complaint about a Ratzinger approach to abortion makes it obvious that he hasn't though the through the issues he posts about or rather that he hasn't managed to integrate all his opinions into a consistent stance. And we already knew his complete unability to see that Communism at one time was a threat.

But I agree with what you posted. Str1977 09:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that Famekeeper may also have some sort of learning disability. It is Wikipedia policy to try to be patient with such people, but only up to a point. I had originally assumed that his difficulties with English reflected the fact that English was not his native language. When Wyss tried to work with him, she also concluded that there might be a language issue. However, more recently, Famekeeper has insisted that English is his native language. If he cannot write and punctuate in anything approaching a standard way, then I wonder whether he has some sort of dysgraphia (writing disability). Robert McClenon 11:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert, it's been a while. I had a look on the Hitler's Pope article recently and it is still in the over-expanded state someone left it in, i.e. it is still basically a parallel bio page to Pius XII and not an article about the book. Since you have read the book, could you please, when you find the time, trim down the article to what the book says? Thanks. Str1977 18:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I had a copy of the book around, and was planning to reread it and summarize what it said. However, I have mislaid it, so I will need to get another copy.

I think that I can anyway cut the article down to eliminate the obvious duplication.

As to what was wrong with FK, someone had a theory that actually makes sense, but I don't have a license to provide the diagnosis. His English is so bad that I assumed he was not a native speaker of the language. Wyss came to the same conclusion. However, he said that he was a native speaker of English. Then I thought that he might have some sort of language disability. However, then another editor said that he seemed paranoid. That would actually explain everything, if by paranoid one really refers to the paranoid form of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia causes various problems in the use of language because it causes the thought to be disordered. He always said that he wrote as he thought. If his thoughts are broken, then his language may be broken too. Jimbo Wales did him a favor by telling him to walk away rather than be blocked. Robert McClenon 19:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert, no immediate reply to your message, but some information. Someone has listed H's P under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitler's Pope. Could you please comment on this. Str1977 20:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

FK Research

Dear Robert, FK's gone a while and I don't miss him. You were involved with him and have wondered about his language. Well, I asked a friend of mine, who's into computers and stuff, about his IP and he said, that FK posted from Dublin, Ireland. He also thought that his language as well as his insistence on being a native speaker of English remings of Indians (meaning from the subcontinent) he was talking about. This is also confirmed by some sections from FK's talk page: 5 6 7

I thought I might post this, in case you're interested. User:Str1977 22:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that I am glad he is no longer here. I am interested in the background on his language, and it does appear that he does have a background from India. However, he never had the level of command of written English that I expect of someone who learned the spoken language from his parents and learned the written language from his teachers. When he insisted that he was a native speaker, and presumably writer, I thought that he might instead have some sort of disability. Then someone else said that he seemed paranoid. Clinical paranoia is a form of schizophrenia, and schizophrenia is a thought disorder which manifests itself in difficulty in using language. He really did seem to have a delusion that the Catholic Church was trying to take over Wikipedia, as well as to rewrite history.

He always said that he wrote as he thought. If his thoughts were disordered, his language would be disordered. Maybe he seemed crazy because he was crazy. Robert McClenon 02:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

He's wikistalking us. I shouldn't have said that he was crazy, and may be rebuked for that. At the same time, I think that FK is about to get himself banned by Jimbo Wales. Robert McClenon 17:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I call for editor Str1977's censure and removal from WP

I'm regret to have to do this Str1977 , but as I openly say that you are an enemy to the truth , I therefore owe it to you to express the same to you head-on . I ask user:Pjacobi for oversight and User:Fred Bauder and user:Sam Spade to list you (with me or otherwise) upon the requisite pages for trial before ejection . See Sam Spade discussion for full request to them . I personally resent your commission of IP stalking me that you posted , and your joining with user:RobertMcClenon in attacking my sanity . His jibes attempt to provoke the very paranoia that he wishes to observe . You are a shameful pair in the service of the Hitler/Pacelli quid pro quo and User:JohnKenny should distance himself as far as he can from your discredited positioning and artificial concealments . As you well know I have only had such anti-historical concealment here on WP to suggest to me the real continuance of the 1932/33 vatican policy of quid pro quo . I am not and do not particularly wish to suggest that the policy was adhered to by Pius XI nor Pacelli /Pius XII beyond say 1935. However your remarkable behaviour suggests to me that indeed there is a great deal more shame in the following years yet to be determined or noted . I noted the Sebastian Haffner thesis concerning the meaning of Hitler , and would therefore indeed suggest that the extent of this quid pro quo of murder does in fact extend into the undertaking of the final solution , whatever the factor of loss at Stalingrad may have contributed . Effectively Str1977 , you represent the historical skeletons in the cupboard . the only question , lies not in your ability , but in society, particularly wikipedia society, around you . Therefore real moral people who are concerned to seek the truth will have to be the judge, here as in the real world . I submit to such concern , with all the WP consequences , and in a firm sense of justification . EffK 23:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

De-linking of The Great Scandal Dear St1977 , you justify this exact call I make above by your petulant removal of at least the 6 links to the new article, an article designed as a home for all that is considered by , very often, yourself, as off-topic . Doubtless you classify this as havoc at The Great Scandal , but I suggest to you that you should re-consider this preremptory action which can lead to no good . I further suggest to you , that just as you failed in having the Hitler's Pope article deleted from Wikipedia , by trying un-successfully to so do with this other article now, you shall terminally harm what you believe to be your cause .

EffK 16:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the very civil tone , and the promotions,. Were at 5 all at the RfD! I might get a wikibreak yet... what a lot of carry on for so long ..... I rmd c 4 links of mine . And I shall re-phrase my userpage as much as I can .EffK 20:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

16 Nov 2005-can FK/Str agree to follow on?

I come here hoping to congratulate you Str , for it seems from that which you remove or reposition that you may agree with me in the gist of things at Rkkdt , Weimar Republic and Centre party and resultingly Pius XI & Xii ? Confusion which has reigned for the year has grieved us greatly , and I am so happy if this now spells acceptance of the contentious issues. A couple need clearing up - the exact dates of the working Committee and the correct title it gave itself then, the number of days it sat , whether 16, 17 to 21 or 22 March , as co-chaired by AH and LudK ..... and /or the situation as to the Committee's existence after Kaas returns to meet the Fuhrer , arriving Berlin 31 March . Whether its the same committee, or as you have for many months insisted, that the latter only dates between 31 Mar and up to Kaas 's departrure for Munich By 8 April 1933 .

The other sole point of confusion we should torture our fingers with , is as to the sourcing thus far absent within Books I have sourced, standard round-ups of the post Nuremburg documents and publications, upon which such as Shirer and Toland based themselves. I think you know I write of the WP stated change in the Reichstag procedure , whatever that is , what stated it, how decreed, and showing its pre-Enabling Act contradiction of Article 2 of the Constitution or certainly as represented in WP , a contradiction with Article 2 of the Enabling Act itself. What day this change was brought about? Who empowered it since the Fire Decree of 28 March does not appear to include such vital Deputy arresting proviso in the Fire Decree's pro-rogation of civil liberties? These are quite clearly expressed and do not include sich arresting power of Deputies, and there is an unclear WP aside concerning exactly that to which I point, undated or specified simply saying other and procedural change .

You appear as of now to accept as sourced and NPOV , not as a conspiracy theory of mine alone , that the subject under scrutiny , Hitler's ascent to power, can have the information noticed by the Mowrer /Manhattan/ contemporary writers and then later Cornwell/Kershaw as to various levels of possible/probable/proven vatican leverage and interests in the out-come in Spring 1933.

I would await any useful proving source that you might locate as to disproving information, and back full inclusion everywhere relevant in WP . Equally I would expect you to hold to your present , seeming, ability to balance the present NPOV of sources without their future exclusion other than by actual sourced disproof ( by whosoever can) . I will skip past problems in doing so and just congratulate you , in allowing that which your edits seem to do as of now. This is a victory for sense and the WP, if we can at last agree or see each other as NPOV . I will have to continue to pressure your reducing edits , as I see that every worth-while reference should allow readers to gain a full picture. I believe of course that all reference to Priests suffering precisely for their goodness must be recorded in respect , but equally that episcopal information be presented as sourceable (one of my recent disabled external links did this) and the information does exist for us to do so . This , the change in the episcopate , under Pacelli foreign policy, has to be faced up to , even if it refers also to internal and vatican hsitorical qualifications. I am shocked at von papen's Nuremburg testomony that still in 1936 a high authority of the Church promoted still sought symbiosis with National Socialism and I cannot ignore that which that trial received as information and provides us source . I am sure therefore that we will need to revisit our struggle , but hope that you will by now not characterise the subject by my personal lack of patience, annoyance at interminable repetition and distrust of your reluctance hitherto . I say again , I do not come from Cornwell to Hitler's Pope but from Mowrer quoting the lost Otto Brok , Centre Party member in Berlin at |May 1932. Of course if the present candidate for deletion were to succeed , then there will be a gaping requirement fot the full story to erupt wherever it possibly relates, which as you know in legal manner ,means everywhere it is relevant including the papacy . Links to a NPOV full article only needs the Great Scandal Renamed , and it could go as Nazi Accession Question .

In simplest I state that there are remaining questions , and nither WP nor any editor nor yourself answer it for my satisfaction . One is the is the second above : Procedure for Dormancy . Anothe is when did the church policy re Hitler begin , and the last is when dod it end . von Papen suggests 1936 , but WP has yet to know . Please rv Ludwig Kaas page to mine 30 August 2005 , or I will bring it up to date , OK Ciau. EffK 23:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Caveat

At the moment let me just note

• that EffK's statement about our agreement are wrong. Some things he has posted I have never disputed, while other things I continue to dispute. To say we have reached an agreement or that I have accepted the gist is untrue, unless he has suddenly withdrawn his theories. Hence I place doubt upon the congratulations.
• that EffK is far from having made no error (I don't know what "political" means here
• that I was not EffK/Famekeeper's sole disputant, though the main one. Other editor, e.g. John Kenney were involved with him as well.
• that I meant no harm in posting "FK Research" - it was basically a reaction to his inquisitiveness about personal details of other editors (Robert McClenon in particular), his own seclusiveness in that matter and his insistence on being a native speaker.

I don't know whether this is the right place to post this. If it isn't, please drop me a line and show where I should place this. Str1977 10:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA and Denialism

You may not be aware that Robert McClenon has posted an RfA with me as a defendant .I am more mystified by your comments here than you could be by mine . Your recent editing of reichskonkordat and Weimar republic did ,enfin, not remove but merely rearrange my assertions . Your continuing assumption of bad faith and error seems to suggest that I was too hopeful in recognising a new NPOV understanding. I fear that the RfA will not stand up any justification in respect of the history .I still see no ability by you to provide any source which proves these events and negotiations did not happen as the world recognises them, and am rather surprised that in their absence you see fit to continue , whether by ad hominem accusation or by supposed intellectual parlance . Mr McClenon , as I have so often said to you , could be ironically , doing the world and the Wikipedia some favour, though not himself or you . It is rather as Jimbo said , for someone to try and leave off with their head held up high . I regret that this is forced to fester , when belief in my good faith would have allowed more rapid clarity in the Articles to appear. I have sacrificed a large amount of time towards repair of the errors, and at best I can say there has been considerable and unnecessary time-wasting . This borders on denialist intellectual dishonesty . And still you are unable to back your assertions of my error . I myself pre-empt any other by here censuring you and McCenon and the other from your grossly inwiki ad hominem against my good faith . Your information or the lack of it is pardonable, but that simply justifies my repeated assertions as to the denialism , and is completely out of touch with present scholarship . You may wish to keep this out of Wikipedia, but it is ad hominem , if flattering, to suggest it is an invention of mine . EffK

EffK, Of course, I stand by the edits I made to the articles in question and I am glad that you are content with them. I am not in the least opposed to a NPOV understanding, if it is possible. I recognize the negotiations as the world recognizes them - it is you who claim something extra and this without enough foundation in real sources. As for your errors, you know that I have pointed them out to you as they occur. Either you choose to forget about that or you still don't understand what your error was. I presume (in good faith) that the latter option applies. This is where the real problem lies. Where did I attack you personally or use the "ad hominem" argument (Do you understand what this argument is?) Using hate-mongers like Avron Manhattan or Jack Chick or editorials from atheistic sites is not "present scholarship". I am prepared to contine the understanding, but don't (again) jump to conclusion about an all-out agreement and don't trumpet around such conclusions. Str1977 12:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I see that both you and EffK did see the RfAr before I was able to post notice of it. Last week EffK asked to have you banned as an enemy of the truth, and this week he thinks that you and he have finally reached agreement. I didn't see any agreement. Robert McClenon 13:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that EffK, who under a different guise was asked to leave Wikipedia by Jimbo himself, can't be taken too seriously. Take all his accusations as a comedy routine; otherwise, it's just sad. KHM03 13:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

It occurs to me Str1977 that it is unfair not to have you also invited to the party above , and , you know , I always suggeasted that it be your party .

So, old chum, I want to give you a final chance here to answer my question before I post you personally for Arbcom. The question is quite simple : Why do you personalise within my username the general historical/contemporay accusations made against Pope Pius XI / Pope Pius XII ?

An aside (with the above last user,apart from asking her again why she (?) refuses to justify her erroneous & scandalous deletions from Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandals ), would be to comment that use of French here is subject to the same rigidities applied by the french national guidelines . It has to be French . You , Str , are very touchy about languages , yet refuse to allow that I am a native user ,and whilst I am keenly aware that your english is 99% correct and functional , it is just a little obnoxious that you have not had the requisite good faith to accept my assertion. It may be no more than a ploy to force greater FK research (I quote you) and I shall qualify that I hold to anonymity more for the memory of those millions of anonymous who suffered as a result of the Catholic intrigue , than out of shame . In other words , I seek no glory in blasting the lies that others have suffered .I think however that you break many cardinal concepts of Wikipedia , and that one of them was conducting FK research ( & not an investigation of an actual diff ). I continue , most sadly , to consider you a candidate for arbcom , as I feel a certain responsibility to Wikipedia, emanating from this gratuitous essence of open editing it gives us .

Please, answer the simple question . EffK 17:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

EffK forgets that I cannot converse with him at the moment. He knows why. Str1977 17:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, but it seems I forget marginally less than you do . I behave as the matter warrants , and I shall request user McClenon to post you , as you do not answer this basic question . I have been calling for this , since , was it April 2005 ? Your username is Str1977 , and that is which I will refer to . I am quite prepared to defend cyberspace - I don't think I should have to , but I am forced . Your own User history is the warrant . EffK 19:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

EFFK appearently misunderstands me. It is not that I don't want to talk to him but I can't. He knows why and he hopefully knows "how to cure my ailment". Well, let's give him a hint. Str1977 19:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I refer you to McClenon's page. You needn't lecture me about accusations : you were party to McC's , which did not invlove any distant example (unknown) , but me myself . I am finished with you , it is out of my hands .EffK 22:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with EFFK that doesn't need lecturing about accusations since that what he's been doing since day one. However, he is mistaken if he accuses me. He might not like what Robert said but he should not complain to me, just because I didn't tell Robert off for this. Over at Robert's page, I found this text:

"Dear Robert McClenon , various things draw me to this post here. First your request for an apology : I will apologise most fulsomely for all that you can demonstrate of my ill-action. I'll even say , give , you a general apology for everything, including this post .

"I come to you because of your particular capacity as , perhaps, necessary wikicop . I should congratulate you on so taking this position , as noticer of disputes and referror of arbitration . I will apologise to you , when I know what I have done wrong, and apologize as one human in cyberspace to another , given that I also have utilised the same freedom to remind the world of your relations to me . However ,

"I do not come here but to profit from your virtues , and so , ask you to kindly nominate my shadow , Str19977 for the arbcom . I say , correcting myself this much , "as I have asked for tis since forever" . Or in bureacrese remind you that I asked for this at least 6 months ago of you yourself, McC...

"The User is notified, and has declined to forestall such a request , put to him most clearly on his userpage .

"I do not request that you aplogise to me , I have personal experience of the degree to which your assiduity leads you, and will say no more than - that which you yourself posted , is recorded . We're probably human both of us, and although I object on taste to your qualification of humanity on your user page, we can choose to look for a brighter side now and not eliminate those who do show some useful characteristic from this cyberlife , perhaps even the apologists .

"I do request you , as from the very start of your involvement, and , as I repeated over at the discussion page for the ArbCom , that you , aware of my request now for 6 months , should post my request for arbitration re User:Str1977 .

"I feel it is wrong that the user not be specified , nor that (he/she) should in any way feel diminuished by lack of centrality or the /our sharing thereof on the Arb Com. I say he must be invited to the party / inquest .

"You may , to facilitate in several ways , reduce the allegation towards being exceedingly simple : that user Str1977 is as users Flamekeeper, Fiamekeeper, Corecticus , Famekeeper and now Effk , have charged : the user as characterised by his editorial actions is a vatican apologist/agent .

"You may add that he is by no means alone , though the central and most apparent , and I require you to corrolate that this user has throughout his appearance on Wikipedia , sought to subvert the community on principle , by bad faith and denial of sources .

"I require you to do this because I have confidence in your bureaucratic bite . If you should refuse , doubtless prinkingly , I shall find another such capacitor . You could , perhaps, do me the grace to let me know. I shall await this response I ask of you , and thw which claim , in good faith , OK ? Of course , a reluctance will add to general human woepedia ( thats a suggestion of a term we need , hence brackets ). As you well know , neither I not the user Str1977 , are in any hurry . 20:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

"EffK 22:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)"

So we are back again - I am a Vatican agent again.

Str1977 22:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

EffK Reference

You have several times stated that you cannot directly address EffK. Is that because he has insulted you repeatedly? If so, I cannot directly address him either. Robert McClenon 15:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I am not addressing him directly either. Robert McClenon 17:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

If you wish visit address to you my talk. Both of you address me , always badly hence the above. Musical linguist required me to do so in order for her to reply re: Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal . The weak and downtrodden ! Document war ! Please see my apology to your innocent and wrongly mentioned by me Grand-Father , or not. I didnt want to come and mess up your pages here , you see. If you refuse to accept it, I fear I am in no position to retract the notice I make against you yourself , and McClenon, because I act to your definition and only report this in good faith. EffK 14:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Tanto lo Siento

I can't help what Anne/MLinguist said, she insisted, against WP guides . I am sorry for hurting the family memory of your grandfather.It was stupid of me. It wasn't meant badly at all, rather the reverse, actually, which is why I am surprised at your reaction. Apology made, you know where we two are in cyberspace. I enjoy it when you use, as just now, your kind language because otherwise I fear you greatly. I don't want apologies in return ,and may not deserve them ,and I don't have allies and it's not best for me to judge. But please answer my question . If this is too long, please delete at will EffK 11:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be place at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK/Workshop. Fred Bauder 20:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The Great Scandal

Effk posted an RfC and I've made a proposal to rename and perform a radical rewrite. You seem interested in this subject to some degree (you're involved in the arbitration at least) so I'd like to solicit your feedback before proceeding. My full proposal is at the article talk page. I really don't understand your dispute with him. I just have an interest in German history. Regards, Durova 03:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia

I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [[2]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005 EffK 01:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I did post the spamming of the protest to the article talk pages in evidence. I have also requested that the ArbCom block him until the case is decided, to prevent any further spamming. I would agree with your characterization of his activity as spamming. Robert McClenon 21:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Two of the user talk pages to which he posted his protests belong to two of the arbitrators. In the United States it is a bad idea to harass a judge who is trying a case against you. I assume that it also a bad idea in Germany. Robert McClenon 22:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

You just deleted the comments of three different people on the Talk page with the comment rv spamming. I'm not sure what you were thinking because none of those edits strike me as spam in any sense of the word. I may disagree with their comments but Talk pages are the place where we work out our differences. I've restored all those comments. Rossami (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I see now. I should have realized the problem when I saw that user's comments. Anyway, it's fixed now. Have a good evening. Rossami (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Meaning of Hitler: Hitler not a Christian

Do you have the English translation or German original? Thanks in advance. See talk:Adolf Hitler. Andries 21:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK Arbitration

The ArbCom is now voting on EffK. The current vote is 4-0 to ban him from Wikipedia for one year, with a permanent ban on articles related to the Catholic Church. It appears from the evidence that the ArbCom is citing that a few of the long personal attacks are what made the difference between a shorter ban and a longer ban. I had suggested either one month or three months. The ArbCom is tending toward a year. I will not complain. Maybe some of the articles can actually be improved. Robert McClenon 12:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK article

Might this user's contributions to Wikipedia (English and other) be the subject of a legitimate Wikipedia article? And would it be within Wikipedia rules to reveal this user's identity in that article?--shtove 23:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. To my knowledge there are no WP articles on famous editors, are they? And he will anyway never tell. He always adhered to a "do ask, don't tell policy". Str1977 23:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Did you really remove my query from your page? I wasn't being frivolous, and my apologies to you for any offence given or trouble caused. The idea of an article on a particular user's contributions and experiences (not necesarily EffK's, although I can't think of any more instructive) is interesting - what other encyclopedia could it? I'll get back to you when I've thought about it some more (unless you ask me not to). I have no idea who EffK is (unless it's Gerhard Schroder's ex-wife having a joke under the user-name, Flamekeeper), but the EffK contributions do identify the virtual individual.--shtove 00:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No offence at all. I just wanted to increase the chance of EffK not reading such suggestions. It will only lead to another rant. He will probably read it any way, but one can always try. I can assure you that he's not Schröder's ex-wife, neither Hillu nor her two predecessors. But I won't say more about it in the open because ... well, result as above. Cheers and Goodnight, Str1977 00:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

20 July 1944

What is the significance of 20 July 1944 (since you mention it in discrediting one of EffK's arguments)? Robert McClenon 19:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Robert, let me answer your question (even though you are a procateur).

I have to make a rather long sweep:

EffK once posted (on Kaas, I think) a section called "Vatican exchange", which - in his typical style - talked about Kaas being implicated in secret talks in the Vatican between German resistance circles (represented by Josef Müller) through the Vatican to the British government. In this context, he used the same Pater Leiber he now denounces as a source, without worrying at all about his status as confessor. These talks happened early in the war but were also resumed later. The aim was to reach an agreement between a post-Hitler German government and the British government to end the war - the resistance circles wanted to make sure that their plot would not be "abused" by Germany's enemies to her detriment. All these talks came to nothing, as the British government mistrusted either the honesty or the capabalities of the resistance circles.

(BTW. Kaas was barely involved, but at least this inspired me to create the Josef Müller article.)

Now, EffK posted this and I welcomed his effort, as for once he was posting stuff that seemed to have real value. It also didn't hurt that this time it wasn't the old "Vatican is the bane of humanity" storyline ... or so I thought. EffK, as later posts revealed, denounced these Vatican exchanges as evil. Why? Because, under the attempted agreement, Germany would not have been crushed as she was in 1945 but actually would have retained Austria, the Sudetenland and even parts of Poland. This was enough for EffK to denounce these talks as evil.

What shocked me most was not so much his anger at these German gains (I mean it is not outrageous to criticize this as rewarding the aggressor), but that EffK completely disregard the alternatives and the merits of such an agreement. Had the war stopped in 1940 there would have been no Holocaust and there would have been only a few months of war - with much fewer casualties.

In this context, 20 July 1944 comes into play. On that date, some Wehrmacht officers, led by the Colonel Stauffenberg, tried to oust Hitler from power - Hitler was to be killed by a bomb and then the military would have assumed power, arresting the SS. The coup failed for various reasons (I can elaborate if you want to) and was followed by a purge of the military. (EffK probably would have objected to old Prussian Junker militarists coming to power).

Now people have always argued whether this attempt would have achieved something and in the end Stauffenberg said that it had to be done, even if nothing was to be won, merely for the sake of having tried, even if too late. But, in fact, the coup would have accomplished one thing: the war would have been over much sooner. And in this context the famous calculation is cited: more people were killed in the few months following 20 July than in the whole war before.

If this is true for July 1944, it is just as true for summer 1940. But EffK, judging from his comments, prefers a long bloody war resulting in complete defeat of the aggressor nation to a quick end to bloodshed. This is remarkable, given the things he has accused me of.

Hope that wasn't too longish but I wanted to make it as clear as possible. I post it here, but you can copy it to anywhere you like. Cheers, Str1977 20:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That is interesting. Maybe if that had succeeded, I might be one year older than I am now. Robert McClenon 21:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK shouldn't try to use a French word if he can't spell it. However, he also probably shouldn't try to use English words if he can't punctuate and parse them. If there is one more vote by the arbitrators, he won't be allowed to use English words in WP. Robert McClenon 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Robert, that's interesting what you are saying. Is it because your grandfather/father would have returned from war a years earlier, or something along the line?

As for your other post, I am shocked: Will EffK really be allowed to use other languages? He could also argue that it wasn't English what he ... but no. I remember that, according to his interpretation, the use of languages other than English is forbidden on Wikipedia ... along with jokes, irony and proper punctuation.

Anyway, here's a link you might want to look at. I think you know what I mean ;-) Str1977 22:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If he is banned, he is not allowed to post in the English Wikipedia. It is true that posts in article space in the English Wikipedia must be in English. Posts in user talk spaces may of course be in any language. I meant that he won't be allowed to use words in WP after the case is closed. Robert McClenon 22:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I meant that my father fought in World War Two. However, on further thought, my conclusion is probably incorrect. The United States was fighting on two fronts in 1944. If peace had been negotiated in Europe, he would probably have been sent back to the United States for more training to wait for the invasion of Japan. Since he was in the Army, he would not have been sent directly to the Pacific islands. Japan might then have been reunified in 1991. You might have more aunts and cousins than you have now. Robert McClenon 22:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Robert, I hope you have noticed the irony in my "shocked" paragraph. Thanks for the information - and you are right both a great-uncle and my grand-father (the one recently maligned by ...) fell in the war, the latter in the last days if April. But then again, my mother might have never met my father. I will in the not so distant future post a comment about the "Scandal" article. Cheers, Str1977 22:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My father had already met my mother before the United States entered the war.

Did you notice the comment that Bengalski's cat makes about EffK? Robert McClenon 13:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice that EffK is now telling Bengalski to "run for his life" and to get a different username. I see that in July 2005, when I was trying to help him present his case, he gave me similar advice. I think that he thinks that anyone who tries to edit from a POV that is critical of the Catholic Church will be pursued by agents of the Vatican. Also, he has said that the reason he keeps changing his user name is that he won't give Wikipedia his email address, out of privacy concerns. Then he loses his login passwords and has to get new user names. Robert McClenon 13:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If I am not wanted

., I shall take myself away. if I am wanted I shall remain,so if you want me and my supposed criminal POV pushing to remain, say so, make it remain. Expletives deleted all the way through. Goodbye.EffK 12:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Your block up there doesnt seem to get it. I will delete all I posted as now criminalised. You may yet prove to be a party, so you do that you wish. I shall continue to revert and have reversion-ing effected from wherever I can locate the reversion to be done from around the planet. You can do or say your worst. You are a defender of canonical criminality, you are a two faced brazen liar, but then you are entirely normal as well.

I am marking this as possibly EffK's last personal attack, and in any case as evidence that he is still engaging in personal attacks. Robert McClenon 19:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Report all you wish-I am criminalised and banned already, actually. I shall be making no appeal within Wikipedia, as I have informed the publisher. He wants to publish that I am a criminal liar, that is his risk. It was not a pleasure being subject to your dishonesty. Soon not to be EffK 14:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can see your reverts, but it'll make no difference. You see even at a distance the rv of the rv can be effected in one click by anyone. So there is absolutely no hurry once I have set the template. EffK 14:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Abortion Talk page

Kyd and Killerchihuahua are arbutrarily excising comments they don't like simply becuase the comments expose the uneven application or rules or editing conventions. Please intervene. 84.146.206.84

Re : EffK vandalism note

Why, Diablo, did you remove the note about EffK's vandalism. Do you say that nothing will be done about it? He is continuing it, also under his IP User:159.134.212.151. Str1977 15:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Str1977, I thought he was given 48 hours by Sceptre, isn't it? [3] Let me know if I'm grossly wrong, and I'll deal with him myself. -Mailer Diablo 15:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that. But anyway, he is still on the prowl as [4]. He might also appear as User:Flamekeeper, User:Famekeeper, User:Fiamekeeper, User:Corecticus or User:PureSoupS. Str1977 15:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've gave 48 hours to the IP as well. This should settle it. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 15:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Str1977 15:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :) Given the number of sockpuppets this person's is using, I suppose I may actually be dealing with someone notorious? ;) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Notorius: yes (that's why he is under Arbitration). Sockpuppets: not really. His use of names is akin to "serial monogamy". He uses one for a while and than drops it. He claims he has lost the relevant cookies. That might be true in some cases but not in others. Recently he has "found" a long-lost cookie again and posted on one page using a different name for each sentence, as a sort of farewell show. He is about to be banned from WP but appearently he wants to have fun during his last days. Str1977 15:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see! Thanks for the background info. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

EffK and Brothers Again

Bengalski thought that the ArbCom's action was too harsh. Maybe EffK is trying to persuade Bengalski that the ArbCom is right.

As you know, the one-year ban, which is about to go into effect, is longer than even I had requested, but I think that EffK is giving them very little choice. Robert McClenon 19:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

EffK Case

The ArbCom has closed the EffK case. He is banned for one year from Wikipedia. He is banned indefinitely from articles related to the Catholic Church, and can be blocked from any articles that he disrupts. Robert McClenon 18:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

EffK

I've reblocked - I really can't see how he became unblocked. If a user has a long block and a short block when the short block expires they are unblocked - he had a 48 hour block before being banned for a year but it expired the day before he was banned again. I've made a note of what's happened on the page. Secretlondon 20:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

But he has only been editing his own talk page, hasn't he? And blocked users are technically able to do that. That was a new feature requested by Ed Poor last summer, so that blocked users would still have a means of communication. I'm not sure if banned (as opposed to simply "blocked") users are allowed to edit their talk page — perhaps that could be clarified. Certainly, EffK seems to believe he's allowed to do so, so if he isn't, he should be informed. AnnH ^(talk) 20:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Secretlondon 20:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

User talk:EffK

I'm posting this message to you at EffK's request (as you know, he can only edit his own talk page). EffK makes a number of demands of AnnH on his talk page (see there for more details), and asked me to inform you of this. In particular:

• I demand (1) of you that you forthwith correct your administrator's reckless disregard for incorrect Wikipedia editing, against Verifiability, against Archival practise and in the actioning of Wikpedia censorship,

• I demand (2) that you admit that you have acted as a cabal with Str1977 and McClenon to block the verifable truth and to apologise openly for allowing YOUR christian faith to lead you to mal-administrate the Wikipedia.

• I demand (3) of you that you now return to the Arbcom and place there the admission of your error, and call for my re-instatement as a non-POV rational, good editor with the remoal of all stain on my name encapsulated with my lifetime ban from "Catholic" Articles.

• I demand (4) you place there the question of your allies' Str1977 and Robert McClenon's wrongful accusations, as editors requiring long term banning for their long term actions against Wikipedia principles.

• I demand (5) that you call direct to Jimbo's page and own-up to the anti-verifiability agenda that you have supported through-out, and

• I demand (6) that you no longer hide behind ignorance of the subject and

• I demand (7) of you, a personal complete public apology . If you are sincere that you do not understand the history, accede to all of my demands by starting with reading Bengalski and then as GMaxwell says above,

• I demand (8) you remove youreslf forthwith from the Article namespace wherever I have been or where I will return."

Bengalski 23:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)