Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/EffK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Comment by Bengalski

Maybe I shouldn't be making any comment without first reading through the extended history of this dispute, but one thing strikes me so strongly I felt it needed a comment.

EffK is accused of "engaging in an extended effort to use Wikipedia to present a theory of Roman Catholic Church complicity in and active support of Adolf Hitler. This effort has involved personal attacks on other editors, accusations of bad faith (including that other editors are acting as agents of the Vatican), and using article talk pages as a soapbox."

There may in fact not be any agents of the vatican here, but looking at a page like that on Pius XII you'd be forgiven for doubting. There is a very strong positive bias on that, and other, pages dedicated to Catholic leaders. If EffK has a POV he is pushing in the other direction, it is more than outweighed.

Just to look at the Pius XII article, which has been one of the scenes of the dispute: in general the 'controversy' over his stance towards the Nazis is indeed acknowledged throughout the article, but there is far more virtual ink spilled to deny it than report it, and the language is one-sided. Eg.:

- the first paragraph kicks off ascribing laudable motives to Pacelli as 'working to promote peace'

- there are various references to Pacelli condemning the Nazis, whilst pro-Nazi comments EffK cites (such as the one he provided from a book by Mowrer, or any of those in John Cornwell's book) are out. Similarly we have Goebbels diary entries attacking the church, and a completely unsourced Hitler quote, but not eg. Ciano praising him as a man the fascists could work with.

- these alleged comments from Pacelli are virtually unsourced. There is no source for the 'private letter' mentioned. Another is from an unconfirmable private conversation mentioned in a 'Catholic League' publication - which doesn't strike me as necessarily too reliable.

- the language is hardly neutral: a critic 'falsely portrayed' him; 'there is no doubt' that jews were 'bravely' saved, while there is no mention of those he is accused of giving up to the Nazis; we're told more than once how the pope has been 'widely praised'

- John Cornwell, the best known critic of Pacelli, gets half a para - immediately followed by 2 1/2 paras of the response from pro-Pacelli historians and the Vatican's own enquiry

- there are references to ODESSA at the bottom of the page, which suggests to me that at some point someone may have included information on the accusations of Pacelli's involvement in sheltering Nazis after the war - but if so these points have also been removed from the page itself. There is a mention of the ODESSA issue, but without any acknowledgement that Pacelli is claimed to have been involved himself, and the case is dismissed as the "almost 'mythic' ratlines".

I don't think there's a Vatican organised conspiracy at work in Wikipedia, but I do think we have a number of conscientious catholic supporters at work on this and other pages who are slanting the entries to favour the church. I think it is important that EffK's case be viewed in this context. It seems that EffK set out to try and redress this balance, and I don't think there's any wrong in that. Without having read through all the discussions I don't know if he's always gone about it the right way, but I can see he was acting from good motivations and from the heart, and it isn't easy fighting that kind of uphill battle. I think the bias being perpetrated by his opponents is a far more serious problem than any alleged misconduct on EffK's part.Bengalski 18:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

NB: Just looked at the Pius XII page again and it's got worse. Now there is a whole section dedicated just to quotes praising Pacelli 'a great servant of peace', 'filled with compassion and magnanimity' etc., with not one against (the section is fittingly titled 'selected quotes'). Is this encyclopaedic or NPOV?Bengalski 11:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Sorry I should have read it more carefully - the current version now has 2 anti-Pacelli quotes as against 15 for.Bengalski 12:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response by McClenon to Bengalski

Bengalski and Durova both raise valid issues as to content. I mostly agree with them. Six months ago, when I began editing the articles in question, I also thought that balance needed to be provided for NPOV. I still think so. However, it will be nearly impossible to balance the articles as long as EffK's conduct on talk pages continues. The content issues cannot be addressed constructively as long as the talk page abuse continues. I have repeatedly tried to ask EffK to summarize what he wanted changed, and have been answered with insults and lengthy rants about suppression of the truth.

I agree that there are content issues, but the conduct issues about the flooding of talk pages with incomprehensible posts make it nearly impossible to discuss the content coherently. Robert McClenon 15:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems your main issue with EffK then is his lengthy posts on talk pages which you find incomprehensible. Does that justify a ban? In my short experience on wikipedia I have certainly come across disruptive editors sabotaging articles to push POVs - but EffK is not doing this. If you have problems reading his comments on discussion pages, forgive me but can't you simply choose not to read them?Bengalski 15:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Bengalski, yes EffK's main contribution to WP was and is flooding talk pages. But once in a while he edits articles, putting in all the stuff from the talk pages and his user page without respect to topic boundaries or language or comprehensiblity. When someone makes changes to that he starts shouting "censorship". The last time he has done this was on Adolf Hitler. After that he has decided to go into semi-exile, proclaiming himself banished from articles. So currently he is not "sabotaging articles", but he has done so and he will do so again, as he himself said until he gets banned. That's sad but true. Str1977 16:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with EffK that he sometimes edits articles in an incomprehensible way, and then shouts "censorship" when his edits are corrected. However, there are two other problems also. First, he makes vitriolic personal attacks. Str1977 and I have been the main objects of those attacks. A pattern of personal attacks makes it nearly impossible to improve an article. Second, I disagree with you (Bengalski) that his abuse of talk pages can be ignored. In 2005, talk pages of articles that he was following consisting mostly of kilobytes of his rants, so that any constructive comments, such as dialogue between Str1977, Robert McClenon, and Sam Spade, would be almost impossible to find. His flooding of talk pages was a filibuster. If this were Usenet, I would have been able to killfile him, but I have not found a killfile capability in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon 16:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
When he tries to contribute to articles, his contributions are terrible. When he avoids contributing to articles, his comments detract from efforts to improve article content. He provides no purpose. Robert McClenon 16:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When Will This Case Go into Voting?

This case has been in the evidentiary phase long enough. The parties to the case will continue to post evidence as long as the case remains open. There is enough evidence for the ArbCom to decide the issues. Robert McClenon 15:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am about to fill my last 5 or so permitted diffs and will complete this at 100 diffs quite soon. I intend to finish by furnishing the evidence regading User:Jimbo Wales stroke User:Jimbo.

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

Mr EffK, I will not go into your insinuations and only point you to the "Assume good faith" policy.

I don't think that religious devotion has clouded my editing. If I were a POV pusher, I would have excise quite a bit I am in fact bent on retaining. It is my ethics as a historian that make me resist your edits as they are simply not warranted by the consensus or debates of historians.

If you don't believe me, I ask you once again why editors like Robert McClenon (who's critical of Pius XII), John K (who's not a Catholic), Goodoldpolonius (who contributed substantially to make the article more critical of Pius XII) are not siding with you. Well, Robert probably is remote-controlled by the Vatican as we Catholics are all robots (as you seem to think) and doesn't know what he's doing, but what about the others?

As for my first appearance on Wikipedia: not that you are entitled to know, but I will tell you anyway. I looked at WP (German or English) once in a while before April 2005 and so I did when Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope. I was still an anon then and as such I was drawn into an edit war on the B16 page. To improve my standing in this dispute I logged on and have been Str1977 ever since. Some weeks later you pushed your Question of the Law all over WP and I came across it, flabbergasted, on B16. Later I discovered your other postings of that text and this opened our dance.

Goodday, Str1977 09:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo Duty of Care to Arbitrators, otherwise proceed with case, ceasefire outside Arbcom?

I am beat by my own browser which balks at loading the final colours to this picture of Wikipedia scandal, so, Jimbo is saved from having our communications diff-ed . This is immaterial as they are some way preserved at FK User Talks. This talk page is not compulsory viewing for Arbitrators, perhaps, but they might learn something all the same. I don't see any point in reducing myself to one word epithets here, and I have tried to avoid them through-out, but I can surely think of one in particular. From here on though "The proof is in the pudding". I do think it would be better for Jimbo to use anonymous arbitration on a case involving such huge interests, because of his duty of care. I don't know if there are any such. I suggest names recuse themselves while they still can. As to the cabal- don't abuse/harass/investigate/malign me further ouside of Evidence, and I won't need to talk anywhere near you- but, attack me, and I defend myself. My and your evidence speaks for itself, let us Users confine ourselves to that, as Robert McClenon requires. If I am attacked within evidence, I shall try to defend myself within. If outside, then outside.

I assent to the call by Robert McClenon for move to Arbitration , with caveat concerning Jimbo's above described Duty of Care. I will endeavour, hereonwards, to remain entirely within the Arbitration pages I am permitted if the case remains delayed , and attacks cease. I am due response here, as last wordism is natural, and I may try not to respond. I am allowed 5 or so more diffs, which I shall hold in reserve, in case. EffK 23:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seconding Mr. McClenon

Why hasn't anything been done in this case? Why does it continue to remain in the "evidence" phase? It is by far the oldest case still on the docket, and yet it remains in the "evidence" phase, even though plenty of evidence has been given. What gives? john k 19:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you given evidence ? I note a great deal of evidence has been ministered on your behalf. Perhaps I am wrong, it has been tendered without any wish one way or another from you being expressed. Do you feel that you are a party to this case in some way? Do you feel you are not a party? Do you think you should be considered a party? Do you feel you should not be considered a party? If you feel you are not a party do you request that you not be considered a party? if you feel you are a party in that you approve the giving of evidence related to you, do you think that despite that that you should avoid being considered a party. I know you were asked by Str1977 to present your own evidence, and it appears that you declined his request even though he hoped thereby to increase the numbr of evidential diffs. Your inaction bespeaks adesire to avoid being a party. Does your questioning here mean that you wish the case to proceed for any particular reason . You wrote elsewhere at this time to say that you thought considerable damage was being done to Wikipedia by my continuing presence. It seems a tad contradictory for you to demand the case proceed whilst at the same time you do not, or have not wished to, contribute to what it seems you favour as outcome.

EffK 23:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pretty scandalous behaviour

I think it is very remiss of the arbitrators so far to take no account at all of the behaviour of the opposition to EffK in this case. I have to say this having seen it for myself today - I made some edits to the Pope Pius XII page hoping to begin to balance out the article, and I genuinely believe I did so pretty carefully and in an NPOV fashion. Within a few short hours all my edits were reverted, at one point the POV dispute tags I put on the page removed - although this has since been explained as a technical fault, after I placed a vandalism warning on the page of the editor responsible.

As I said before, EffK's misdemeanours in his lengthy talk page posts etc. to my mind are nothing against the fact that there is a real problem of serious and longstanding bias on the pages he has tried to edit. EffK was plainly out-numbered and out-gunned, as I have been today, and I can understand the frustration he will have felt at this. I think his behaviour - lengthy talk page posts, and so-called personal attacks that I actually think were pretty mild given what he was up against - really does not merit a ban. I have seen far worse behaviour in my time here without sanction, people seriously disrupting articles and being quite nasty, none of which EffK has done.

I would appreciate it if any of the arbitrators would have the courtesy to respond to the points I have made.Bengalski 04:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bengalski, I don't know whether you are refering to my edits. I hardly reverted all of your edits, did I? I welcome your effort to balance the article and it is right that the concentration of energies on EffK might have caused any imbalance that is now present. I have already stated that the removal of the NPOV tag was an accident - remember AGF and assume Good Faith, at least after I have stated that it was an accident. I only explained it after your message since I was unaware that the tags were removed.

I do disagree with some of the actions by the IP 70.. and I reverted his latest edit. Note however, that that editor was not involved in previous disputs with EffK or this arbitration. Robert and I were the prime accusers of EffK. John Kenney (certainly not Catholic conspirator or Vatican agent) was involved in the disputes and I presented evidence on his behalf, Musical Linguist did post evidence though she was never part of the disputes. I could name a couple of other editors involved with EffK.

If EffK was outnumbered it was because he turned any potential "ally" into an enemy by his constant personal attacks and his refusal to write concisely, as it has been put forth in the evidence and accepted by the arbitrators. In contrary to your observation I have not seen anything worse, though lately EffK's actions were confined to talk pages, as he imposed a editing ban on himself. Str1977 10:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To my mind a pain of an editor is more someone like RJII, whose case is also currently before the arbcom - this is a guy who is constantly editing dodgy information, reverting, and abusing others, and in general has seriously disrupted progress on some pages for a long time - yet he is only threatened with probation. EffK hasn't even touched an article for months, and he's going to be banned. (Should say here I don't necessarily think RJII should be banned either, it's just that it's struck me their treatment is so uneven.)

To my mind that's what matters - an editor is a real problem when he is actually holding back work on the encyclopedia. EffK's lengthy talk posts may irritate some people, but you can choose to ignore them, and they are not actually effecting the writing of articles. What is holding back progress on an article like Pius XII is not EffK but unchallenged POV from a number of pro-Pius partisans like IP 70... As for the personal abuse, EffK's accusers are repeatedly calling him insane, schizophrenic, from out of space etc. with no comment from the abritrators.Bengalski 14:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You might be right about RJII, but since I never encountered him I cannot say. Maybe I was lucky that I never encountered worse things than EffK. But believe me, he was disrupting articles before he drew back to the talk page and once in a while he came forth unto articles again. In fact, after he returned in November (?), I at first decided to ignore his ranting on talk pages, but then he again turned to editing articles, making them unreadable, inaccurate, POV and off-topic (and making complains after copy-edits). Plus a few personal attacks (for some of which he could be convinced to apoligize, but not for all). This is where Robert decided to take action. As for the other editor, maybe his "accusors" are not as resilient, maybe he is better in defending himself. I don't know. No, EffK's opponents were not repeatedly calling him insane - there was one instant and we were immediately punished by him coming back. "out of space" I think is no attack. I was called far worse things, as I can remember. As for Pius XII - this article suffered quite a lot from EffK's edit - if 70.. now introduces childhood trivia, EffK introduced youth slander. Not only "pro-Pius partisans" have complained about him - Robert is not one, John K is not one (though he wasn't involved in P12), Polonius is certainly not one. All my energies and all of Robert's were were focused to watch what EffK would be up to next and other editors were frightened away by the dispute. Cheers, Str1977 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I reject as unverifiable all that is unverifiable. I have made no misdemeanours, no personal attacks, no irrational statements,no obsession, I assumed good faith until bad faith interposed, I reject the validation against verifiability of the 5 Arbitrators and clearly say to them and to their Publisher Jimbo wales that the matter will not die by my loss. The form of currency that is respect in this Organ is if, denied to me , an injury. The current reckless disregard of falsity as now apparent at Arbcom here, is a form of malicious injury against society at large. I will happily and proudly represent the injured society by my injury and loss. The injury is malicious because the accusation of Personal Point of View, theory or conspiracy theory pushing is made in reckless disregard of the falsity of the accusation. The publishing foundation, if not Jimbo, are becoming liable. The publisher has been informed of the falsity and the recklessness of the publication continues. This is unacceptable, and I demand immediate withdrawal by review or whatever means. EffK 18:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Bengalski, since it has already been explained that the removal of the POV tags was caused by a software bug, why is it being brought up here? It has happened to several editors (including myself) in the last few weeks — that when we press "Save", the edits of the previous editor are undone at the same time — and often we don't even realize that this has happened. I would even disagree with Str1977's use of the word "accident", as though he simply pressed the wrong button by mistake (should be more careful in future!), when in fact he pressed all the correct buttons, and the problem lies not in his carelessness but in some glitch in the system. In any case, while removal of POV tags could be seen as POV pushing or ignoring consensus, it certainly would not fit the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." So it was hardly appropriate to send the {{test2b}} warning to his talk page. I notice that you have made several posts since Str1977 explained about the software bug, but have not made anything approaching an apology.

I have never had any great interest in the Pope Pius XII article or the Adolf Hitler article, but have sometimes read the discussion on the talk pages, though not in depth. My impressions may be faulty, but I think I saw

  • a Catholic who believed that Pope Pius XII hid Jews, and did not speak out because that would have endangered Jews still more (as the Dutch Bishops' condemnation of nazi-ism led to the execution of numerous Jews who had become Catholic, including Saint Edith Stein)
  • a Catholic who believed that Pope Pius XII was negligent
  • an editor who was not a Catholic

all working together collaboratively and civilly, striving to achieve an NPOV article.

Another point is that if you look through the contributions of Str1977, Robert McClenon, and John Kenney, you will find that they all have many interests unrelated to the Catholicism and Hitler. They have edited articles such as Computer virus, Uterine cancer, Dracula, Treasurer of the Navy, Paymaster-General, German language, etc. In other words, their reasons for being at Wikipedia are not to push their own agendas obsessionally, but simply to edit Wikipedia. EffK, on the other hand, seems to show no interest in anything except warning people of a Vatican conspiracy. That he holds his views honestly is not being questioned; that he is an unbiased editor with no agenda, sticking to the Wikipedia rules is very much in question. I don't blame him for it. If he thinks it's his duty to present this information to the world through Wikipedia, it's not surprising that he continues to disrupt the talk pages.

I actually like EffK, although I count among my friends one, perhaps two, of the people he has been targeting. I agree with his earlier statement that he has not used any foul language on Wikipedia — at least I haven't seen any. Unlike Str1977, I have seen users who behaved (in my view at least) worse than EffK did — sneering, using foul language, obsessionally stalking editors with whom they had had a dispute, never losing an opportunity to attack the dignity of their opponents, kicking people who were down, etc. (One of them left of his own accord; the other has recently been banned.) I don't blame EffK for what he does, but I do feel it can't be allowed to continue. All these long posts confuse people who simply want to have a quick look at the talk page to see what possible improvements to the article are being discussed. They drive people away. They waste Wikipedia server space (which costs money), as each version of a page is stored in the edit history.

With regard to your implication that EffK's "so-called" (your words) personal attacks were "pretty mild", and were not as abusive as the way he was treated, some of the things said to (or in the last two examples, about) Str1977 were: "brother of the murderer", "shocking", "sinister", "shameless and immoral", "dangerously immoral" "your morality is highly objectional" "you will have to be controlled", "you read Hitler's mind and reveal his thoughts, but they are yours", "on the point of mental sickness", "ignorant", "a lost sheep", "a deep despair hiding in your Catholic soul", "blaggardly Users", and "very iffy company". I quote from memory, but I think it's pretty accurate. Yet Str1977 frequently answered his questions, accepted his one apology very warmly, and apologized on more than one occasion for any times that he might have unintentionally hurt EffK. Yes, Robert McClenon did on one occasion say something like, "Maybe he seemed crazy because he was crazy." As a fairly uninvolved outsider, my feeling is that he said that in the belief that EffK was gone and would not read his post. There was therefore no intention to offend. He regrets saying it now. He expected the Arbitration Committee to rebuke him for it, and even recommended to them that they should do so. He has said that he is willing to apologize (though I don't know if he has actually done so), even though his unfortunate remark was made after EffK had told him to go and wash his mouth out with soap and say a hundred rosaries for his lie to Wikipedia. (Again, I quote from memory.) If the Arbitration Committee has not reprimanded him, it may be because he has openly acknowledged wrongdoing in this matter (making a reprimand unnecessary), and since it was, to the best of my knowledge, an isolated occurrence.

With regard to the proposed ban, Wikipedia does not issue blocks or bans as a punishment, but simply to prevent harm. I see no evidence that EffK would be willing to stay on Wikipedia without targeting Str1977 or clogging up server space with his lengthy posts on talk pages. If there were any hope that he would be willing to do that, then he probably wouldn't be banned. If he's here for the purpose of filling talk pages with posts about the Vatican's collaboration with Hitler, then he probably doesn't particularly want to edit articles about Squirrels and Agatha Christie and Electronics.

Bengalski, if you want to add to the evidence to this case, it might still be possible to do so. It hasn't closed yet. But how about apologizing for the false accusation of vandalism, first? The closest you've got to an apology after using "vandalism" in an edit summary and after posting a vandalism warning template to Str1977's talk page was saying you'd "give him the benefit of the doubt." Does that mean that there still is any doubt? AnnH (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ann. I can confirm your memory quotes.
Dear Bengalski, I am not asking for and don't expect an apology. I am content if you believe me that I didn't mean to delete the tags.
For those interested let me explain the "glitch" that caused this:
Formerly, when you were looking at a diff between two edits and clicked on "edit this page" the current version was opened for editing. But recently this appearently was changed - now the page that opens is the version in the right column (the after-version of the diff). If you now edit the opened page and save it all the following edits are reverted. That is what happened in my case. Str1977 19:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me be clear, I am happy to assume good faith and I accept Str1977's explanation. But let's also be clear that (deliberate) removal of POV notices is vandalism - in fact Ann if you read further down vandalism 'improper removal of dispute tags' is specifically mentioned. In this case it was accidental, but I did not know about the glitch and so was not to know that. Also I had made a point of specifically requesting on the talk page that people not remove the notice, and I made a clear statement there that I would consider it vandalism if anyone did so. Thus when it seemed that someone had ignored that and removed the notice I believed myself justified in issuing a warning. Anyway, hopefully we have cleared this up now and can work collaboratively in future.Bengalski 20:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine. I'm not sure that I agree with the inclusion of "improper removal of dispute tags" in the page on vandalism, which seems to contradict the extract I quoted above. I would be inclined to call it at worst disruption — but that's a matter for discussion some time on the vandalism talk page rather than here. I also think such templates should be kept for anon IPs and perhaps newly-registered accounts, not for established users. Again, a matter for discussion on the vandalism talk page. By the way, sorry for spelling your name incorrectly in the first version of my post. Str1977 corrected one instance of it, and I've just corrected the other. Cheers. AnnH (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The breaking up of the discussion by means of premature Archiving, within 9 hours, was scandalous, but quite normal from the User responsible. All such , as with these EffK accusations, is purely factor of weakness in the particular 'document war' (of the relevant vatican Archive.)EffK 08:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Bengalski, the article I spent most of my wiki-time on when I arrived here was one which had two contributors who, like EffK, held ideas not shared by the majority of editors, and who filled up the talk pages with passionate posts which other editors called "rants". I liked them both, and I largely shared their POV, although I did not imitate their behaviour. These will give you an idea of how the other editors regularly treated them. You will find nothing like that on the Pius XII and Hitler talk pages.

If EffK were simply trying to make the Pius XII article less positive (which I think is what you're doing, though I haven't really looked), there wouldn't be an arbitration case. He's going much further than that. As far as I can tell, he's calling for Str1977 to be banned from Wikipedia, and implying (or even stating) that Str1977 is a sinister Vatican agent sent to Wikipedia for the purpose of targeting EffK. He's also, as far as I can tell, advising people to change their usernames so that they won't be assassinated, and calling for Pope Benedict to have Pope Pius XII's body dug up so that he can be excommunicated. I may be misunderstanding; I have never been directly involved in this dispute.

If Str1977, Robert, and John have been able, despite differing POVs, to work together collaboratively, then I doubt if there really is a serious POV problem at that article, but I haven't examined it in detail. Indeed, the long posts on the talk page would make it too time-consuming for me to get involved. I will mention, though, that I have often seen Str1977, as a historian, agreeing to include in an article information which was not favourable to his personal POV.

I have already said I don't hold EffK's behaviour against him. If a sincere person believes he has a message, and keeps proclaiming it even when it's a most unusual and improbable one, and when people don't want to hear it, then he may be a saint, a martyr, a prophet, or something much less flattering. I personally believe that John the Baptist was a great saint. But if he joined Wikipedia, I'd probably block him disruption, for saying things like: "Ye brood of vipers" (Luke 3:7) to other editors. Such people don't fit in as ordinary, unbiased users.

Bengalski, your problems with this arbitration case seem to be based on your belief that there is bias in the Pope Pius XII article. I don't know whether or not you're right, as I haven't studied it. But I do know that editors with different levels of support or even condemnation of Pope Pius have been working together collaboratively, and have generally all opposed EffK, so I don't think it can be a case that a strong pro-Pius POV on that page has led to this problem.

I noticed even quite recently that Robert McClenon told EffK that it wasn't too late if he wanted to work with the others. If EffK is banned, it will be because he does not want to stay here on Wikipedia terms. There is no sign of gloating or triumph from those who oppose his edits. I remind you again that Wikipedia does not dole out "punishments". Whatever decisions the ArbCom finally make, the purpose will be to prevent disruption, not to punish a user. Jimbo has already expressed a wish that EffK would be able to leave with his dignity intact. I share that wish. AnnH (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I do not see that EffK has caused disruption or harm to wikipedia. As I've said before, I've seen quite a few examples of editors who have repeatedly reverted, vandalised, disrupted articles to push a POV; EffK has never done this. So it strikes me as odd that he is being threatened with an outright ban, not even probation as others seem to get.
As for bias (against the direction EffK has been working in) on pages like Pius XII, my original impression on that is only reinforced by working actively with Robert McLenon, Str1977 and others in teh last few days. Let me be clear, I don't think these editors are in any way acting in bad faith, and I don't think they're paid agents of the Vatican. But I do think they have been editing in a very POV fashion, and thus whether knowingly or not they have effectively formed a lobby which has had EffK or any other editor who came in with a contray view out-gunned.
As an example, the kerfuffle I've had trying to, even temporarily include EffK's 'quid pro quo' argument with sources disputed by the other editors. Now they may be right that the particular source I had to give so far was dodgy, that's to be seen. But at least two things have come to light from all this: 1) it is now clear that other editors do agree there was a form of 'quid pro quo' as alleged by EffK - that Pius XII was willing to bargain the existence of the Catholic Centre party for the concordat. Str1977 has said this is 'universally accepted'. It is not all that EffK was arguing, but the point is it was more than has ever been in the article. That is, admitting that this was true, and knowing how strongly EffK felt about it, these editors never made that concession to try and reach a consensus or compromise.
2) I've seen the barrage against my one perhaps questionable source. But there were many claims in the article that had no sources at all, or sources every bit as dubious. Eg. I remember a key quote meant to demonstrate Pius' condemnation of Hitler, which came I think from a third hand report of a private conversation, completely unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable, and published only by the 'Catholic League', an avowed pro-Catholic propaganda organisation. (Basically the counterpoint to the Secular Humanist source.) Now this source was never removed or questioned. None of the completely unsourced claims praising Pius XII were ever removed or questioned. No one ever asked for the same kind of scrutiny my critical claims are, rightly, getting.
I'm not attacking anyone for this. I think it's only natural. People have their POVs, as I'm clear I have. Few people will make such an effort as to question claims that support their own views, and I don't expect anyone to be a saint. And I think, or at least hope, that through a process of engagement and discussion we can work together to improve the page, despite all our POVs. Still, anyone trying to incorporate critical material into these articles has a fight on their hands. And the upshot is we've had articles that seriously distort history and whitewash what many do see as collusion with genocide. And to me that is a much more important issue than anyone taking offence at EffK's talk page posts.
As for the no gloating I'm not sure about some of the recent userpage exchanges between those trying to get EffK banned.Bengalski 00:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Ben, to address only one of the points raised:
Yes, I opposed the QpQ2 because there is not source for it and because it is not even argued scholarly or seriously.
My dispute with EffK was always about QpQ2, who has never argued for QpQ1 but solely for QpQ2.
There are various reasons why QpQ1 hasn't been included in the article. Preoccupation with EffK, the question of where to put it and, strangely but truly, the fact that QpQ1 is so universally accepted and so clearly attested that a plain reading of the concordat's text within the circumstances will tell you that.
And yes, it's hard to reach a compromise when you are constantly insulted and shouted at by who know whom. Str1977 01:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to remind that Str1977(apart from blocking me throughout) particularly blocked the QpQ he does accept by removing it from AHitler within minutes, suureptitiously in two edits on 15 december. he brazenly makes an un-truth right here on this previous signed post. I carefully only entered his(Atkins & Tallet/JKenney) agreed version, and he called it POV as he removed . His excuse when challenged is that it unfairly singled out the Zentrums bloc, 90 odd seats and ignored unfairly some tiny minor parties. That was spurious and typical. None of those parties were direcetd by a Prelate who was a close friend of Pacelli, and none are remarked by historians for that collusion between the vatican and Hitler. I asked for Str1977 to be banned as he has been constantly against rational inclusion of verifiable source. My experience of discussions with this user is as I tried to build here-but it is worse. He denied every fact I checked and sourced and discussed with him. I 'like' him, but he has been destroying good faith. Obviously there was a reason , I sourced the reasons entirely, and they are proved, sad as it is. As to any of the charges as to disruption, in main Articles Jimbo allows Explanation which encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold those beliefs and practices , but on account of how such beliefs and practices came into place , so in discussions even more so. The disruption was result of provocation, exactly the same provocation which the spurious hagiography represents today still to Users who feel anything for the results.EffK 10:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
EffK, just a quick reminder: there is a difference between disputes about factual accuracy (which I never disputed regarding the QpQ1), disputes about the merit of including a certain info into a certain article (which was the case on Hitler) and disputes about the wording of a certain info (which has been an issue with EffK frequently). I'm sorry to see that he still doesn't understand.
As for my December edit, in this case the paragraph was talking about the dissolution of the parties. You singled out the Centre party without any justification (and also included your newest pet wording, the ugly "classic kick-back scheme"). As I have repeatedly argued, all parties were doomed at that point. Also, it is far from clear that the Centre politicians in Germany (Brüning) knew what Kaas was doing in Rome. They first and foremost yielded to government pressure, angering Pacelli by their "premature" self-dissolution. The QpQ was that the Holy See acquiesced in the removal of priests from politics and not that the Vatican dissolved the party. Str1977 10:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It was a part of the overall conspiracy. I do not exclude the autonomy of the Church, whereas you did. I can source your doing so backed up by the usual other. The secret annexe was not secret,remember, the autonomy was not lost(you removed that loss when entered), so there's not a lot left to say really. Discoursing with the un-reasonable returns to Jimbo's advice, of there being no merit in continuance. I can walk away any time as the ether is widely filled with better representatives of the facts. The fact that this particular Organ is interactive and thus controllable , cannot prevent the wider reaction. We have Rumsfeld saying that ADolf was elected legally, and the clear quid pro quo of today flowing apace. Your world Str1977, fractured and sundered by the same interests who set and profited from WWII whilst the other geo-political forces remain around the construct. This time the out-come may differ is all. The controlling in WP as with Rumsfeld's legality is entirely spurious: the deputy arrest was clearly illegal and has been known and defined since the Tribunals, as Shirer states, all was legal except the Deputy arrest. Consequently the entire was illegal. As I relayed, all laws anywhere where the Nazis touched, was adjudged under the Tribunal and found to be illegal whatever sovereignty of position as to the particular Legislature. I am sorry that the Church cornered itself into its own impossible canonical rules on this, with infallibility presenting the cork in the neck. As I say, there are better representatives. The Tribunals and Yale for starters.EffK 12:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banned from Catholic Church articles, but not from Nazi articles?

One question for the arbitrators — the proposal is to ban EffKfrom articles related to the Catholic Church. My experience is that he posts long messages about the Vatican collaboration with the Nazis on Catholic talk pages, e.g. Pope Pius XII, and on Twentieth-Century History of Germany talk pages, e.g. Adolf Hitler. Is it the intention that he may not write about Pius and Hitler on the Pius XII talk pages, but that he may still do so on the Hitler talk pages? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think some clarification is needed. AnnH (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added a new pair of proposals to deal with these comments. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Dear Arbitrators, EffK, after raining texts on us for about a year, now thinks he is free to excise that text from the archives. Here's one example: [1] I have reverted this as I consider it vandalism. If the arbitration does not move forward in the next few days, I think he should be reprimanded for this move. Str1977 12:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I am indeed removing that which is considered POV pushing. if it is decided that it is nor POV pushing, I would be highly gratified at the rquirement for that which was not POV pushing. I am cleaning the stables whilst I can. still sign for it. EffK 12:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You cannot take back your words! You are not allowed to burn the evidence! Str1977 12:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
EffK has been blocked for 48 hours for mass blanking. Robert McClenon 19:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification copied from WP:RFAR

[edit] EffK

This past February, this user was banned one year by the ArbCom. His talk page was protected and then unprotected, and he has used it to engage in dialog with Musical Linguist and Str1977. Is that allowed? If not, should his talk page be reprotected? Editor88 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if EffK continues to post on his talk page so long as he does not otherwise try to edit. If he becomes disruptive on his talk page, any admin may reprotect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia:Banning policy, if I understand it correctly, banned users are not allowed to edit at all and from any account, and all their edits may (should?) be reverted without discussion or analysis. But if it isn't hurting anyone, I don't see the point in enforcing this. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)