Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/EffK

message: Maybe I shouldn't be making any comment without first reading through the extended history of this dispute, but one thing strikes me so strongly I felt it needed a comment.
EffK is accused of "engaging in an extended effort to use Wikipedia to present a theory of Roman Catholic Church complicity in and active support of Adolf Hitler. This effort has involved personal attacks on other editors, accusations of bad faith (including that other editors are acting as agents of the Vatican), and using article talk pages as a soapbox."
There may in fact not be any agents of the vatican here, but looking at a page like that on Pius XII you'd be forgiven for doubting. There is a very strong positive bias on that, and other, pages dedicated to Catholic leaders. If EffK has a POV he is pushing in the other direction, it is more than outweighed.
Just to look at the Pius XII article, which has been one of the scenes of the dispute: in general the 'controversy' over his stance towards the Nazis is indeed acknowledged throughout the article, but there is far more virtual ink spilled to deny it than report it, and the language is one-sided. Eg.:
- the first paragraph kicks off ascribing laudable motives to Pacelli as 'working to promote peace'
- there are various references to Pacelli condemning the Nazis, whilst pro-Nazi comments EffK cites (such as the one he provided from a book by Mowrer, or any of those in John Cornwell's book) are out. Similarly we have Goebbels diary entries attacking the church, and a completely unsourced Hitler quote, but not eg. Ciano praising him as a man the fascists could work with.
- these alleged comments from Pacelli are virtually unsourced. There is no source for the 'private letter' mentioned. Another is from an unconfirmable private conversation mentioned in a 'Catholic League' publication - which doesn't strike me as necessarily too reliable.
- the language is hardly neutral: a critic 'falsely portrayed' him; 'there is no doubt' that jews were 'bravely' saved, while there is no mention of those he is accused of giving up to the Nazis; we're told more than once how the pope has been 'widely praised'
- John Cornwell, the best known critic of Pacelli, gets half a para - immediately followed by 2 1/2 paras of the response from pro-Pacelli historians and the Vatican's own enquiry
- there are references to ODESSA at the bottom of the page, which suggests to me that at some point someone may have included information on the accusations of Pacelli's involvement in sheltering Nazis after the war - but if so these points have also been removed from the page itself. There is a mention of the ODESSA issue, but without any acknowledgement that Pacelli is claimed to have been involved himself, and the case is dismissed as the "almost 'mythic' ratlines".
I don't think there's a Vatican organised conspiracy at work in Wikipedia, but I do think we have a number of conscientious catholic supporters at work on this and other pages who are slanting the entries to favour the church. I think it is important that EffK's case be viewed in this context. It seems that EffK set out to try and redress this balance, and I don't think there's any wrong in that. Without having read through all the discussions I don't know if he's always gone about it the right way, but I can see he was acting from good motivations and from the heart, and it isn't easy fighting that kind of uphill battle. I think the bias being perpetrated by his opponents is a far more serious problem than any alleged misconduct on EffK's part.Bengalski 18:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with EffK that he sometimes edits articles in an incomprehensible way, and then shouts "censorship" when his edits are corrected.  However, there are two other problems also.  First, he makes vitriolic personal attacks.  Str1977 and I have been the main objects of those attacks.  A pattern of personal attacks makes it nearly impossible to improve an article.  Second, I disagree with you (Bengalski) that his abuse of talk pages can be ignored.  In 2005, talk pages of articles that he was following consisting mostly of kilobytes of his rants, so that any constructive comments, such as dialogue between Str1977, Robert McClenon, and Sam Spade, would be almost impossible to find.  His flooding of talk pages was a filibuster.  If this were Usenet, I would have been able to killfile him, but I have not found a killfile capability in Wikipedia.  Robert McClenon 16:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When he tries to contribute to articles, his contributions are terrible.  When he avoids contributing to articles, his comments detract from efforts to improve article content.  He provides no purpose.  Robert McClenon 16:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Bengalski

message: Bengalski and Durova both raise valid issues as to content.  I mostly agree with them.  Six months ago, when I began editing the articles in question, I also thought that balance needed to be provided for NPOV.  I still think so.  However, it will be nearly impossible to balance the articles as long as EffK's conduct on talk pages continues.  The content issues cannot be addressed constructively as long as the talk page abuse continues.  I have repeatedly tried to ask EffK to summarize what he wanted changed, and have been answered with insults and lengthy rants about suppression of the truth.  
I agree that there are content issues, but the conduct issues about the flooding of talk pages with incomprehensible posts make it nearly impossible to discuss the content coherently.  Robert McClenon 15:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with EffK that he sometimes edits articles in an incomprehensible way, and then shouts "censorship" when his edits are corrected.  However, there are two other problems also.  First, he makes vitriolic personal attacks.  Str1977 and I have been the main objects of those attacks.  A pattern of personal attacks makes it nearly impossible to improve an article.  Second, I disagree with you (Bengalski) that his abuse of talk pages can be ignored.  In 2005, talk pages of articles that he was following consisting mostly of kilobytes of his rants, so that any constructive comments, such as dialogue between Str1977, Robert McClenon, and Sam Spade, would be almost impossible to find.  His flooding of talk pages was a filibuster.  If this were Usenet, I would have been able to killfile him, but I have not found a killfile capability in Wikipedia.  Robert McClenon 16:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When he tries to contribute to articles, his contributions are terrible.  When he avoids contributing to articles, his comments detract from efforts to improve article content.  He provides no purpose.  Robert McClenon 16:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response by McClenon to Bengalski

message: This case has been in the evidentiary phase long enough.  The parties to the case will continue to post evidence as long as the case remains open.  There is enough evidence for the ArbCom to decide the issues.  Robert McClenon 15:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am about to fill my last 5 or so permitted diffs and will complete this at 100 diffs quite soon. I intend to finish by furnishing the evidence regading User:Jimbo Wales stroke User:Jimbo.
I regard the whole EffK exercise in editing , or trying to edit the Wikipedia, as a work of Art. I hold to the view that at the point where a work of art communicates more clearly though words or speech, that it remains a work of art, and is a better work of art for being expressed in that fullest medium of human expression. I thank all who have contributed to this work and will be carefully preserving every expression. I have not had, or been permitted any time to contemplate the fine points of Wikipedia, and my work has been entirely directed towards reasoning, appeal , re-buttal, good faith and human conscience. I believe my greatest contribution is the logical extra-polation of the missing facts of human history as they apply to the AIDS issue and as I discussed them at Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor. I was reacting to his use of the BBC and therefore providing source and reason for all who are plainly ill-served by present use of the same legal dictum of romans 3, 8 that so injuriously affected the world in the Thirties. It appears that source is less to be reasoned in Wikipedia than it is to be parrotted. Today in seeking a particlur digital inter-action here, I had necessity to read through a digital-user-history. This one user's history contained about one edit every minute for about two years, with daily breaks for here 2 hours and there four. A superhuman effort beyond possibility of verification in retrospect. Of course, I knew what it was that I sought, between which Articles and which Users, therefore with great patience and by following the awkward Wikipedia reversal of loading when starting from earliest forwards then in time towards recent, which can only be done by dint of logic saying that that then becomes the previous button, anyway, I flipped through half an hour of 500 edit loadings and found what was relevant. Curious things-but then I have had no time for study here and have felt and then been threatened continuously since I first arrived and was supplied with the Be Bold User-maxim, but I had to do this because the Centre Party Germany discussion history was un-loadable, ie  would not load the diffs. Similar strangeness on this late day in my Userdom, is the inability to receive any search result in the commonest engine for User:EffK. Such things, when one feels, and is, continuously threatened, lead to discomfort. What is source for the goose, is source for the gander, I imagine Renato Boccardo exhaling at this. It is true that I I entered Wikipedia on a mission. I imagine also that this is normal, and that you could easily have entered, reader, with the same desire, willingly invited and encouraged to enter, and feeling that you too have an ability to add, correct or change something. I think I have quite clearly demonstrated my mission, and can feel that, by really hard work, that I have expressed the mission. As a work of art, there is not terribly much I am ashamed of, a very few wrinkles and even one or two plain errors of fact or -but no- interpretation born of over-enthusiastic ignorance. I don't think I ever claimed omniscience , and therefore am at ease on that score.I used a naive moral indignation, and that was lon ago replaced by the wikilawyering legal wikiness that defends itself from easy attack. I admitted to it all having been a learning process before now, and, equally, already have thanked other combative users for stimulating my own understanding. Unfortunately the stimulation has led me to change what was rather an expostulatory indignation against a suspected scandal, into a nearly total sourced confirmation of nearly every sordid dangerous aspect of the scandal. I believe that without having had the benefit of recently published volumes dealing with the scandal, that I have managed to picture it properly. Two things though- Of course the balance of Protestant collaboration has been absent from my picture. I have not had the time, but could deal with it and have offered to try when I can; the other is that I do not, and have not wished to, remove or excise or even diminuish whatever cultural, because wishful as opposed to countable or voted or scientific, religious  under-currents flow benearth the scandal. I have had to consider the purely sourceable legal claims made by the main cultural-philosophical organisation as Church, as these being written, are sourceable. They are incredibly good , and clear, and laudable, and I repeat this willingly. Indeed I vouch for their usefulness. However this usefulness cannot be maintained in contradiction of itself , and if they are in contradiction in history, then howsoever beneficial they be, they are reportable and relevant. An Encyclopedia generally, like the copy of the 1911 Brittanica I have, and yet which I have not opened in the year I have worked in Wikipedia, presents history. The 1911 is useless to me because I have intended to correct the 1930's, but I know that a true encyclopedia would say within itself all that history contains, howsoever linked.  Given the new digital dispensation, I see no less inclusivity as desirable. However the  wiki software of interactivity and record, is more akin to a work of art , than to either an encyclopedia or a history. Whilst superficially it is ruled by supervising mental order, based on verifiability reasons and good-will, and presents an acceptably admirable face of worthiness, the reality of the soft-ware is that it is only by degree more ordered than the Internet itself. I have admittedly entered at an extreme fold in the dimension of history , a fold that sears like a hot knife through butter into large numbers of separated Articles, and it is tue that the Wikipedia is quite new, and that some resulting deficiency obtained  back then, however, the experience that still now deficiency obtains in respect of the not too difficult to understand scandal, shows me otherwise. In contrast to the vaunted Wikipedia of good sense and virtue and human advance, certainly I experience all the retrograde emotional human frailty ruling Wikipedia pages. The un-acceptable truths of the past, because they are both political and religious, and because these forces both retain interests in this contemporary world, have attracted negation and denialism unto the complete erasion of all that is unacceptable: the scandal itself.
In some ways it is heartening , because the fact that Wikipedia quite faithfully reflects its real parent world, shows that it is a power of note. Other disputes at Arbitration, similarly rest where vested interests  drives editing. Reality is of course acceptable and is the basis of an encyclopedia. The trade off, between  on the one-hand, disputes (and contentions and trouble and faction and bias ) and on the other, the software, that allows for wholescale but atomised or nuclear individual editing ,is slight and tolerable.  Except to me. I  set myself to paint the missing colours of our world, and to carve the contours and depths of the history based on a couple of lines of comment written in another continent more than forty years ago. Soon I find these lines repeated and coupling together from every direction. But within Wikipedia not a breath of disturbance plays on any of the articles.Even now  the most infamous figure in our history exists in contradiction borne of  the denialism of unacceptable truths A lot of these are imported from another language than English, and seem to import rather truncated reality, but not something lost in translation; the seeming lack of communication from the real world, not reflected in sourced history of reality , but reflected, as still now, where, as if a in a kind of musical phasing, true notes disappear where they agree so entirely as to cancel. Or be cancelled.  I come here now to reassure  Robert McClenon that his desire will soon be attended, and don't dopubt that this lengthy explanation for others will be but excoriated by him. The user was questioning the Request for Comment process within four or five days of logging in here to Wikipedia, and has since about the tenth day , been recognised by me as a wikicop. I had called for a superior,for a religious supervisor to be called in to deal with the scandal, by the Church, and this user came. Indeed he has , whilst baiting my clearest if long explanation, battled with his own shortest most provocative dismissals. Indeed the coincidence would be solely chance, but for his odd history of return whensoever necessary, to the scandal, and always to the rescue of the Church. I but notice here, and have dealt with this before, the Renato Boccardo crew, if  he has a crew, which I suggested he might, and which in this guise so miraculously assidously appeared. I imagine Robert McClenon can be taken at face value, and that he is only really interested in enforcement. He plainly aims high on the branches of Wikipedia enforcement, and apart from controlled provocation of multiple Users, has only shown any visible humanity at separated juncture. he has , if his effort was designed to infiltrate the highest echelon of Wikipedia control, over-stepped the mark. He seems to use, in fact claims, preceding status in other online organs, and arrives here with a clear mission, like me, and you. His mission is to understand and control the Wikipedia through sackings and bannings and removals, and even wishes change to the legalities of Wikipedia. He is relevant to this discussion here, of course, as I accept his saying that he could also be included in this Arbitration. I do so wish him to be so, and turn again to his defence of the indefensible User:Str1977. The failure of that poor long suffering editor to conclusively squash my un-acceptable truths right out of Wikipedia, is painful. This User is a remarkable editor, and I suggest you press his earliest User history button to see. He appears as if in the very skirts of then Cardinal Ratzinger at the very moments of His Holiness's sure elevation to the papacy. Every sign of a growing eidtorial awareness is built within the new papal page, with this editor daily increasing an authority on that subject which is formidable. One should say this editor must be the subject, he is so assured of everything. And, to bring me close to ending, I assure you that this editor has contributed hugely to Wikipedia- not as much as the mysterious super-parrot type of editor, but with a depth into culture and history  which is so magnificent, that it being so verily the case, his contrary lack of assurance in the historical and political  details of The Great Scandal shine in extraordinary erroneous contrast. My own Arbitration as a wikisinner would possibly be a simple condemnation, but for the incredible manner in which this user has been even prepared to contradict even himself. I take him at his word, and add that I imagine he must be a cleric. This is, after all, no crime, but I have only ever directly asked him if he was being paid to do what he does in Wikipedia. If he is a cleric, he is forbidden to deny this, so I have not asked him that question out of respect. But I did ask if he was being paid( just as the super-parrott was asked by a student, and- denied it.) His boast that he is a historian, I would consider justifiable from his evident capacity on the pages which I know nothing of and do not understand or care to try to, however, I have seen him for what he is on the scandal, and it is plain that this is not his field of history. I was thoroughly mystified when after an initial inter-action with a plainly non-native writer, this editor morphed perceptably into a Wiki-Shakespeare of skill. History here in wikipedia is being built by an admixture of parrots and scholar-felons within a blog of goodwill, supposedly according to fair and defined limits. I see no establishment of these limits affecting the pages I tried to help, but only either anons, or too young , or unfamiliar with the software or computers, or vandals who sexualise, or anons who vandalise actually for a hidden purpose of protest at that deserving of it, then one's who when they do that- do it to make others look editorially useful, then  there are one's out of their depth, then one's too clever to bother, one's too cynical to bother, ones too naive to last or bear it, ones with an angle but out of their depth, one's who know but aim for a quiet wiki-userdom and steer clear despite their consciences, one's who sympathise and see in me a reason they don't need to bother themselves, one's whose intent goes even deeper towards correction of the core than  the fairly obvious naive me, then one's who purely observe , or one's who are clever enough to make two anon edits and wisely run for another cover, and ones who are policemen either way for or against, and one's who work for their friends especially Church or sometimes political friends, the  one's who help/or work for Jimbo, and, lastly, one's who work for their name as wiki scholars, of whom Str1977 is one. Unfortunately  he has allowed this to be undermined by his devotion to his faith, and this, whilst admirable ( and legal as I define at my user pages), disbars him entirely from that consistancy requisite to the scholar.  I don't see more than two fingers worth of neutral but concerned straight-forward Wikipedians . As to me ,  Effk ? Well, take your pick, but Robert McClenon's view is much more abbreviated than EffK's, what? Str1977's view you have here too, and very brief character assassination it is. Enjoy your Wikipedias. I shall include the direct Jimbo diffs I can find-it'll take a while as he deletes his discussions  the way some would like to delete me everywhere as soon as they possibly could, and after that I think, maybe, we can get on to the judges and the punishments. Hiya, Bengalski ! Cool.
EffK 21:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When Will This Case Go into Voting? 

message: I am beat by my own browser which balks at loading the final colours to this picture of Wikipedia scandal, so, Jimbo is saved from having our communications diff-ed . This is immaterial as they are some way preserved at FK User Talks.  This talk page is not compulsory viewing for Arbitrators, perhaps, but they might learn something all the same. I don't see any point in reducing myself to one word epithets here, and I have tried to avoid them through-out, but I can surely think of one in particular. From here on though "The proof is in the pudding". I do think it would be better for Jimbo to use anonymous arbitration on a case involving such huge interests, because of his duty of care. I don't know if there are any such. I suggest names recuse themselves while they still can. As to the cabal- don't abuse/harass/investigate/malign me further ouside of Evidence, and I won't need to talk anywhere near you- but, attack me, and I defend myself.  My and your evidence speaks for itself, let us Users confine ourselves to that, as Robert McClenon requires. If I am attacked within evidence, I shall try to defend myself within. If outside, then outside.
I assent to the call by Robert McClenon for move to Arbitration , with caveat concerning Jimbo's  above described Duty of Care. I will endeavour, hereonwards, to remain entirely within the Arbitration pages I am permitted if the case remains delayed , and attacks cease. I am due response here, as last wordism is natural, and I may try  not to respond. I am allowed 5 or so more diffs, which I shall hold in reserve, in case.
EffK 23:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimbo Duty of Care to Arbitrators, otherwise proceed with case, ceasefire outside Arbcom?

message: Why hasn't anything been done in this case?  Why does it continue to remain in the "evidence" phase? It is by far the oldest case still on the docket, and yet it remains in the "evidence" phase, even though plenty of evidence has been given.  What gives? john k 19:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you given evidence ? I note a great deal of evidence has been ministered on your behalf. Perhaps I am wrong, it has been tendered without any wish one way or another from you being expressed. Do you feel that you are a party to this case in some way? Do you feel you are not a party? Do you think you should be considered a party? Do you feel you should not be considered a party? If you feel you are not a party do you request that you not be considered a party? if you feel you are a party in that you approve the giving of evidence related to you, do you think that despite that that you should avoid being considered a party. I know you were asked by Str1977 to present your own evidence, and it appears that you declined his request even though he hoped thereby to increase the numbr of evidential diffs. Your inaction bespeaks adesire to avoid being a party. Does your questioning here mean that you wish the case to proceed for any particular reason . You wrote elsewhere at this time to say that you thought considerable damage was being done to Wikipedia by my continuing presence. It seems a tad contradictory for you to demand the case proceed whilst at the same time you do not, or have not wished to, contribute to what it seems you favour as outcome. 
EffK 23:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seconding Mr. McClenon 

message: One question for the arbitrators — the proposal is to ban EffKfrom articles related to the Catholic Church. My experience is that he posts long messages about the Vatican collaboration with the Nazis on Catholic talk pages, e.g. Pope Pius XII, and on Twentieth-Century History of Germany talk pages, e.g. Adolf Hitler. Is it the intention that he may not write about Pius and Hitler on the Pius XII talk pages, but that he may still do so on the Hitler talk pages? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think some clarification is needed. AnnH (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a new pair of proposals to deal with these comments. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Banned from Catholic Church articles, but not from Nazi articles?

message: Dear Arbitrators,
EffK, after raining texts on us for about a year, now thinks he is free to excise that text from the archives. Here's one example:  I have reverted this as I consider it vandalism. If the arbitration does not move forward in the next few days, I think he should be reprimanded for this move. Str1977 12:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am indeed removing that which is considered POV pushing. if it is decided that it is nor POV pushing, I would be highly gratified at the rquirement for that which was not POV pushing. I am cleaning the stables whilst I can. still sign for it. EffK 12:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot take back your words! You are not allowed to burn the evidence! Str1977 12:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EffK has been blocked for 48 hours for mass blanking.  Robert McClenon 19:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: ===EffK===
This past February, this user was banned one year by the ArbCom. His talk page was protected and then unprotected, and he has used it to engage in dialog with Musical Linguist and Str1977. Is that allowed? If not, should his talk page be reprotected? Editor88 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if EffK continues to post on his talk page so long as he does not otherwise try to edit. If he becomes disruptive on his talk page, any admin may reprotect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the Wikipedia:Banning policy, if I understand it correctly, banned users are not allowed to edit at all and from any account, and all their edits may (should?) be reverted without discussion or analysis. But if it isn't hurting anyone, I don't see the point in enforcing this. --causa sui talk 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification copied from [[WP:RFAR]] 

message: This past February, this user was banned one year by the ArbCom. His talk page was protected and then unprotected, and he has used it to engage in dialog with Musical Linguist and Str1977. Is that allowed? If not, should his talk page be reprotected? Editor88 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if EffK continues to post on his talk page so long as he does not otherwise try to edit. If he becomes disruptive on his talk page, any admin may reprotect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the Wikipedia:Banning policy, if I understand it correctly, banned users are not allowed to edit at all and from any account, and all their edits may (should?) be reverted without discussion or analysis. But if it isn't hurting anyone, I don't see the point in enforcing this. --causa sui talk 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EffK