Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/EffK/Evidence

message: * 15.59  
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler&diff=35685791&oldid=35685237,[], conclusive statement by Str1977 that he is actively guarding Wikipedia from source presented by EffK.
::::Guiding Message to achieve Inclusion made now to Arbitration Committee(only):-
:::: I forget whether I am allowed to remove/substitute evidence but I wish to substitute this important admission , which elucidates my case. I am persistently trying to load the Evidence page with this, and I am un-able to do so. I think my browser cannot load the page, and I feel I should not be so prevented in finalising my Evidence by a weight of accusatory diffs weighing MY page. If I prove un-able to load this I request that the Arbitrators herewith accept this substitution , in the good faith that must be accorded me as a User, and ignore the diff, of mine, last by number c 184/whichever it is. I have brought this to the attention of Fred Bauder, and ask him to effect that substitution or bring this to your notice. Thankyou.EffK 18:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 18 January 2005

message: I am nearly completely muzzled, and nearly speechless, after the latest and  Centre Party Germany discussion harassment.
I understand exactly why the gist of a group of users is to obstruct all sourced truth from me , and note that concert for what it is . Indeed it serves  more my qualification than its own purpose in this its denialism , which is un-tenable in the long run . This is not why I speak here.
I come here to say that the experience I have of Wikipedia is that however much it vaunts some clear and helpful community rules, its elected and appointed arbitrators do not take seriously a User's, Mine, request that arbitration be instigated for the central obstructive barrier against [my]sourced history, who is  User:Str1977 . I warned this User on his user-page, as decency required, and I requested User Robert McClenon on his page to submit the Request for Arbitration. I submitted directly to Arbitration a letter of request to do exactly this. I did and do not know technically how to do a firmer request, and requested this in good faith to be seen by this area of Wikipedia (Arbitration).
I only write to say that Arbitration itself was continuously requested by me on relevant disputed Artiles  and then here at Arbitration Discussion  after 1 yr. continuous obstructionism by these two named Users . I alone in limited technical fashion, ie. on relevant talk pages, asked continuously for Arbitration for the intractable and personal dispute because I am the only sourceing counter-editor. I today, as through-out, protest what is at the least a 2-User cabal of wrong in pure WP terms of denial of source(McClenon and Str1977). These Users are joined with only 3  fellow sympathisers, all of whom are prepared to sunder the sources provided, by signing actions against me. I have to re-protest user:John Kenney, whose historical errors seem to have left him the grudge behaviour visible at Evidence for 11 December 2005 . This minor assailant appears simply to wish to provoke me into wrong, such that he can then add his diff of a tiff. His actions are serious in respect of history, as is Str1977 continuous POV massage, and to an extent only predicated on his limited understanding, that of user Robert McClenon.
The other two users who have both attempted to bolster obstruction of me , do this at Request for comment, though one of them I called up for  RC Chuch Sex Abuse whitewash, hardly remembering she was already an opponent to my awkward factual sourced presence.
I wish to bring yet again to the notice of the Arbitrators, that I wished for an arbitration , requested it under the Arbitration, was ignored by the Arbitrators, therefore that the case against me must please be followed OR now conjoined with another Arbitration as I through-out requested.
I am in no hurry to add to hard pressed arbitration work, and I have limited my Evidence to a minor part of the diffs possible . I would expect that this other/possibly general arbitration, would have to repeat all the current Evidence presented  by me and by the other two users,Str1977 and Robert McClenon and that the logic therefore is to roll all the Arbitration from the same dispute, into one . Please consider the importance of history articles being correct or massaged, as I charge . Please take as  seriously as it deserves the charge made against me in the present Arbitrataion, (that I promote a personal theory). 
Thankyou . EffK 13:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Effk reminds Arbitration that he requested Arbitration and still requests it please

message: I recognise that I am completely muzzled. Whether Wikipedia recognises this thru Arbitration is not my concern. I refer you to my response of a few moments ago.EffK 01:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: December 16 Abandonment

message: Sam, I'm sorry to have to go against your earlier advice of not making life hard ar Arbcom-or avice that it wasnt a good moment. I did not persist with my request for Arb., after you so advised but  McClenon did, but against me. I also did not lose my cool with Kenney, as you calmed me. I showed the POV there at Centre exactly as it is in one of two relevant sections. However the combination since that Kenney makes with McClenon is more than a contributor should have to bear, so I have repeated more formally, as formally as I am capable of, my call to Arbitrate Str1977 and what I qualify as "Revisionist Clerical Denialism in Wikipedia". As always you are the only Editor who has shown any continued good faith impartiality towards me, and I request you to be aware, if not assist, this current request. I repeat it at Arbcom discussion and on my Evidence Discussion. I feel let down by this community big-time , and I wish to give it the chance to hold to its noble values now through expansion of the Arb on me , or a subsequent over-lapping repeat Arbitration. If no one else will do it for me, I ask you to do so. I do not understand the instructions as to how it is listed. It is RCDinW as above stroke Str1977/Robert McClenon. You may imagine all the expletives you have never yet heard , the which I do not express in WP writing.
It was bound to be like this- and I only suggest you follow the import of the Fire Decree (Courts Decrees) and Enabling Act recent sourceing and pay particular attention to:* The continued contradiction between Papen's answer in the negative re:Deputy arrest, at Nuremberg (and WP suggestion of legality through suspension habeas corpus) : * The un-constitutionality of all Hindenberg Decrees under Article 48 per Rosenberg; *That there is one issue, the Fire, and that alone as an illegal Common-Plan or Conspiracy justifying the previous 6 March 1931 un-constitutiional Decree ; *Article/section 2 of the Enabling Act as sole constitutional reflection on WP relevant to sovereignty of reichstag deputies(as part of the Institution). 
You will understand , and you will know that which is still required, and which I have been rquesting for some months : constitutional justification even under Armed Revolt Art.48 for Deputy arrests.
In so far as it would serve my purpose well I would accept a mentor, but , only if the opposite editors accept mentors. If, thereby, rules as to source are upheld, and harassment and provocation stop I would be happy . I ask you to answer this at Evidence for EffK/Discussion, if you need to at all. I place this comm. to you there as relevant 
Bye bye EffK 14:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 11 Dec request to Sam Spade's Talkpage

message: Hello, have we met before?  You posted to my user talk page referring me here but nothing rings a bell.  It's too bad you seem to be having difficulties.  I wish you well. Durova 03:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't know what your dispute is about, but per your advice I checked The Great Scandal.  The problems I listed in last month's delete vote haven't been addressed.  I've nominated it for cleanup and listed my reasons on the talk page.  In a similar vein I left comments at Hitler's Pope.  I your situation works out.  Best wishes. Durova 02:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Your message

message: I hold a university degree in history.  I also studied German history in some depth and can speak German.  I find Effk's criticisms of both Hitler's Pope and The Great Scandal to be meritorious.  Both articles deserve NPOV and Cleanup tags.  The articles now have them.
The relevant issues are complex and weighty.  Neither article attempts to do the subject justice.  The net effect is to portray the Roman Catholic Church in an unduly positive light by stressing certain favorable actions, stressing rebuttals to some criticisms, and ignoring other criticisms.
Considering the importance of the topic, administrators may want to consider some alternative remedy.  The ultimate goal is to offer good balanced articles to the public.  Perhaps an article improvement drive would be appropriate after arbitration has closed. Durova 15:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Following up with a word for the arbitrators

message: Effk has posted an RfC for several pages.  It doesn't appear that my flags for cleanup or NPOV have improved either article.  I really have no interest in the Effk arbitration nor do I understand much of it.  I do have an interest in German history.  Today I proposed a rename from The Great Scandal to The Great Scandal (Hitler) and a radical rewrite to bring it in line with the theory it is named after.  This Wikipedia article has misrepresented its subject from start to finish.  I will wait for other comments before proceeding. Durova 03:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: My curious attitude, highlighted so admirably by Musical Linguist's subsequent  bringing in of  formal Evidence to the case, in no small part emanates from the curious case of the state of Pius XI's neck noted by his man of the bed chamber,so to speak, a (French) Eugene Cardinal Tisserand. If the source is correct , which I do not know, it is a report of a Primary Source, the French Cardinal as a direct witness, mentions this in his memoirs, apparently. The rumours he was murdered have been included even in Wikipedia for some six months now, with the really interesting caveat "that it is is not widely believed". I may or may not be believed but, whatever about me, the Wikipedias plural allow 6 months claim that it is believed, if not widely. I consider therefore that there is quite enough suspicion already for my little suspicions to be based on rationality. I think an assumption of good faith would see that I am not without foundation in postulating that which Musical Linguist refers to. I add that the  Jtdirl inclusion of the murder 'rumour' emanating from Tisserand, is also aligned in other online Tisserand comment as to the state of this pope's neck or body showing signs of bruising, or similar. I would add that the one online book review I read suggested Pius XI was murdered by Pacelli or known to this camerlengo. Cardinal Tisserant is claimed as making this accusation by Paul Williams in The Vatican Exposed. Is it relevant?. If not relevant, why is it there in our Wikipedia, albeit not accusing the Camerlengo? i doubt it is the only book, either.
I repeat the duty of care, within all this. I refer the Arbcom to the attempts made to trace me and to the posting by Musical Linguist of numbers, done very carefully and perhaps legally. I have throughout claimed she was of the cabal, She's number three, and how She had to do that, we all see. I still await her good faith reply as to my exact Sex Abuse queries, repeated at her Admin election, and where relevant. She seems to not care to answer that which She can't answer. But then that's what they all do.  I have no more diffs to respond to her or anyone, except one which I use now for the Murder of the Pope, which maybe I owe to Achille Ratti and his goodness in the face of Pacelli's  organised wrong. EffK 22:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Murder and The Mystery of Pius XI

message: I have to answer here as I have no choice. Musical Linguist now feels she wants to point to my sincerity. She may feel she exceeded herself by her recent edit to do with duty of care(even for oneself). I do not choose to be more specific, and have throughout tried to avoid being specific about such duty of care. 
*I make no disruption of the article space now whatever, and I have made no disruption of an Article.
*I have made Articles correct and appropriate.
*I am personally attacked by the Musical Linguist edit here to Evidence of 24 January, citing my "disruption". This is a POV personal attack.
*Is relevant discussion to subjects a disruption? 
*Is sourceing and discussing the appropriateness of source a disruption?
Is sourceing even lengthy Canons and morality a  disruption? Is pointing out the consequences of actions a disruption?
*Is it a disruption when countering concerted hagiography to propound truths, if they they are absolutely necessary to explain to Wikipedians that there is method behind papal madness of denialism? Is it not even at it's most extreme (excommunication) not explanatory of intent behind mis-information? 
*Is it disruption to source exactly why I am fought, which fight is to deny entry to Wikipedia of actively guarded critical information-is that disruption? is there no intellectual self-defence?
*The clerical hagiography so apparent has been breached somewhat, but was rigid before I arrived. Hitler was legal, and elected and sitting pretty. A victory for him had been infused into Wikipedia. Has it been disruption to have achieved this repair?
*Is that not worth all the space and time? Evidently not to these several users.
*I do not have to be sincere because I am sourced and that is right in itself. I am right because I check with and follow source.
*And from the get go, I stated at my beginning, that I expected users to understand that they themselves would be the ones forcing me to upload source. They forced my "disruption" if that is space and time.
*They are all in error to have fought, and still fight, source. Explanation is allowable, and if the subject is convoluted, the explanation is convoluted. 
If I simply said to you all here: It's all because of the 9 April,1933, is why.-None could or would  understand-except Str1977, perhaps. here is a Hint: The ninth of April was a secret until the Italian press blew it. I  FK  sought and brought you that secret, and still have to fight for it here in our/your Wikipedia.
EffK 16:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Disruption' Attack on EffK