Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/EffK/Workshop

message: The one month ban is a bad idea, EffK is not a troublemaker. he is instead a person w very strong feelings about a very select time and place, that being the era of Franz von Papen and his coalition that placed Hitler near the reigns of power. EffK is extremely well read on this subject, likely due to his strong feelings. He should not be barred from providing content for other editors to proofread. The problem as I see it has been some anger issues regarding User:Str1977, Catholicism generally, and von papen particularly. In sum, EffK has donated a good deal of well sourced and enlightening material regarding this era, but has been overzealous and imperfectly articulate at times. I would like to point out that I have been able to get on w the man rather well, despite the dissimilarity of our views. Sam Spade 17:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit that Str1977 has more right to request satisfaction in this case than anyone I am aware of. I ask him to contemplate what he wishes to see done and request it, because as he said he has often been on the bad side of EffK, taking abuse and cleaning up messes. His opinion here carries a special weight. Sam Spade 22:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: One month ban

message: :I have to say that Sam's kindnesses ignore the fact that the messes are entirely Str1977's and Robert McClenon's now. Sam has not in fact seen Str1977 cleaning up any messes of factual character. His memory must be remiss . Str1977 has absorbed, as have many artciles, much of my contributions. I am not concerned, and show it, with composition, except where it is massage. In fact I claim there is not factual error on my part ever . The Articles are in a mess now. They are outrageously much in a denialist massaged mess. The clearest example is that of the  section I criticise atCentre Party Germany. If you have no time for more , read that mess. 
:I repeat to Arbiters, as to Sam, that I actuallly demand, now, that this Arbcom relate  as much to the massage created and defended by Str1977 and his co-masseur Robert Mcclenon, as to my reaction. These editors ignore source, source which is not original research, but main-stream historians. The insinuation that I make original research is outrageous ad hominem . I do not do other than quote from source. There is a policy  made against me and it is is Revisionist Clerical Denialism in Wkipedia, and the subject of this Arbcom should become whether this charge of mine is supported by diffs  and source or not. It should not consider personality whatever. I demand the right as a conscientious user to counter what is personal attack, with  your investigation of factual occurrence of denialism , or not . Any satisfaction all round can only be based upon evidential truth. I can and have proved everything I say, including characterisation I make of user's motives. The dispute is quite simply as to whether I be blocked out of correcting this clerically originating massage, or not. I will accept a mentor in all good faith, and in the knowledge that my sources will then enable a proper rendition of many Articles . I will insist  even-handedly that these two opponents accept the same. If the source is not represented truthfully, it will then become abundantly clear. It is in my interest that this shall be done, as I will be justified, and will be able to un-massage the  History pages relevant . I will not accept however that I alone be Tried in this, or judged in this, or assigned a mentor in this, when my clear proof of denialism shows others to be factually  and wilfully at fault against my good faith.
:A ban on me without the above extension of this Arbitration I will not recover from, as I shall have to see Wikipedia as denyinfg its own principles . I showed that I could walk away from Wikipedia, and the User's gloating in medical terms , demanded my return. I have only ever remained to be of assistance to this project. A temporary ban will achieve no good, as the obstructive behaviour I challlenge, will still operate after a month, as it has continued for 9 months solid 24/7. I suggested openly at Arbcom that nothing short of expulsion would suffice for Str1977, I still believe he is an active and therefore intellectually dangerous  clerical denialist . Therefore I have to expect the possibilty, that I equally or alone, suffer such fate. I will bear any such ban with pride considering the justice of the matter. After my request here for expansion of this Trial, possible as my tormentor McClenon stated, I shall consider a denial of its acceptance  by Arbcom, as un-acceptible community care confirming my worst WP fears. EffK 01:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response by EffK, Request by EffK

message: I am excessively offended by this Arbitration.EffK 19:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what EffK is saying.  It appears that he is accusing the arbitrators of bad faith.  I would advise against insulting or attacking the arbitrators.  If he is claiming that the other parties to the arbitration are acting in bad faith, then I trust the arbitrators to decide such issues fairly.  Robert McClenon 20:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I refer to the bringing of this case, of course. And, Please do not characterise evidence as stream of consciousness. The consciousness lacking in WIKIPEDIA is clearly demonstrable and artificial and intended. And it is down to WP verifiability.EffK 11:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not characterize evidence as stream of consciousness.  Mindspillage, who is one of the arbitrators, restated the long-standing rule that stream-of-consciousness posts are not useful in arbitration.  Mindspillage was probably trying to advise EffK that EffK's commentary and responses were lengthy and rambling and not persuasive.  Mindspillage was not characterizing evidence as stream of consciousness, but was saying to present evidence or summaries rather than providing stream-of-consciousness commentary.  Robert McClenon 16:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad faith arbitration