Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Famekeeper

message: Pjacobi finds my action in creating the stub for discussion of the controversies rather strange.  Perhaps it was a mistake in a period of Wikistress.  My objective had been to give Famekeeper somewhere to put sourced arguments critical of the Church that could be linked by all of the articles.  Maybe that was a mistake, but I was tired of trying to get him to say what sections of any article he disputed.  Robert McClenon 14:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and follow-up 

message: The following is archived from User Talk:Robert McClenon.  Robert McClenon 01:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: McClenon  Rfc against Good Faith of Famekeeper

message: Why exactly did you ask me to paraphrase an answer defining the Papal excommunicants Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII within  grave sin and mortal sin and then qualify  that  with especially hard further concepts of divided something? You knew I had dealt with the fairly logical canonicals , which spoke for themselves . Just a niggling  question . How did you know what to ask for ?Famekeeper 22:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Faith of Robert McClenon

message: You wouldnt know whether there has or has not been any  proof of moral complicity  because you  have not read the relevant discourse. If you had you wouldn't ask . I find your attitude one of biased innuendo . You say I cannot understand NPOV  but you spend your whole time in this  defending biased  editing . I have not been removing relevant scholars all the way thru . Listen ...you say I am not capable of doing something-only the most difficult thing history can require, then you order me to do it . I hardly think you have ever displayed  good faith towards me , and your  back-tracking now is visible . I should like an apology , and I shall consider whether I shall use the WP as organ or not . I think you require this  concision because you  wish to avail of the case for defensive purposes . I will wait until this is demanded by some more neutral observers, so why don't you get up a vote : should FK be forced to summarize  his own sourced argumentation under insult by McClenon and Str1977 , or after an apology  for your inuendo of today ? Or before or after a withdrawal of the unjust Rfc against Famekeeper? 
As fas as I can see you are trying either to obtain advance info of the real canonical case- for vatican defensive purpose,  or else, you are now blustering to cover your inconsistancy with your Rfc accusations . From it being me 'pushing my POV' , it's now FK is a silly  man who can't distinguish between POV and NPOV anyway , can't write  ,yet actually now you see him justified and even support  the supposed POV  but yet  he must be asked to summarize that which he has spent months of writing trying in good faith to justify .  For whom , you ? I don't see that you are neutral at all , McC. I think it may be best to await the arbitrators, I can get my 500 words together  at home, so to say . And you ,vaticanitos ,  can sweat . PS  you will find one article's history of massage/censorship at Pope Pius XII , also beside your anti-FK  innuendo at Ludwig Kaas talk .Famekeeper 18:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting dead serious , guys. McC- Str is disrupting my accounts here I ask for a signal he will not impede me , he refuses . My signature is note of this . I would like the civilty of active  upload  there where I am preparing my POV report on Ludwig Kaas  . Ialso  include the point I  should have made to you in the above . Famekeeper 21:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all , this is Str ad hominem . McC attacked me , very many times, went to law in fact  to show me up . I ask a question , why no answer ?  I don't take your or his attacks to be valid, and I intend to prove it . He does not have to insult my IQ . I have not insulted his , or yours . I do threaten you with arbitration , user arbitration . Famekeeper 22:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Innuendo of User McClenon

message: Arbitrators , this cannot go on . I cannot be blocked from attempting  to resolve the issue  and insulted  for not working towards an outside understanding .  I consider myself blocked by  Str1977  as of this minute at discussion , Ludwig Kaas . I end now , with no way to complete the task concerning my accusations . I protest this minute this block .Famekeeper 22:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Famekeeper Blocked

message: McClenon, I have prepared  what you asked for  , the 500 word Arbitration Summary  . I will  not post it to you here but  you can call for arbitration on my behalf . I thankyou in advance (though I still reject your innuendo ). 500 words  are a complete round -up(including briefest summary of the  Roman Catholic Christian   Church internal Law-breaking ). Famekeeper 08:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration Str1977/Famekeeper

message: I have to say that reversion of what I source so clearly three times in 2 days just leaves me completely  baffled as to how this WP works . I refer to this action as being  being against wikipedianess .I'm trying to be civil for a year now , and for 3/4year I am battling one article - Pope Pius XII . What have you got to do  -die? Famekeeper 00:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: August 10 2005

message: Pasted from JW's message board:
I'm sorry Jimbo , but  I see the responsibility  to settle intractable disputes rests with you  . I seem to run into intractable dispute on your WP , so I ask you to take responsibility . No one else can take  this your place .
I refer you to the articles Pope Pius XII and Hitler's Pope as the centre of this dispute  and ask you to put yourself into the position of final arbiter now, OK ? I particularly think that the  surviving Roman Jewess's words be  taken as an  issue : I wish you therefore to show or not show , that an Auschwitz survivor be  called POV (  rv'd ,Pius in WWar 2) . You will see that the  difference between  the two articles at this minute  is simple : one (PPII) is the  'censored' or whatever version of the other (H's P).
Having been  battling to and beyond the brink for 8 months on the one article  , I say that only you can survey this with any authority to do anything about it . Let you be the judge  of all the WP requisites, knowing that your judgements  are real  , and that ultimately you yourself will equally be judged . Auschwitz survivors are  definitely in a minority and this  responsibility  for arbitration I lay at you because you are the organ . I will consider myself  in-active until you  please let me know that I am  required . As various users may  find this disappearance odd , I post this letter to you for them to see  elsewhere . Famekeeper 09:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: JWales Final  Responsibility re:Auschwitz Testimony  Against Pope Pius XII etc

message: This was interjected on the Pope BXVI talk page  and is pretty strange . Perhaps when the guy finally understands it's their law , not mine, he might get wise . So far , not being prepared to wade through the relevant "tosh" I write , he didnt understand . Apparently there's no question of any trial , so that is  not relevant . 
:::::I only posted an RfC against Famekeeper after he had repeatedly made the bizarre statement that canon law demand that Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII be exhumed so that they could stand trial.  He has yet to cite a section that refers to a moral requirement to insult the dead in this fashion.  Robert McClenon 05:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: McClenon 's reason for the Rfc

message: Users who  act in ad hominem act in ad hominem,  and  that's that . I am cited as a liar because some people cannot see a reference to canonical law where it says three inches(7 cm) above "canonical law" . this is tedious , and above you Str . Please desist from ad hominem ,- it does not deflect people from the serious moral consequences still flowing from papal collaboration with anti-communist Nazism . Sorry .Famekeeper 23:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ad hominem

message: This user does not run into problems as he is very kindly and clever to all and sundry . I alone certify that this User is a malign and intellectual negative influence on all the pages , to my experience, that he edits. I have caught this user from hos very start trying, and without me , succeeding , in emasculation of true history downwards to sanitised history .This user leaves no room for mental stability to my good faith and his  intractability has filled the WIKIPEDIA with endless pleas for intellectual honesty for nigh on a year. This cannot go on , and whilst I actually like this editor, he knows very well that he is stifling me in complete bad faith . Famekeeper 10:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Fam]]ekeeper and User:Str1977

message: Could an example or examples of Famekeeper's recent edits to a main namespace article be linked to here?  One that was factual, verifiable (or with a citation), well-written, and neutrally worded.  In short, something that fits into the Wikipedia and not something that is more appropriate to a blog or discussion board.  I have to admit that from looking at his recent User Contributions, I was unable to find one. patsw 02:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for trying to be positive.  I have never found that any of his edits were neutral or that they added any content except his anger.  I hope that someone else can find a useful edit that he has made.  Robert McClenon 02:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of good edits 

message: Here is some stuff that Famekeeper has posted to my talk page.  There's plenty more where this came from if you're interested in some perplexing reading, though this is perhaps the most perplexing of the bunch.  I offer this not in order to complain nor to make any particular point with respect to the dispute at hand, but rather as background evidence in case someone new to the case is trying to figure out which side of the argument represents the tinfoil hat brigade.--Jimbo Wales 02:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Illegal the assembly that passed the Enabling Act for Adolf Hitler (constitutional protection of deputies transgressed) , Illegal the Government of Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party contravention of section 2 of Enabling Act .Illegal the Government of Nazi Germany from 28 Febuary 1933 deputy detentions  ( as found by the  Nuremburg Trials, Illegal the Roman Catholic reichskonkordat per the versailles treaty , by internal catholic law Illegal the popes Pius XI and XII subjects excommunicated at offence Illegal present continuance by present German Government   of vatican treaty .Guilty Contumacy  charge against Holy See of 1933    proved by the existence  of Secret Annexe : 'RESULT : WWII , HOLOCAUST Ends
Use it all, as it is  digimmortal  ! Famekeeper 01:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff from my talk page