Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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: 19:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute

This RfC is about the conduct of

Holocaust. Famekeeper is annoyed that his name has been domain registered so has chosen the unattractive name of User:PureSoupS. By now, he has adopted the name of EffK
.

Description

The user in question maintains that leaders of 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.

The user in question has more recently developed an unusual method of highlighting, which is to put large amounts of text in brackets. This causes the bracketed text to be displayed in red, with links. Clicking on one of the links causes a message that a page by that name has not yet been created. This disrupts Wikipedia, whether to make a point about Wikipedia, or to make a point by yelling.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Breach of civility and using Wikipedia as a soapbox:

Using a VfD on an article that he wrote as a soapbox:

Inserting a complaint into a Wikipedia official policy article on NPOV:

A request (from another editor) not to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, to which the response was insulting:

One of a series of rants about "intractable disputes" and "intellectual dishonesty" posted in red (as false wiki-links), also containing personal attacks:

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

Calling a consensus of Wikipedians who disagreed with him on a VfD "cyborgs"

Calling an editor who disagreed with him "very naughty" and the consensus of Wikipedians as "stupid:

An apparent threat to wikistalk another editor:

Accusing another editor of being untrustworthy and a bully:

Another attack on the Wikipedia community:

A lengthy and vituperative personal attack on an editor's talk page, containing a variety of strange attacks:

Posting unverifiable 'common knowledge' in an article

Posting an article that stated that it made no attempt to distinguish POV and NPOV

Wikistalking by responding to an article in user space to which no links had yet been posted:

No legal threats What appears to be a threat to use a German court to charge Wikipedia with Holocaust denial (though nothing warranted this charge)

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
No legal threats

Applicable guidelines

{list the guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct} 

Assume good faith
Talk page guidelines
Wikipedia:Common knowledge

WP:POINT

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links) An early request to be civil was:

Another request to be civil was:

A request to identify the factual portions of the article that were in dispute was:

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:

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.

A more recent reminder to refrain from personal attacks by an admin:

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Robert McClenon 19:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Str1977 09:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. k 22:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. JASpencer 12:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rangerdude 03:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~):

. This is the centre of modern world history - the mysterious 'suicide of democracy' . All argument stems from this one point - the meeting these two held in private on 2 April 1933 . (see Timeline which due to the time this argument has persisted , has been changed now to here by the outside organisation, not by myself- [[1]] ). The subject for complex reason spills between the church and the political . Both are relevant , but to see reason you have to visit archives etc on

No , I do not soapbox, I follow JWales explanation guideline . I currently ask

Holocaust article . This is all wrong , and I shall expect a full arbitration in due course . I was made supicious when I arrived on WP - my belief good faith is much damaged . I require an answer from JWales about the order to infiltrate, and I require that all users come under a resulting suspicion , as if they were susceptible to a Cult , one billion strong . Sorry Jimbo
- there had to be a catch .(Please visit my name page to see the question and his answer, as I cannot obscure the outside response below with my defence , yet :fair enough ,reader?) In fact user Str1977 did not attempt to resolve the dispute as he Str1977 is the dispute Therefore he has no basis to certify. IF there were two honest users who understood I would invite them to put up a request for study upon Str1977 within wikipedia source guidelines for Str1977 entire editing history .I refer any potential two intellectually honest users to [[2]] in red at bottom.Irrefutable proof and to entire discourse where this user does never mediate but only denies source.

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.}

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)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. --AI 01:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

View of FuelWagon

Whether Famekeeper's assertions around the topics are true or not, he seems unable to write those assertions within wikipedia guidelines for NPOV, especially avoiding writing assertions as absolute truths or as "views from nowhere" (explained in NPOV). His assertions need to be put into terms of "so and so said this" and provide a link to verify it. Famekeeper could also benefit by learning to play well with others on the talk pages. FuelWagon 14:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):[reply]

  1. - Robert McClenon 18:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. - Str1977 11:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. - AnnH ♫ 17:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Famekeeper&oldid=1074623691"