Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/EffK/Proposed decision

message: I note that Robert McClenon was correct in stating that experience of bad faith allows an editor to recognise bad faith without this being a personal attack.
I consider therefore that this entire case is scurrilous, and that I have every right to have made the characterisations that I have civilly made. If an editor consistently shows bad Wikipedia faith in defense of a past and a present papacy, I do not see that the characterisation as a Vatican Agent is anything other than descriptive.
I will not be satisfied that Wikipedia has internal consistency unless as with all Trials, the possibility of redress to the injured is not enabled. I consider myslf grievously injured and ask for the redress to be unambiguous. ThankyouEffK 17:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Injury to user EffK

message: [Note:If EffK were a managerial type /good software mind, he may have been able to earlier define what may have previously presented itself as option to the above Arbitrators. EffK can only await the majority vote and trust that this inclusion will be taken for the good-faith low managerial ability it represents in his part of this process. Taken from over-leaf and from []
EffK says You will be presented with no exonerative Verifiable source to have silenced my rationality. For me to begin to  have understood the nature of punishment and retribution possible even against my over-whelming Verifiability, I went as a start to WP:ACCC. I may well be supported in this verifiability I claim , in which case, a review of the judgement to be made against me  at Arbcom, below, may indeed prove possible. There has definitely been no resolution of the subject at continuous dispute. The findings against me as to my use of Wikipedia as propaganda vehicle do not upset the historical realities and NPOV. I consider any embarrassment for my own Wikipedia "criminality"  to be tempered by the here  clearly un-historical non-resolution of the Arbitration committee, such as is proposed at WP:ACCC. I append myself below as a possibly condemned User in virtue solely of rationality and its bed-fellow, good faith.  :
1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view, but articles are in inapprpriate place to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.
Support: 
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User EffK responds to the building quorum in process

message: I note that Sam Korn has proposed a remedy that EffK may be blocked if he edits any article pages or article talk pages that he is not permitted to edit.  I am assuming that this remedy would apply after the original ban for one year for personal attacks and general disruption expires.  Robert McClenon 20:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All remedies, save where explicitly exepted, are to be assumed to be indefinite.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam Korn, the best thing when stuck in a hole, is to stop digging and climb out. I refer you to the EffK post to the Founder's talk page since excised, which you will find at History there. I suggest you read that post, in case you are not aware of what you engage in. I suggest you study the recently Archived post by EffK to Pope Pius Discussions. Your position here does not extend to power for a reckless disregard of falsity. I strongly reccomend your review your involvement and start at that deleted post to the Publisher concerning your's and other's proposals here. You may equally wish to study the base of my EffK discussion pages, and I look forward to your speedy compliance taht you personally do not publish statements of opinion which are in reckless disregard of falsity. This applies to any Arbitrator who is recorded as viewing this particular statement to Sam Korn. Thankyou for your attention. EffK 21:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: EffK 21:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification as to Remedy 

message: EffK was temporarily blocked by an admin for mass blanking.  Robert McClenon 19:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EffK Temporarily Blocked