From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 1.1 Template 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 Template 2.2 EffK Blocked Until Decision 3 Proposed final decision 3.1 Proposed principles 3.1.1 Template 3.1.2 No personal attacks 3.1.3 Obsessional point of view 3.1.4 Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy 3.1.5 Assume good faith 3.1.6 Charges of bad faith editing 3.1.7 Article talk pages 3.1.8 Diversity in Wikipedia 3.1.9 Editors with religious beliefs 3.1.10 Ability to write 3.1.11 Excessive Multiple Posting 3.1.12 Neutral Point of View 3.1.13 No Original Research 3.1.14 Novel Interpretations of Texts 3.1.15 Keep Cool 3.2 Proposed findings of fact 3.2.1 Template 3.2.2 Names Used 3.2.3 Focus on Catholic Church 3.2.4 Personal Attacks 3.2.5 Claims of Censorship 3.2.6 Incomprehensibility 3.2.7 Misuse of Article Talk Pages 3.2.8 Original Research 3.2.9 Vandalism of NPOV Policy 3.2.10 Spamming of Talk Pages 3.2.11 Bad Faith Editing 3.2.12 Demands by EffK for Arbitration 3.2.13 No substantial evidence of suppression of truth 3.2.14 Personal attacks under provocation 3.3 Proposed remedies 3.3.1 Template 3.3.2 Ban for One Month 3.3.3 Longer Ban 3.3.4 Ban from Editing Articles on Catholic Church 3.3.5 Alternative remedy 3.3.6 Personal Attack Parole 3.3.7 Robert McClenon Cautioned 3.3.8 Str1977 Commended 3.4 Proposed enforcement 3.4.1 Template 3.4.2 Resetting 3.4.3 Deletion of off-topic talk page posts 3.4.4 Sockpuppets 3.4.5 Administrative Block 3.5 Analysis of evidence 3.5.1 Template 3.5.2 Investigation of conspiracy 3.6 General discussion

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

POV / NPOV judgements of this Court in relation to NPOV history presented as best it can be done by me to get u to understand:Please take good note of the necessity for you to understand what you are judging as POV pushing.

I'm not in the US but this is US law, apparently:

More recently, in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. 497 U.S. 1 (1990), the Supreme Court backed off from the protection from "opinion" announced in Gertz. The court in Milkovich specifically held that there is no wholesale exemption to defamation law for statements labeled "opinion," but instead that a statement must be provably false (falsifiable) before it can be the subject of a libel suit. from Wikipedia.

From Wikipedia, too: 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."

I keep on making the point that, whilst not proving that the Holy See were directly involved in the events of the 23 March Enabling Act raising Hitler to Dictator, yet all reputable history source directly links the Enabling Act to the subsequent Reichskonkordat deal. That there is no POV in therefore equally linking the two here, and that it is a POV to divorce them against the historical linkage. I'm talking your plain as pudding William L Shirer paperback by the multi-zillion standard library history. (And all else.)

I'm telling you that to be judged as pushing a POV by you guys, is un-historical and against verifiability. Now I might be a drag bringing it up for a year, but I'm proud to have helped this place. However I am not glad to be billed as a POV pusher. The present teetering axe quorum against me is an evaluation that I am content wise POV as the charge relates to precisely that EffK has established a pattern of using article talk pages as a soapbox for presenting a controversial view about the involvement of the Catholic Church with the Nazi Party, even when this view is tangential to the content of the articles. His voluminous and difficult to comprehend posts have disrupted discussion of article content.

I clearly have shown all I needed to show to verify what is false or provably false. If anyone can prove what I relay as false , and exonerate the Parties from all the historians I have used, great. They never have;no exoneration exists by source. However to un-ambiguously show you guys the dangerous ground you tread here, read this one, part paragraph, from p 292 of Shirer:

In his speech of March 23, 1933, to the Reichstag when the legislative body of Germany abandoned its functions to the dictator, Hitler paid tribute to the Christian faiths as essential elements for safeguarding the soul of the German people, promised to rspect their right, declared that his government's "ambition is a peaceful accord between church and state" and added- with an eye to the votes of Catholic Centre Party, which he received- that "we hope to improve our friendly relations with the Holy See".

The Committee seems to be arrogating itself the purely Content power to demolish my "presenting a controversial view" relayed Shirer and numerous others even more condemnatory- up to the best friend(sourced) of the Pope's no 2 quote having a hand in the very Hitler speech. Ie Ludwig Kaas and Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli (Pius XII).

You aren't expected to be geniuses so here's Shirer on page 249, guys "except for the arrests of the Communists and some of the Social democratic deputies, it was all done quite legally, though accompanied by terror. Several other charges made against me concern a huge battle here to infiltrate that one sentence. Did I make the battle?

To again be entirely un-ambiguous, I present to you the un-placed and un-placeable and reserved-to-me-EffK purely POV conclusion [[1]] where I re-presented my sole-personal-un-attributable-POV-conclusion -one I have never attempted to place in any way except as thorough explanation at one discussion prior. I have of course entered Kaas into the stratosphere beyond the outside Holocaust timeline. All I did attempt to place was all sourced down to the very words of the very days and the very hours of words of the days. I tell you guys that I didn't waste a year entering Kaas against continuous irrational opposition for it to be called POV pushing. I don't sit on your Hitler page there as my writing of it extensively sits, improving the page, for you to call that POV in fact I would say that I presented quite enough Evidence to show the purely Wikipedia reality of who is POV and who isn't.

My actual POV, admitted POV, personal POV, self-informed POV, un-entered to Articles POV, is here, so read it and weep at your World.

Ludwig Kaas made the deal with Hitler that Hitler would promise the final letter of Written Constitutional Guarantee, simply as appearance of the doing so. That Kaas knew that it would not be given, but that Kaas was following Pacelli longstanding papal instructions, and that the promise of this guarantee was simply to swing the vote whilst Kaas cynically tricked his own party into believing him it would appear. He knew that it would not. The deal was clear from 15 March to these two men in Berlin, although the final manner of the deal was not formulated until c 21 March. The deal that Hitler made for the Vatican emanates from at least the Papen-Kaas- Hitler axis of 6 March 1933 . The papal records would confirm this, as they would confirm Edgar Ansel Mowrer for the same bargain preceding into 1932. Avro Manhattan does not seem to say this of the trickery of Kaas with the letter, but in every other way he is entirly clear upon the long 'vatican' preceding history. Cornwell does not appear to do so, nor Kershaw. I therefore believe that it is I alone who make this the actual agreement in the over-all known quid pro quo. Hitler said we'll make you look alright, and the Church alright, don't worry, Kaas, well say we'll have a Guarantee, so you'll be in the clear. As we know, there was an unacceptable Hindenberg letter sent to the Centre leaders, one of most sardonic hypocrisy(Wheeler-Bennett). The trick was that Kaas all along knew the real Hitler Letter of Guarantee demanded by the Centre Party would not arrive. [[2]]

I have to give you the trick again. from Shirer's quoting Alan Bullock here at p250: ...acomplished with breathless speed and with crudenes,trickery and brutality.

The street gangs, in thee words of Alan Bullock,, had seized control of the resources of a great modern State, the gutter had come to power. But as Hitler never ceased to boast- 'legally', by an over-whelming vote of Parliament. The Germans had no one to blame but themselves.

I'd honestly say to you guys that this is as it was reperesented in your Wikipedia when I arrived, as purely a Parliamentary legality. And despite linking directly to the German for seizure, Wikipedia still gallingly insists Accession under section Jews at Holocaust. It is scandalous that Wikipedia, until my efforts, and still in some parts, was/is showing entirely a legality as Hitler required, for himself to trick us. Shame on Wikipedia, not on me-I fought it.

I Primary sourced the long-standing papal instructions,and sourced all else, but my personal TRICK, which else is common-or-garden history .So I have, of course, entered Kaas factually into the stratosphere beyond the outside Holocaust timeline(which as you all know makes no POV comments or assertions but simply DATES). This was all sourced down to the very words of the very days and the very hours of the days. I tell you guys that I didn't waste a year entering Kaas, against continuous irrational opposition, for it to be called POV pushing, for myself to be characterised as a POV pusher. If I am, what will be the demand of history, given the immense gravity of the history, upon me as its sole representative here against its opposite? Just for me to bow to this court, and accept being sent to the digital gallows? Really ? Although I have a funny name, it is still mine. EffK 20:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)and I remembered the password for me as Flamekeeper 20:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)andd this guy me has a new message he's up for the Digital Gallows-Famekeeper 20:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)and supported by this remembered me the as- Corecticus 20:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC) the failing password is me as Fiamekeeper, but ! What a lot of editing effort to help this project.

1. I ask whether it is pukkha-correct that the instigator of this case against me, who is not an Arbitrator, has the right on this page to assert decisions or findings of the Arbcom in the manner that he has done ? May I here request that my petition for changing the focus of this case to include Robert McClenon and Str1977, be granted?

1. 2)May I qualify this last by stating that just as the case claims that I have a POV, the very error of this claim is characterised by clear intent by these two user's to prevent it's appearance in Wikipedia as,in fact, sourced NPOV .

EffK 09:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

1. 3Today I return to evidence with a highly relevant diff and repeat request to widen this to arbitration of Users Str1977 and Robert McClenon, who, by repeated denial of rationally presented source prevent the function of Wikipedia, with bad faith accusations, conspiracy against WP principles, harassment and provocation by intellectual abuse of EffK goodwill.EffK 01:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] EffK Blocked Until Decision

Due to the spamming of article talk pages and user talk pages with protests about the corruption of Wikipedia, EffK is banned from posting to article talk pages and user talk pages until this case is decided.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK posted a withdrawal notice to Article discussions upon which he had input , in order to show reason for discontinuance of that input. He posted User-pages of Users who had been concerned within the over-lapping Articles. The former were immediately reverted by his disputant. EffK has not replaced them . The posts shewed precise originating circumstancial link, and the EffK conclusion.

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] No personal attacks

Personal attacks by editors on other editors are prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK : Un-fortunately I have followed the principle enunciated to me by Robert McCelonon that no characterisation of bad faith may be assigned to an editor without prior proof of bad-faith. I claim that beyond my newbie stage, I did not make un-warranted attack/characterisation. I claim, in fact I simply report (at Evidence December 15) that my chief but cabal leader Str1977 disputant has at last persuaded me to halt. He does this by clearly and brazenly forcing fact which he has himself assented to for 6 months, off the Adolf Hitler article. Here at the very centre of revisionist concerns. Thereby we are ab-used ,against all Wikipedia principles .I therefore consider all personal attacks I appear to have made against this intellectually corrupt ab-using editor, to be made in truthful good faith. This truth is un-coverable from my last and final experience of his ab-use of Wikipedia at Evidence 15 December. It takes you 3 minutes to read the last intellectual hypocrisy, and I ask of you to understand what this ab-user said in July 2005, and the actual quid pro quo/kick-back scheme removal he made at at Adolf Hitler. It is but the last of a thousand such intellectual cuts at truth, and my characterisation of the User as a Vatican Agent is not a personal atack but is correct, and civil, and mild. EffK 11:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Obsessional point of view

In certain cases a Wikipedia editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area if it becomes problematic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. There is no obsessional POV . There is no POV from me. There is consistent source from me . There is no contrary source. The POV rests with my disputants alone and is characterised by their denial of source .This section is a form of ad hominem attack. The simplest proving justification, rests at my last evidence, but general justification against this scurrilous charge (that is not a moral one,) is, that if any arbitrator was to compare the Weimar Republic article(which is the main article upon its relevant era) with that of a sub article, the Enabling Act, they may note that Wikipedia still makes internally contradictory and opposing statement. I have long asserted that the founder and now management of Wikipedia, due to its multiplication into all corners of Cyberspace, has a consequent responsibility towards the truth. If it does not hold to such informational responsibility, it is my opinion that it should. At any rate, be that as it may, the obsession I am accused of is clearly justified by an in-ability of its editors thus far and despite all the intelligence, to come to even the resolution of this one very precise contradiction I report, again, in this hallowed hall of shame: it is no small detail, either. I rather resent the particular accusation here, but class it simply along with the consistent ad hominem used against me. If the Wikipedia prefers half-measured editors, it should say so, otherwise it is my duty to persist with the problems I am able to identify,which are not my obsession, but my "Wikipedian" responsibility.

EffK 18:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not provides that Wikipedia is not a platform for propaganda or advocacy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I am not aware that history is a form of advocacy: all that I 'advocate' is history (or recorded and accepted law, and a small report on a pholosopher, Herder.)If by this charge it is meant that I advocate upon talk pages, I believed that they existed for the reaching of consensus. That such consensus has been so pitiful and barely or partly won, really was not my desire. I repeat that Arbitrators should compare the bland corporate style documentation of the Church figures relevant to the history I included, still only partly successfully, by first comparing the Pope Pius XI article with the Pope Pius XII, and then back-tracking the latter to 'Flamekeeper' arrival. I place where they are relevant the Nuremberg Trial document links, called for by the necessities of education(of the Wikipedians who oppose my theory of conspiracy, or those who now judge me)and the which are relevant but not exhaustive. I can, but should not, be held responsible for inclusion of the recorded factual truths against the wishes of a body of faithful, or faith figure articles. I add that the fact that I have had to spread my consequent source based argument around many articles, is because I have been persistently and arbitrarily prevented from properly reporting an inter-linking historical truth upon those many articles. This relates to 'obsessional'. To call sourced report 'propaganda' is to insult me here , in continuance of insult made throughout, the chief being against my intelligence, which is most hard for a person when it is wrongly made, not when it is correct. In short, this is yet another piece or form of ad hominem. Any other person might not have persisted against the concerted and continuous denialism shown to me, but I cannot answer for the quality of my persistence except to say that I have consistently thanked McClenon and my disputant Str1977 for allowing me more easily to demonstrate the faith editing(wish-fulness) problem of Wikipedia. I warned McClenon, particularly, that his irrational behaviour would redound badly to him, not by way of achieved threat from me, but because he went against history, and not from my advocacy thereof. As to the charge that I present exegesis of relevant 'divine law' as propaganda, it is arguable whether such hidden effects and subterranean relevance( "explanation" ) should be excluded in the reaching of a consensus. At any rate the propaganda was not mine , but that of the same faith whose intervention resulted in the difficult and bloody history, and I sourced and explained exactly every nuance of this their propaganda by way of motive and of effect. I believe the gravity of the history, and particularly the manner in which its inclusion was denied in Wikipedia, by an intense intellectual provocation, urged me to explain the background , and explain the real canonical "legal" reason for the denialism of this history.

EffK 19:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Assume good faith

Wikipedia editors as a part of Wikipedia:Civility are expected to assume good faith, simply, to adopt a cooperative posture rather than an antagonistic one with other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. J'accuse le vatican en Wikipedia par EffK 04 Decembre 20005 :In simple Wikipedia terms I am persistently guilty after my experience of bad faith in Wikipedian activity. I admit to many irascibilities expressed in as literary a form as is possible and only claim frailty under provocation and from under-cover(ad hominem} harassment. Let him cast the first stone, who would not have cracked or come to the same conclusions. I will take this opportunity to report to the Arbitration Committee that which I less assuredly reported to the Founder J.Wales.

Firstly I will say that as a newbie I encountered bitter controversy from the word go, that my understanding of Wikipedia was minimal and then (and still is) positively stultified by severe controversy sucking all my time. That this developed inexorably, once I had reacted to the "corporate document" faith nature of articles, because in good faith I contfronted bad faith. This took and takes the form of denial of verifiable source, such as I demonstrate, which I may say, was one-sided: no source was presented to intellectually over-ride the sources I referenced.

In the general argument to do with Pius XII (one of many books about him is named The Pius Wars ), it is well known that the relavant guardians of the documentation , do not and do not have to, as yet, open it to study or reference(The Vatican Archive). This is despite having instigated their own partial enquiry, which notoriously ended and remains embroiled in this very fact of secrecy, and the complaint from within this same enquiry is public and easily referenced (the ICJHC). Thus, I as a user have laboured under an extra burden, without recourse to the normal comparisons of proof, as, apart from the Nuremberg Trial documents, the entirety of all history that I have sourced, was repeatedly and endlessly traduced, minimised or denied.

Therefore the nature of this particular Wikipedia guilt I technically have to own to and the following forbidden conclusion I here report, should be seen in the prism of a consistent and concerted historical denialism in the real world, npw badly reflected in Wikipedia. The Wikipedia-forbidden conclusion I personally reached, is that the odd behaviour I encounter as regards the inability to accept source, the consistent inability to reach consensus, the mental provocation inherent to denial, all reflects within Wikipedia that which the world sees without.

The naming of it here is forbidden by the good faith rule, and the mildest characterisation possible is that of historical denialism. I have called this which is denied 'un-acceptable-truth' . In honesty,and in my good faith, I have reported beyond this rule, that, as in the world without( and equally sourced by me) so here in the nursery of information, a dangerous and corrupting infiltration is taking place. I report only here and only now the serious nature of this infiltration: The outside organisation (as I saw on Euronews etc) has placed a body of Users in Wikipedia, each assigned to areas of editing work. These areas are quite logical when the nature of the Organisation's denialism is understood: all in their way relate back to the Organisation. One user is (in my good faith view-however forbidden/or not by WP) seen to concentrate, after his/her expertise, in philosophical concepts pertaining to un-covering of the Organisations relationship to dangerous racialist philosophy; one is active and apparently so well informed as to represent every aspect of the Organisation's exceedingly complex history; one is a sleeping and un-informed cruiser acting as enforcement, who can be joined by concert when the Organisation feels it is not obvious to the out-sider; one is to utilize the very opposite characteristic of control by mollification; and so on. There are are in addition very many who are indistinguishable or even un-knowing of the Organisation's activity in Wikipedia, but who are pleasingly encouraged and nurtured within shared mental structures originating by common consent. This report I make to you is my good faith experience of WP Cyberspace, as I entered it solely to counter this which seemed so evident to me, but, the complete nature of which I had not initially suspected. Indeed, had I not chanced to hear of the Spring 2005 Vatican 'New Media Conference' and of its objectives being precisely as I here experience and now report from first hand, and, if I did not in fact represent the best good faith in Wikipedia, prepared even now by reporting this truth to sacrifice myself, then my report would be in bad faith. I have justified myself to the Laws of that Organisation, thereby openly appealing to the over-all good faith and after doing so , the only shame of my being adjudged by you the Arbitration, will be that you may be deprived of this good faith entirely by my stating it.

I consider the example I provide to now be far more important than any residual personal affection I could possibly have for this noble informational experiment, and, lastly, I warn you that you have a very great need of more good faith than that which your constitution provides you. I do not know what you can do to forestall the infiltration, and I may do more good out-side this organ watching it, than by remaining. If I were to report the activity, which is as humanly effected as all other, I say the Organisation is let down by the frailty of its puppets, as much as by the contradictions and errors it wishes to keep secret. I am very sorry that the Organisation itself precipitates the history, the denialism of the history, and the denial of the denialism. Call me what you like, the report was made to Jimbo before now and I am only sorry that I have shown too much failed human desire for good faith when I should have steeled more to quieter determined opposition. I may have failed you in Wikipedia by my persistent alert upon the Organisation, and may leave you in your continuing need. I am sorry for this, Jimbo. On the face of it the ruling can only go one way here in this , and if I am entirely banned, then the results will be beyond my notices and report. I shall have to communicate to your organ via, as you suggested, other channels. You have the chance now to decide whether you accept me pissing mostly out of the tent,or possible publicity outside pissing the notice I make back in. The very act of banning me is your decision, your judgement of good faith or bad. I personally found it quite sufficient to be an observer, watching WP be subverted . My own diffs shown as evidence, show that an observer in this may be more worth-while than a sufferer. In parts I recognise the infiltration, but really you should put your own minds to watch. Of course, as you said,I should and do not see any chance of gaining any rational consensus with it and realise that I cannot stem that which emanates from such an Organisation, being so large, as I qualified it, as to be not its own effective country but equivalent to an effective human race, like say the Chinese race or the Russian race. However you said that you weren't in the slightest bit interested, and taking you answer as diplomatic then, I did not think that this was your responsible, nay, parental posture. The Catholic Church are in full swing on a renewed crusade, your organ is the prime cyber-target, they will not allow you to foster a pure secularist information channel and your very success is the cause. The limited if scandalous historical error with Hitlerism and fascism they can easily settle, but the Wikipedia's secularist power will remain the target anyway. J'ai accusé ..I have made the historical point sufficiently.... EffK 21:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Charges of bad faith editing

The Wikipedia policy Assume Good Faith cautions that allegations of bad faith editing should not be made idly, and place the burden of proof on the editor charging another editor with bad faith editing. Unsubstantiated allegations of bad faith are considered personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK : I concur with this policy.I have certainly not been idle . The charge as presented leaves me with some hope for sanity here, that you the Arbitrators may actually be able to follow the logic of this charge, dismiss the accusations of personal attack and release me from this posotion as a defendant. I anyway believe that to have asked McClenon to wash his mouth out with soap was very much a mild reqquest compared to his decision that that I was a paranoid schizophrenic with a writing disability. In good faith I have proved that a catholic is bound by law canon 752, I refer readers/Arbs to 21 Febuary Letter from Pope John Paul II emitting "moral guidance" separately from doctrinal necessity to up-hold the faith and thus ordering them to infiltrate. I experience and itemise this infiltration. I call for Arbitration through-out. I have no charge to answer: I request a counter-charge, and repeat that this Arbcom was requested by me in the first instance, and that I claim a Wikipedian's good faith for its immediate expansion to cover the true bad faith editing. I note that this is not done even though Robert McClenon confirmed this could be so done, and that despite his claim to impartiality, and his construction of this case case by himself, that he declines to so effect it. I show diffs and these diffs were as conclusive a proof when made as afterwards. Doctrine and morals, said the late Pontiff. Do we have to argue the morality of WP, at which point NPOV crosses say the morality of descibing bomb-making manuals is NPOV, say ? I am accused of gross impiety simply for quoting agreed law. presuymably gross impiety is something that the last Pontiff would have been referring to as immoral of itself . I am intellectually immoral because I am grossly impious . I back it all up in qu0tation from standard histories, from the players, from the laws-and I am grossly impious. I represent an enemy to such as would accuse me of being grossly impious, presumably. I represent all that the previous and present pontiff specify -the dangers of rationlism and the emptiness of heart precisely brought on by the Internet( lets face it-with results showing as they do- that's WP). Knowing this, I have also to face Arbcom . I am greatful to Robert McClenon for requiring this public reaction- the which should balance such pontifical desire based upon secrecy, un-accountability, sub-version of truth by "document war" ,and the greatest canonical hypocrisy and danger to the divine Magisterium our enemies attack us for using the Nazis to beat the Commies, and they'd be right to if we did . I sincerely wish to help the Organisation towards the centre of its own truth, and away from further disastrous and forbidden policy , especially to do with the same root of law Humanae Vitae. I believe quite simply in the lessons of history,and wish to place the sourced conclusions properly, and thereby help the world. If this has bad consequences for persons in a canonical court, so be it. I did not write that law but only explain it, here. In fact I had no need to explain it, as it is abundantly clear of itself- I quoted it . As all law , it leaves little orno room for interpretation. we all know that humanae vitae has no room for maneuver,hence the rejection of condoms by the Church and that is based on the same principles of the law- so any idea that I myself twisted or interpreted these canons , is desperation within denial . The history speaks for itself. The diffs speak for the denialism of the history,and the explanation I make is made simply to explain to others.

Comment by others:

1. EffK seems to think that since he has "proved" that all Catholics are remote-controlled robots he is free to assume bad faith towards all Catholic editors on Wikipedia, at least as soon as the disagree with him, even if only slightly. Canon 752, to which he's referring, actually demands from Catholics to adhere and assent to Catholic dotrine, which is a fairly common concept in other religions or denominations as well. Unfortunately EffK has given ample evidence of his difficulty in reading source texts without reading something into it. That's sad but true. Str1977 11:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article talk pages

Article talk pages are intended for discussion that is relevant to the proposed content of articles. They should not be used as soapboxes for arguments that are irrelevant to or tangential to article content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK: Whilst gratified at this section writer's appropriation of my English vocabulary (tangential), this title at least is not an ad hominem attack on me. The implication nevertheless is clearly ad hominem that I contravene this. History is not Botany, and does not have clear limit by any species formulae. It is irrational to suggest other-wise. If the Church does a deal with Adolf Hitler, this of itself raises multipl- issues. I have tried to alert users to revisionist document war entering the WP sphere - why, how to solve it, the political ramifications of the deal, the necessity for a cleansing brought by understanding, the dangers of a repetition in out time. If anything I spoke of had no basis in fact or no relationship whatever to where it was placed , then I may have been wrong. I claim the gravity of the subject, involving a knowingly( as I proved it to have been from quotation of its own leader upon 10 April 1933 etc) but purely by its own definition, criminal Organisation , the Holocaust and WWII ,justify my words as placed. I remind the Arbcom that the Organisation is not history , hence the importance .EffK 11:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Diversity in Wikipedia

Wikipedia welcomes editors with a diversity of viewpoints, including religious, political, and cultural viewpoints, as long as they can respect the concept that Wikipedia itself must present NPOV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK. This is irrational. POV is not allowed in Wikipedia. NPOV report of the above diversity viewpoints is allowed , but not POV implementation deriving therefrom. User's should expect that NPOV represents a secular foundation , and that any religious viewpoints be rigorously challenged by secular reason, and being as they are based on imcomplete past un-scientific knowledge, that they be subject to that supersceding rational knowledge. As religious comment or belief can in no way demonstrate any reality based in knowledge or reason or scientific proof, faith editing can play little part in Wikipedia articles , as no sourced proof can be supplied. The only part that religious information can play is to reveal to us its input within history and culture. Such can be shown in an NPOV manner: how religion can affect people, voting, laws, customs, ries and beliefs. Faith editors can find therein all they require to be active , but they can in no religious manner assist NPOV or reasoned or scientific NPOV. Their irrational levels of faith play no part in reality but for their lamentable back-wardness through history, science and culture, all of which demonstrate a long and painful process of human disentanglement from such irrationality. Wikipedians should not be encouraged to show badges of faith. Wikipedia must de-activate all user names and return with a clean slate of names, none of which will be allowed private email connection thru such a new order. Badges of faith should be banned, and policing of the Wikipedia reliance on rational acceptance of NPOV source must be accorded primacy.

EffK 11:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Editors with religious beliefs

Wikipedia welcomes editing of articles about topics related to religious denominations by members of those religious denominations, provided that those editors can respect NPOV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK I prove that such rationally regressive editors do not confine their imposition of faith-based, in this case catholic, NPOV disregard/disrespect. to the 'religious articles' alone. EffK 11:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Ability to write

Contributing to Wikipedia requires a certain measure of ability to write clearly in the language of the particular Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK : It would be immodest of me to comment. EffK 11:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Excessive Multiple Posting

Excessive Multiple Posting of the same or substantially the same message to multiple Wikipedia talk pages is considered spamming. It is disruptive of Wikipedia and is not permitted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Some policies have referred to Excessive Cross-Posting. However, these policies probably actually should refer to Excessive Multiple Posting. On the Usenet, ECP and EMP are different abuses. The incident in question is equivalent to Usenet EMP. Robert McClenon 19:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Neutral Point of View

Neutral Point of View is one of the pillar principles of Wikipedia. This means that points of view (POVs) should be presented as points of view. The fact that a particular point of view has been stated by a reputable scholarly source does not justify presenting it as fact or NPOV, but it does justify presenting it as a reputable POV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK. Multiple scholarly sources together with affidavits or actual verbal quotation from historical personages cannot nor should not bow to un-sourced assertion or opinion. Proper editors would indeed allow of revisionist POV to be reported as interesting parallel whilst the above would provide the history structure.EffK 11:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] No Original Research

As stated in the policy No Original Research, Wikipedia is not a forum for original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK If this is a charge against me -which is un-clear, it has no basis. The relevance of all explanation is covered inside WP / Jimbo statement. I have sourced this, and do not need to remind informed editors of the Jimbo qualifications. In response to the succeeding statement(unsigned) tthe canons state that the clergy must at all times foster the peace. It doesn't take much analysis to see that this is in contradiction with fostering a party of War( NSDAP Program) by negotiating a ( Str1977) denied Secret Annexe to the Reichskonkordat, prohibited under the Versailles Treaty, and bargaining a Political party inside the Vatican. At the very least it is Systemic Bias to consistently deny, even by contradicting oneself, the verifiability of multiple source.This bias forces whatever research is allowable to counter-asseet the truths such as the Annexe. I repeat that I wish this Trial to concern the chief two Users I name, but I would add the bad faith shown to my 15 December Hitler edit, by User:John Kenney . I see he gives no evidence to counter this particular important quotation of him by me there, in the text. I suggest he should. If I have made this original research, the evident poor and un-ruled by verifiability Wikipedia, without Arbitration over-sight despite my constant requests, is made to de-subvert the sleeping Wikipedia. 12:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

1. The argument by EffK that EffK's charges of misconduct against Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII was based on his own interpretation of canon law, with no support by any canon lawyer. It thus constituted original research.

Comment by others:

[edit] Novel Interpretations of Texts

Novel interpretations of well-established texts, such as codes of laws or religious scriptures, are sometimes argued by editors in Wikipedia. Novel interpretations that are not supported by any other source may be considered original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK . This has nothing to do with my Wikipedia contributions if I am charged, and, for different reason, the previous section here covers discussions where rational analysis can provide explanation. This section contradicts these new (?) ideas about Wikireligion in the Section headings above. If we are to accept 'well-established , then we abdicate to for, example, the pope's offices of dissemination, accept the leadership principle, and may as well not be here. Is this section , together with the religious above, a sign that the inner reaches of Wikipedia are being devoured by the octopus of irrational religious faith ? I repeat that that expalanations were kept on discussions for the education of editirs towards the subjects of those discussions. This in fact would appear to me to represent a form of censorship, and contravene Jimbo's explanations consideration. It is an attack on rationality exhibited by me, attempted by me and derided as impious when it was patently written by cardinal Pacelli himself, in his earlier incarnation as canon expert. If texts may not be considered then explanation may not be reached, discussion pages would be redundant and so forth. I adhere to no original research policy on Articles, or try to.

Comment by others:

[edit] Keep Cool

Wikipedia editors are expected to keep cool even when under provocation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK . In clear good faith I request that this Arbitration be justly extended to include User:Str1977 and User:Robert McClenon as other defendants

Comment by others:

[edit] Names Used

The defendant in this action has edited under the names of Flamekeeper, Corecticus, Fiamekeeper, Famekeeper, and EffK.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK is in known company called " FK " . {{User:PureSoups]] splashed at Jimbo's mat once, having been a short-lived choice after hard drive crash and cookie change .

Comment by others:

[edit] Focus on Catholic Church

EffK has edited with an obsessive focus on the involvement of the Catholic Church with the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler in Germany.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK Whoever wrote this is intellectually complacent . The extraordinary attempt to disallow sourced contribution in this ill-represented Wikipedia field of knowledge, is covered by my original or earliest explanations, my later ones, for this see motive diffs .

I am the only editor representing the source, therefore I am peculiarly susceptible to this charge. It is in fact a form of Ad hominem in itself, as is the placing of this Arbitration in my name rather than as forever requested, in the name of the dispute/whitewash/papal influence as a whole .

In good faith I have reported multiple media commentary as to the papal Letter of 21 Febuary 2005, the Vatican's 24 Febuary 2005 Conference under the 'Pontifical Council for Social Communications'(run by Bishop Renato Boccardo)together with the relevant religious canonical law pertaining to this real world media force,(hydra or octo-plus). This case all pertains to precisely the outcome of this papal letter which clearly instructs all those who confess to Roman Catholicism , to obey the new instructions for careful 'moral' codification of all online media available. This affects you in so far as the genesis of the above Council's partly rests in precisely the history of Vatican involvement with the nascent Third Reich.

The very charge is a whitewash emanating from where I state.The obsession could justly be traced to there emanate, and the millions of TV receivers who were alerted to John Paul II's last book and the Jewish distress it raised, combine for reason as to why the vatican needs to cover its earlier and present errors. I refer to Abraham Lehrer- for whom you may wikisearch into Pius XII. This section here is intellectually false

Comment by others:

[edit] Personal Attacks

EffK has engaged in repeated personal attacks on User:Str1977 and User:Robert McClenon and has falsely accused these editors of bad faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. The qualification of vatican agent as an attack is incorrect-it was a characterisation , based on fact. The User claimed virtue as a Catholic Christian, and I characterised him under his own professed description of himself only due to his action over time, and with greatest civilised regret sincerely expressed. EffK supplies proof of his statements that the editor, indeed all catholic editors, are controlled by orders even unexpressed to submit their intellect, reason and hence their goodwill defined clearly by philosophy at Evidence 15 december overleaf, and which is specific to these two editors behaviour. Neither show true rational acceptance of multiple source. Personal attack on Str1977 before clear definition of him as a vatican Agent, was limited to mild exclamations of moral outrage with no scatology: no expletives; no more than association of him with provocative edits; calls of vandalism; of accusation of POV despite source; of minor tagging when major; of undescribed when serious; of all-round exclusion of sourced edits throughout every article; the self-appointed cleaner of myself, despite source.

I said he should call in his superiors, and several other self-confessed faith editors entered, chiefly McClenon who claiming his sympathy for the NPOV, then, defined sources provided as POV ; asked for explanations which he was repeatedly given,only to claim filibustering; ignored simplistic summaries requested by him; ignored history within the discussion. McClenon very quickly denied me all facility of expression (writing) and genuinely and rather successfully provoked me into bracketing statements where his constant harping on my length reduced the pith to minimalist bite-size,which I presented to Jimbo before leaving Wikipedia . McClenon engaged in repeated ad hominem attacks upon EffK, and hardly merited any serious appelation by EffK, who treated him as disingenuous from such response experienced. McClenon claimed that good faith be assumed until otherwise proven, I followed his dictum stupidly believing him a paragon in this.

McClenon when I had departed WP for nigh 2 months,then conjoined with the other user against what in this charge is termed conspiracy theory, to begin "FK Research" , himself harassing my memory with vilest psychological profiling and proving his (sub-verted)POV in the whole.EffK 13:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Claims of Censorship

EffK has claimed that efforts to remove POV statements or unsourced statements are censorship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK. This should read "NPOV" statements removed are censorship...which is the experience of Effk, see 19 July agreement to ' barter /on the table/up for negotiation.

The very question is typical of User:McClenon. EffK has sourced statements for his NPOV, and done so repeatedly and verifiably. EffK reiterates in strongest possible reason that censorshp is being widely preactised to protect ecclesiastical hagiography, which of course exits to the Sex Abuse, property deal excised from the relevant article. In other words what affects the church affects everything, so the censorship is anywhere it needs to be. sign EffK 12:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Incomprehensibility

Other editors have complained that some of EffK's posts were incomprehensible. The ArbCom, having read some of these posts that were entered into evidence, concurs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK Who writes this conclusion of Arbcom, but Robert McClenon? This is rather odd , and confirmed to me to be so. It would be immodest to reply, and disappoint some self-regarding Users. Anywhere that I have shown any such tendency results from extreme pressure from continuous and virulent cnesorship/bad faith/irrational/whitewash etc.EffK 13:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Misuse of Article Talk Pages

EffK has established a pattern of using article talk pages as a soapbox for presenting a controversial view about the involvement of the Catholic Church with the Nazi Party, even when this view is tangential to the content of the articles. His irrelevant voluminous posts have at times had the effect of being a filibuster of those pages, making discussion of article content almost impossible.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK The sole irrelevance was to attempt to persuade un-reasonable users, these same two(except for my first newbieish dispute with User:John Kenney re his mistake proven at Centre Party Germany about dissolved by Hitler ). EffK has always avoided reverts as provocative and hence requested good faith through reasoning, which reasoning is qualified as soap box filibustering by McClenon, the same McClenon whose action in raising this twisted theory promotion here, shows the reasoning to have been received in bad faith.

User Str1977 has been in bad faith throughout 9 months everywhere denying source. The article talk pages were filled by the need to make this attempt to enforce good faith, good will and reasoned NPOV. MClenon never wished to listen or understand, and purely took a wikicops blinker with him . Str1977 has shown deep involvement throughout the same talk pages, and taken great pains, but refused source thereby provoking further lengthy discussions, and my pleading for required behaviour and history . The charge as made in this section is more ad hominem , and shameful to McClenon and Str1977. I have proved as of 15 December, that both User's are disingenuous editors. I myself have always known, but of it there can remain no doubt, following the hypocritical contradiction recorded in the very final last part of 15 December Evidence. EffK 13:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Original Research

EffK has presented a novel argument, based on canon law and on a Scripture passage, not substantiated by any scholarly sources, that certain leaders of the Catholic Church, including Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII, excommunicated themselves by collaboration with the Nazis and therefore should be disinterred. The ArbCom finds that this argument was original research and thus not appropriate to Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK What is an argument, in WP terms?

If in any way, which I doubt,I ntroduced this into any historical Article, I do not remember doing so. I considerd this and repeated this where it was due by way of required explanatory understanding. EffK proved the collaboration, proved the relevant internal Church response required, and can await that one christian, which EffK is himself not, who may call the case for excommunication to be ratified. certain priveliges on earth are to be retracted, namely burial of the concerned inside the vatican crypt of St. peter. Thereby the scandal may and must be repaired as catholic Law requires- I predict that the present Pope Benedict VXI will pre-empt any such case , as he definitely canonically should. I would question whether the knowing of the necessity is itself , without resulting repair, not also a lesser crime ? As with Abraham Lehrer at Cologne synaagogue of the ICJHC Pius XII Commission, this will eventually be history .

Comment by others:

[edit] Vandalism of NPOV Policy

The defendant, posting as Famekeeper, edited the Wikipedia policy of NPOV in order to insert a protest about its application. A request to discuss the application of the policy could have been permissibly made on the policy talk page, but not on the policy article page itself. This editing of a Wikipedia policy, not intended to improve the policy, is found to have been vandalism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Spamming of Talk Pages

The defendant spammed a large number of article and user talk pages on 15 December 2005 with the statement that he was "being forced to abandon a corrupted Wikipedia". Since the defendant did not in fact abandon Wikipedia, this multiple posting had no informational value and was purely disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK. I abandoned being an editor. I was/am/would be completely unable to function despite verifiability and perfect good faith in the presentation of it. Quite clearly the articles I have expanded show a reasonable presentation within NPOV clarification. The argument against me is a 'straw man' argument because the disputants cannot defeat the verifiable source. As I am the only person prepared to place the information, the only necessity was to drive me bananas through circular re-denials, after forced admissions, as evidenced. When I prove , anywhere and everywhere, the case, there come no justificatory verifiable answers to my questions. The intellectual dishonesty shown to me ,now for the second time has forced me to withdraw from editing. I deem it relevant to users and pages that I show why my side of the discussions come to an end- that I go not because there is completion or peace and progress or answers, but that I am forced to go, and there is a corruption of this organ. I plainly cannot include the sources, nor link the articles, even within my limited technical capacity for managing the software. The crowning limit is that final complete hypocrisy from the editor claiming the right to censor me, on 15 December 2005 at Hitler,which necessitated a complete withdrawal from editing all articles. The only single Article I have touched since, which was that about Systemic Bisas, I admit I mistakenly touched as it seemed such an internal Wikipedia type management article, and more like an evidence page here, than some piece of history from the real world. I have not attempted since the 15 to do other than fight the right to verifiability, and protest justifiably to where, and to those for whom, the cabal censorship is even slightly relevant. I certainly did not know that several recipients were Arbitrators. Maybe this is terribly important, as with my other sins- I claim severe continuous denialist clerical revisionist provocation. I claim it as defence, because it is him to claim - who has suffered it. Systemic Bias, despite this experience of wide Bias, would not receive my section asserting this here problem. This is not a content problem, I have proved that these editors even accept that the facts are as I have shown, and that the sources are in existence, and that they accept the scandal happened part of the sourced way(that limited part, not the full Cornwell Hitler's Pope part included by me on 15 at Hitler). They object to the even limited remembrance of the scandal-and that is a moral type point, without basis in an enciclo. The claim that this is a content issue is a means to avoid your judgement. It is a bias issue, based in all that I have described. The scandal is a danger to resurgent faith in a criminal world, and the criminality of the past is in-admissable for that resurgence, and because of infallibility existing as a tenet of the organisation that allied itself, negotiated with, approved, and joined with-(technically as per the loss of its own autonomy in the Concordat) the conspiracy to intitute totalitarian dictatorship. Once I have been pushed out, the scandal will be more controllable. Fortunately for Wikipedia I have shown the wherebout of the correctional source, and in some beneficial future, the corrections can be effected. The notices of corruption were and are justified marks and pointers to assist editors now and in the future.

Comment by others:

[edit] Bad Faith Editing

EffK has alleged bad-faith editing by Str1977 and Robert McClenon. The ArbCom does not find this allegation to have been substantiated, and instead considers it to be a personal attack on those editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK I here proved bad-faith editing, as showed from the continuous experience. Arbcom is requested to consider the consequences by extending the arbitration to these users ,with note of Yser:JohnKenney all for the same ,as per my request. In this JohnK regard, if Str1977 presents JohnK evidence, does that make JohnK a party subject to your consideration? If his evidence is used, is he not a party? I presented evidence about this User.

Comment by others:

[edit] Demands by EffK for Arbitration

EffK states that he has repeatedly demanded arbitration of his claims of "clerical denialism" and "whitewash" and suppression of the truth. The ArbCom notes that most of these "demands" were made on article talk pages, and one on the RfAr talk page, and so were not presented to the ArbCom.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK They were all made in plaintive un-technically proficient good faith, and they remain in good faith. Robert McClenon is of the party of the disputant Str1977, and thus ignored the very determined last request made directly to him. This User is particularly biased, disingenuous, ill mannered, and should be dealt with in the manner required to control these ant-community characteristics. His desire to determine the Arbcom exhibited on this page are symptomatic . I am very sorry to have to openly characterise this dangerous ab-user, as much as I have to do so for the equally but intellectually dangerous Str1977, now conclusively proved disingenuous .The WP is not big enough for these User's , and they are making a meal of Wikipedia, as Renato Boccardo orders, however unlikely you think this to be. I have proved the orders given and the offices set up and the effect as it became visible through the first signing into Wikipedia of Str1977. The software is an open invitation to all, clearly, and I showed at my talk that the office exists. jimbo welcomes the billion Users naturally, but as I also show, they are some-times obliged to a greater power than Jimbo, and the scandal is one-time. This very Arbitration is a conspiracy against a conspiracy of silence against an actual conspiracy ( 'a maneuver intended to deceive' said Nuremberg). Not my conspiracy, nor my theory. I have no theory, not even as to novel interpretaion of texts. It clearly says that excommunicates should lose their priveliges. Their law, not mine. I clearly called for arbitration at half a dozen pages over a year or so. Arbitrate your faith-editor problem: I request it. if it is done here, all the better, but if not, I rquest that arbitration. that faith based editors conspire to intellectually subvert Wikipedia Articles from Adolf Hitler downwards, via Holocaust, Nazism, Popes, Political History, National History (Germany itself), on to Ludwig Kaas, etc etc. EffK 13:19, 16 December 2005 . Arbitrate Centre Party Germany where I asked, Hitler's Pope where I asked, Kaas, Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates which is under deletion POV accusation despite source,arbitrate the removal of links between the relevant subjects . Arbitrate anywhere I have ever been. Arbitrate me, but I asked and ask you, in good faith, to arbitrate the denialism , and particularly Str1977 use of it. And, I still find the demo for placing a request for Arbitration illogical/un-useable. (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] No substantial evidence of suppression of truth

EffK has requested arbitration of his claims of "clerical denialism" and "whitewash" and suppression of the truth. The ArbCom finds that he has not proved any such case and has not presented any substantial evidence of such a case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK has plainly substantiated this , and the ability of his censors to contradict even themselves in their eagerness to suppress verifiable NPOV reports.EffK 12:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Personal attacks under provocation

The ArbCom finds that Robert McClenon, under extreme provocation from User:Famekeeper, engaged in the personal attack of questioning the sanity of User:Famekeeper.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Ban for One Month

EffK, under any user name, is banned from Wikipedia for one month for personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Longer Ban

EffK, under any user name, is banned from Wikipedia for two months for personal attacks and an additional month, to run consecutively, for a pattern of abuse of talk pages, or a total of three months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Ban from Editing Articles on Catholic Church

EffK, under any user name, is banned from editing article pages and article talk pages having to do with the Catholic Church for six months. This restriction shall be interpreted broadly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Apart from the problem of distinguishing whether Ludwig Kaas is church-man or politician,where the Church articles begin and end , are or are not -the very idea is regrettable for WP balance and image. Pristine white , or mixed gray , in metaphor. Broadly would extend with the Church to all it has affected - Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal ?EffK 23:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Alternative remedy

EffK, under any user name, shall be required to find a mentor after his ban for personal attacks ends, for assistance in proper sourcing and in distinguishing POV from NPOV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK thinks this would be acceptible if the named censors receive each a mentor. To assist me in sourceing! That is a pure bad faith accusation, and contrary to the visible EffK contribution of multiple verifiable clear source published.EffK 12:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Personal Attack Parole

EffK, under any user name, is placed on personal attack parole for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Robert McClenon Cautioned

Robert McClenon is cautioned to remain cool and avoid personal attacks even under provocation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Str1977 Commended

Str1977 is commended for keeping cool and avoiding personal attacks under extreme provocation by EffK.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Resetting

Any ban, partial ban, or personal attack parole on EffK shall be reset to its original duration if it is deemed to have been violated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Deletion of off-topic talk page posts

Any Wikipedian in good standing may delete any irrelevant, inflammatory, uncivil, or incomprehensible posts by EffK, under any use name, to article talk pages, without regard to the usual 3RR rule. Such deletion shall not be considered vandalism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. EffK thinks the inability to separate politics and religion would make this an un-spoken permanent ban. Therefore if the aim is to silence this editor, he should be out-right banned forever, considering the Resetting suggestion would achieve the same. Off -topic is one of the more sophisticated tactics used contrary to the reality here expressed, is debateable, but is the fastest means to suppress truth and censor as evidenced when that which is verifiable and of parallel or partial relationship, is suppressed. EffK is not uncivil, and the 'inflammatory' is caused by the verifiable historical actions of long ago, not by Ekk. EffK 13:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Sockpuppets

During the period that EffK is banned, any two administrators may block any user account that is found to be being used as a sockpuppet to avoid the ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I have never used a sock-puppet. If I were to,not many people who dispute it would have trouble recognising the formality of my contribution and the continuity of my source .

Comment by others:

[edit] Administrative Block

Any administrator who determines that EffK (under any user name) is editing in violation of a partial ban or is violating a parole may block him for a short period, initially 24 hours. Later blocks may extend to one week.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Investigation of conspiracy

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

EffK :#http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enabling_Act&diff=30206411&oldid=30112546,[[3]] Highlit guide easily visible at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Enabling_Act[[4]] . I am not aware of the final adjudication at the Nuremberg Trials but here is proof at any rate that the investigation was made and was considered an illegal conspiracy , and that this is not EffK theory or EffK POV. I repeat that the call to arbitration emanated from me and that it was made repeatedly after suffering the forbidden denialism of source , the harrassment allegations and mental provocation, and imposition of whitening POV .EffK 09:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I think there's more than enough evidence now for anything. Please, no more stream-of-consciousness argument; evidence and commentary should be concise and presented neutrally. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. EffK I am trying to think of a way out of this for all parties, including the Wikipedia Arbitration party to this. From the end of my last word placed at my last Evidence, 15 December 2005, a gentle calm has enveloped my mind. The spectacle of my disputant's clear contradiction of himself releases me entirely from any further necessity to charcterise him, or his ilk . I can stop this awful inter-locution, the which I have likened to ground-hoggism . The circularity of the denialism exactly matches the circularity of the sourced information. The inter-relationship of the Articles affected show just how completely impossible it would be to distinguish in any meaningful manner between Articles which are included in the new faith-based toleration, or not. I refer to the implicit suggestion in this Arb of mine to toleration here in WP of faith-led editing.

I am not, and never have been against such, but rather always accepted that the relevant Articles needed their religious context and character. The problem for me arose from the lack of the earthly context -the true reflection of history brought up to date via all that is sourced from the past. In fact I tried myself, weakly because I am not schooled in such particular language, to begin a train of such purely spirito-metaphysical reflection into the Pius XII Article, seeing therein a favourable and counter-balancing concept to the more secular side of him. In short, I represent no danger to purely faith subject material. I only represented a difference with this noble and eternal aspect of our societies, when the secular side was disproportionately and actively diminuished.

I am thoroughly exhausted by consistent ground-hoggism around the early 1930's German history. As I say the reality of the non-secular now revealing its irrationality at the epitome of the secular, Adolf Hitler, made for me a crowning example of all that I had striven to remark by way of massaging revisionism. My shock after so many shocks, is slight, sadly, as it should be one of very great indignation. I have recently categorised indignation entirely into the offensive and incorrect use of accession as a word to describe Hitler's rise to power upon the Section "Jews" at Holocaust. Just as the interface of argument that was reported following the late John Paul II's Memory and Identity book, had sat upon the dismay of his use of the Enabling Act as simile( this is what he meant in his own words) to the Shoa, so does Jewish indignation still circle the pope thought of as the Shoah Pope.

I , at any rate, have to balance any tired, satiated feeling of finality from the hypocritical irrationality at Hitler's Article, with the immense gravity of the subject. My personal feelings which would exceedingly gladly retire completely from any continuing involvement, have to be balanced by the responsibility forced on me by my ability to recognise and counter the generalised attempt to whiten the immense black gravity.

It is thus hard for me to say- Oh, it is over or Oh,it is at an end, or I will leave. I can say all that, but, but, I cannot say that Oh,it was wrong to have written and edited as I have done. It is not for me to say that this is wrong whilst I, however failingly, owe this sacred duty. The duty is to others who suffered. Any suffering that comes to me would be on a par with fairly anybody. One descends from people who were forced by duty to bring an end to grave violence. Violence was used to do so, and brutalisation was general. Suffering is numerically ten-fold out of the Shoa, but- but, the pitiless nature of that is so far and away more black than what are in contrast battlefield or civilian suffering, as to demand the great continuous emphasis all must place upon that counter-example to civilisation.

Yes and all, but the problem within these Articles has not been resolved. All that has been resolved is that the anti-secularism wishes to control the secularism. No one particularly cares, and few understand that it happens, and even fewer understand why. Imagine you - you, had had to enter into WP, and to spend a year night and day and really the changes you effected to, say, 15 Artcles amounted to a days writing, and all the rest of the time only amounts, in fact to the one last diff -proof at Adolf Hitler. I have gladly improved many articles, paricualrly anything touching on Weimar, which was in horrible confusion, induced by a complexity of standard source such as Shirer. I did not wish to hover around these contributions at all. In a proper WP, I should not have had to.

What now? I would gladly withdraw utterly exhausted- I have at any rate gone on a protest. My disputant has handed me the perfect excuse to go on strike. The discussion pages have the relevant source, my over-weening explanations could not be more full. There is in fact nothing more to do on discussions, and no more source to provide, and no more explanations to be given, and no more edits to be made- except to fight over whether they should or should not be made. Someone else could appear next year and avail of the history, and do it their way, quite possibly more acceptably pithily. Of course, this is not the problem. There are any number of people who could do so better than I, but the problem of anti-secular denial remains both within and without WP, and must remain until the apex of the pyramidal anti-secularism comes to terms with itself (the pontiff). I may, possibly, have encouraged this forward movement, or I may have only done harm. It is hard to see that I have done any more than place what is already in the public domain into WP. I have dotted a few I's and crossed the Timeline T details. The huge plethora of scholarship which attests to the reality of the perfect but erroneous Kick-back scheme may, just possibly, take some contribution from my personal WP aggregation of source and linkage. Equally the the non-secular power may take from this that it has only one critic in the world. of course this would be a very far-fetched possibility. It can be discounted.

However it is true to say that I appear to be alone here in WP in my strident part-knowledgeable insistence. Alone in my constancy of purpose and constancy of source, and,that source I have not had, I have forced from my disputant by his agreements . I respect Str1977's writing, whether or not it is the product of great power, it is highly characterful and apparently completely logical. It is persuasive and authoritative. It is extremely knowledgeable. I could wax on for some space. I am honoured by it. I dislike having to critique its apparent nobility. I have to do so now as we draw to the finality of the experience which has been brought by logic to these Arbcom pages.

In so far as my brain retains some cell memory of the never-ending interaction with this editor, I have to qualify the last comments with the capacity I have been shown by him for agreement followed by its reversal elsewhere. The editor will dispute this point in particular, forever. Only his clear deletion of the Reichskonkordat kick-back/ quid pro quo for the voluntary dissolution of the German catholic Centre Party or Zentrumspartei , here on 15 December, can teach you of this editor's method. For the entire period the editor has argued against any connection beyong this scheme , which as the diffs for that comparison reveal, he had had to, and therefore always did, accept. His means of controlling reference to it however were subtle. This subtlety broke on Adolf Hitler.

It is only important to discuss this here because this is the exemplification of the non-secular editing question in WP. The diffs show that the operation of control was not based in the rational. I have a deep explantion for this. The only justifying rational explanation I can give is that indeed, as I have always suspected, this user is an office. He is a sock-puppet for multiple editors, so -so, there was an error, a clear contradiction and therefore apparent fault. This would be rational, but a WikiSin to state it. However the only experiential explanation I give, is much less charitable. It is that on several occasions such reversal of discussion statements have been insisted upon by the editor, and, that he will do anything whatever to prevent linkage of the Third Reich to the Vatican. In so far as he can do this with almost non-existent source, using a paternal authoritative tone, a patience that is remarkable in the digital sphere, a preparedness to persuade and cajole and retort . Yes, and when all these fail, a disparagement, a denial, a belittling, and then open ad hominem attack. My writing is appalling, my thoughts are ill-informed, historiography is defined such as to deny whatever sources, however batant and multiple they be, as all un-worthy. Published authors are scurrilous, are minor, are ignorable, sourced quotation is even changed. I then myself can be done-down by categorisation as foreign, as strange, as unusual, as sick in the construction of my thoughts, as a vandal, as a spammer, asd a creator of "havoc" such that fellow catholic editors are called in to multipally beat me and reduce me to departure. At that point , indeed all the way through, but certainly at the end, I am artificailly archived from all casual visibility. The problem disappears. The history can be re-massaged and very sublty, adjectives assuage the un-wary as everything takes on the nature of a corporate document.

The error was made on Adolf's Article. The editor on 19 July assented to the evident historical truth of the quid pro quo/ Kick-back, but only from 9 April, mind you- not as I source or edit , from the previous year , or month, or fortnight, or week, or even day ( though he begins to relent on a day ). No source would shake him a week, but he openly agreed to a third-user's Source and analysis, and anyway cannot over-turn the standard histories. These all say the 9 April, when the Vice-chancellor of Hitler's Government (in fact secretly) arrived in Rome. He accepted this. He now later, on December 15 2005 rejects it, as POV, as erroneous, as persoanl crank nonsense to be deleted at will.

Obviously Hitler's page is not a religious page, but the religious hover over it, as they do over any relevant Hitler related historical page, as they - non-secularist editors epitomised by Str1977, so hover. A casual glance will show that my one burst of edits to Hitler, made 15 December were all defused , contrary to sources I fulsomely provided to this very editor, in previous hours even. The arrogation of power within and yet against WP principles is stunning, and I remain stunned. All, all my characterisation is justified through-out my years draft time in here. There is no more to be said, and due to the number of editors policing this editor's flanks, there is absloutely nothing more to be done, except complain. Even complaint has been taken from me here, and turned against me. There is no way forward, and I accept this entirely, but in the spirit in which it is enforced. If the problem that this raises, together with all historical exactitudes, could go away and disappear with me, well , I think that is what Jimbo wanted all along. Naturally. It will create a fools paradise.

I am going away. I fairly assure you that I mean it when I say that I will again remove myself and make no further attempts to edit the subject, or most likely any Articles whatever. Certainly I am all repeated out with Weimar Germany, and the Vatican. It frankly presents no further need or challenge for understanding to me. I will not be buying any books about it, nor reading any more. I have fulfilled this mission, and I can now, as Jimbo said hold my head up high' . I can leave , but - you have to ask me to stay . I can assent to the requirement to cool the WP secular-religious divide by NOT writing anything more about it, by avoiding all these editors like the plague, and in fact, leading an entirely different digital program outside of Wikpedia altogether. It copuld be that I reject Wikipedia, as much as Wkipedia rejecting me.

If I am banned or qualified as POV, then - then you have assented to the charge that this has all been a pet issue, and then the gravity of the subject either is beyond your contemporay ken, or you are morally as well as rationally dysfunctional in some extremity of flippancy . If you thereby chastise me, and ban me, or control me , then - then you have yourselves morally and rationally entered the argument. The argument then will persist to further eat into the vitals of WP, and of its editors. Indeed you could ban the blocks of IP's and that way effect my departure. The temptation though would be to, whilst away, enforce gggogleboms to magnify the entire scandal as here iterated in my own writings and magnified by such qualification of the charge as placed.

What you do about Str1977 and that ilk, I do not know. You cannot overturn the apex, and must await further developements between yourselves, I have no advice to give except a total renewal of names or a ban just to destroy the name Str1977 or whichever. It could be a salutary lesson, but the hydra or octopus may only return a thousand-fold. This particular WP Arbitration is the entire reflection of a natural facet of the digital revolution. We can see that this was bound to happen - but we cannot see the future. We can, though, see that the non-secularists amongst us do see the future in a particular way. We may or may not be or feel threatenened by their future. We most certainly were threatened in the recent past, and we probably would be wise to keep religion firmly in its "hapful" morality and other-worldliness. Thankyou all , including all editors who have contributed to everything , especial thanks to Str1977, as I repeatedly and paradoxically stated through-out. I note the renewed attack on intellectuality and rationalism on the Internet as representing a danger, made during this past religious festivals as someone already considered grossly impious . I say that this qualification has to be put aside the evident and sourced historical wrong being now most contumately and un-canonically supported from on high as well as from here below on Wikipedia at Article Adolf Hitler outwards. EffK 05:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment and summary by party Robert McClenon

I assume that one of the reasons why this case has been in evidence as long as it has is that it has been difficult for the arbitrators to determine what EffK is actually trying to say and whether he is contributing anything of value. I ask the ArbCom to conclude that, regardless of what his message is, it does not add any value to Wikipedia. He has been filling article talk pages with these diatribes for almost a year now. Editors who have tried to work with him to improve article content have been unable to work with him.

He appears to be saying that there is a conspiracy by the Catholic Church to suppress the truth, and that Wikipedia is being "corrupted" or "colonized by the Vatican". In the past month he has admitted that he is no longer trying to contribute to articles but is only using talk pages to continue to protest this "corruption". Since he is admittedly not even trying to contribute to articles, the ArbCom should ban him. Robert McClenon 12:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others: