Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/EffK/Proposed decision
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Injury to user EffK
I note that Robert McClenon was correct in stating that experience of bad faith allows an editor to recognise bad faith without this being a personal attack.
I consider therefore that this entire case is scurrilous, and that I have every right to have made the characterisations that I have civilly made. If an editor consistently shows bad Wikipedia faith in defense of a past and a present papacy, I do not see that the characterisation as a Vatican Agent is anything other than descriptive.
I will not be satisfied that Wikipedia has internal consistency unless as with all Trials, the possibility of redress to the injured is not enabled. I consider myslf grievously injured and ask for the redress to be unambiguous. ThankyouEffK 17:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User EffK responds to the building quorum in process
[Note:If EffK were a managerial type /good software mind, he may have been able to earlier define what may have previously presented itself as option to the above Arbitrators. EffK can only await the majority vote and trust that this inclusion will be taken for the good-faith low managerial ability it represents in his part of this process. Taken from over-leaf and from [[1]]
EffK says You will be presented with no exonerative Verifiable source to have silenced my rationality. For me to begin to have understood the nature of punishment and retribution possible even against my over-whelming Verifiability, I went as a start to WP:ACCC. I may well be supported in this verifiability I claim , in which case, a review of the judgement to be made against me at Arbcom, below, may indeed prove possible. There has definitely been no resolution of the subject at continuous dispute. The findings against me as to my use of Wikipedia as propaganda vehicle do not upset the historical realities and NPOV. I consider any embarrassment for my own Wikipedia "criminality" to be tempered by the here clearly un-historical non-resolution of the Arbitration committee, such as is proposed at WP:ACCC. I append myself below as a possibly condemned User in virtue solely of rationality and its bed-fellow, good faith. :
1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view, but articles are in inapprpriate place to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.
Support: Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose: Abstain:
EffK says that as with below, Original Research, no counter argument was ever sourced, thus 'favourite' is an NPOV or majority view.
Neutral point of view 2) 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.
Support: Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose: Abstain:
EffK says that as there was only historiographical interpretation offered to counter both single and multiple primary and secondary source, that the EffK view was an NPOV throughout.
Obsessional point of view 3)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 disruptive.
Support: Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Changed "problematic" to "disruptive" Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose: Abstain:
EffK says that in the light of the historically parlous state of the all the inter-related historical and biographical Articles prior to his intervention as Editor, Effk has clearly had justified necessity for the resulting directed focus.
No personal attacks 4) Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.
Support: Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose: Abstain:
EffK says that the irrationality of disputing un-contested multiple source, with no single contrary source, forced EffK within his rights to the civilly presented charges upon that very irrationality.
Assume good faith 5) 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.
Support: Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose: Abstain:
EffK says that that posture was as courteous as the irrational and thus entirely POV contrary had deserved.
Use of talk pages
6) 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.
Support: Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose: Abstain:
EffK says that the charge of irrelevance is in contradiction of the founding explanation guidelines.
Proposed findings of fact
Focus on Catholic Church
1) EffK has edited with an obsessive focus on the involvement of the Catholic Church with the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler in Germany.
Support: Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose: Abstain:
EffK says this was enirely necessitated by absence of fact.
Misuse of article talk pages
2) 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.
Support: Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose: Abstain:
EffK says that there is inherently no POV view, but only explanation of consequences deriving from fact justifiable by the single possible thereby NPOV conclusion from multiple un-contested source.
Personal attacks and accusations by EffK
3) EffK has made personal attacks and accusations against several other users, including accusing others of being agents of the Vatican. [1], [2], [3]
Support: Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose: Abstain:
EffK says that notice of bad-faith irrationality is no more personal attck than is the note of that agency as cause of that irrationality.
Original research by EffK
4) EffK has repeatedly posted material which draws conclusions not supported by sources he has been asked to cite, much of which appears to be conspiracy theories about the Catholic Church.
Support: Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose: Abstain:
EffK says that counter statement was made to EffK classing his conclusions as original research, but EffK was never asked to provide a source for that original conclusion, nor did he interpolate any originality into Articles but only by manner of discursive stimulation towards NPOV acceptance of evidentially undisputed multiple primary and secondary Verifiability.
EffK's writing style
5) EffK's postings on talk pages are generally long and largely incomprehensible, making it difficult for him to communicate effectively with other editors.
Support: Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose: Abstain: I'm not sure this is really an issue. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC) This ground is covered by Finding #2. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Yes, this is already covered. James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) true but irrelevant ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
EffK says nothing.
Jimbo suggests EffK leave the project
6) In response to a post on his talk page, Jimbo Wales has suggested EffK leave the project with his "head held high, dignity intact". [4]
Support: Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose: Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC) I think this is irrelevant to the rest of the case. That Jimbo suggested a user could preserve some dignity by leaving Wikipedia may be a good suggestion. However, it doesn't really have any bearing with relation to this arbitration. Agree with Sam that this has no provenance. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Abstain: It is, IMO, yes, irrelevent. James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) true but irrelevant ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC) [edit]
EffK says that he made it quite plain before this was written exactly what were the responsibilities of Jimbo Wales in respect of the agency and of the dispute.
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.
EffK banned from Catholicism articles
1) EffK is banned from all articles relating to the Catholic Church. This restriction shall be interpreted broadly.
Support: Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose: Abstain:
Effk says that will lay open the Wikipedia to its on-going corruption by irrational un-sourced POV bias and will, because of the historical realities delineated in detail by the Wikipedia-unacceptibly un-accepted Primary source, Avro Manhattan, be of severe detriment to the veracity of the entire organ.
EffK banned
2) EffK is banned for 1 year for personal attacks, POV-pushing, and general disruption of the encyclopedia.
Support: Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) James F. (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) ➥the Epopt 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose: Abstain:
EffK says that if such proposal is accepted, then the contradiction against the essence of the possible WP:ACCC in reference to punishment, and resolution of (factual historical ) dispute would demand a Judicial review of the Verifiability, the NPOV claimed by the defendant, and of the bad-faith irrationally based harassment persistently levelled against him as User of Wikipedia, the which prevented his ability to even understand the means of enforcing early rational mediation.
I apologise for not putting these statements into the Workshop=EffK 15:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clarification as to Remedy
I note that Sam Korn has proposed a remedy that EffK may be blocked if he edits any article pages or article talk pages that he is not permitted to edit. I am assuming that this remedy would apply after the original ban for one year for personal attacks and general disruption expires. Robert McClenon 20:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- All remedies, save where explicitly exepted, are to be assumed to be indefinite. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sam Korn, the best thing when stuck in a hole, is to stop digging and climb out. I refer you to the EffK post to the Founder's talk page since excised, which you will find at History there. I suggest you read that post, in case you are not aware of what you engage in. I suggest you study the recently Archived post by EffK to Pope Pius Discussions. Your position here does not extend to power for a reckless disregard of falsity. I strongly reccomend your review your involvement and start at that deleted post to the Publisher concerning your's and other's proposals here. You may equally wish to study the base of my EffK discussion pages, and I look forward to your speedy compliance taht you personally do not publish statements of opinion which are in reckless disregard of falsity. This applies to any Arbitrator who is recorded as viewing this particular statement to Sam Korn. Thankyou for your attention. EffK 21:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- EffK 21:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] EffK Temporarily Blocked
EffK was temporarily blocked by an admin for mass blanking. Robert McClenon 19:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
