User talk:Robert McClenon/FK archive

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with }), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * (Example user | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
This RfC is about the conduct of Famekeeper, in particular, incivility and POV-pushing with respect to issues of Catholic Church complicity in the Holocaust.

Description
The user in question maintains that leaders of the Catholic Church, including Pope Pius XII and Ludwig Kaas, the leader of the Catholic Centre Party, were guilty of collusion with Adolf Hitler and so share responsibility for the Holocaust. He claims that because the articles do not present that POV, they are not neutral. That claim is a POV that has been stated by several scholars and it is appropriate to present it as POV. However, while the user in question demands that discussion in order to achieve NPOV, his use of article talk pages as a soapbox makes any resolution impossible. He has in the past treated deletion of unsourced arguments as censorship. Requests for a summary of specific passages that he considers to show a lack of neutrality have been responded to with lengthy non-specific rants. Several Wikipedians have given up on the possibility of improving on any of the articles in question. The user's swamping of article talk pages has the effect of a filibuster.

Evidence of disputed behavior
Breach of civility and using Wikipedia as a soapbox: Talk:Ludwig Kaas Talk:Ludwig Kaas

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

Personal attacks: For a section accusing an editor with an alternate point of view of being an "agent of the Vatican": Talk:Ludwig Kaas

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

Posting unverifiable 'common knowledge' in an article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hitler%27s_Pope&diff=19411498&oldid=19036250

Posting an article that stated that it made no attempt to distinguish POV and NPOV http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope%27s_Hitler&diff=19421356&oldid=19408928 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope%27s_Hitler&diff=19444810&oldid=19435899

Applicable official policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct} Be civil What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a soapbox No personal attacks Resolving disputes Verifiability and citing sources

Applicable guidelines
{list the guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct} Assume good faith Talk page guidelines Common knowledge

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links) An early request to be civil was: Talk:Ludwig Kaas, to which the response was Talk:Ludwig Kaas

Another request to be civil was: Talk:Ludwig Kaas, in response to which Famekeeper apologized for calling Str1977 an "agent of the Vatican" but continued to use Wikipedia talk pages as a soapbox

A request to identify the factual portions of the article that were in dispute was: Talk:Ludwig Kaas, to which the response was Talk:Ludwig Kaas, which does not state the sections that are in dispute but only that there is a dispute.

An attempt to provide a neutral point of view article for the discussion of arguments supporting and opposing his contention of Catholic complicity was made in: Talk:Hitler's Pope by creating Catholic Holocaust Complicity Views. However, no points of view were added to that stub by the user in question. Instead, he created an article entitled Pope's Hitler (listed above) that admitted that it mixed POV and NPOV.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * Robert McClenon 19:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )

Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

View of User:Pjacobi
The behaviour of User:Famekeeper on talk pages seems to be borderline problematic. But in the factual case, he has some points: Reichskonkordat get's only very few wikilinks. Even Pope Pius XI doesn't link to it. In fact critical encyclicals from 1931 and 1937 are mentioned, and nothing is written about the time between. I also consider it strange by User:Robert McClenon to create the stub Catholic Holocaust Complicity Views which can be seen as an effort to keep critical views out of the main articles. --Pjacobi 23:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.