Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK

Case Opened on 19:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 09:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Complaining party

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)

Nominal defendants

• EffK (talk · contribs)
• Famekeeper (talk · contribs)

Summary

This editor has been 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.

Statement by Robert McClenon

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper contains a summary of the conduct in question.

Also see the following diff of a frivolous request by the editor in question to ban another editor: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=27989592&oldid=27748413

Update by Robert McClenon

The defendant is posting messages to my talk page and the talk page of Str1977 that I consider to be harassment. The following is the most recent such: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&diff=29160780&oldid=29142597

Statement by EffK (Famekeeper)

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Recent expansion of the charge warrants briefest expansion of my rebuttal . I say that accomodation of Hitler (even by the RC Church ), is not POV [[1]], but NPOV history . I have only shock , not POV . The POV as alleged is actually church canon law[[2]] ,[[3]]. The user's Mclenon and Str1977 , are intellectually dishonest in claiming against me. [[4]] ,EffK 00:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Concurrent to this RfA I [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] my sole disputant,[[8]],[9]][[10]], [[11]],[[12]] .[[13]] ,[[14]],[[15]] ,[[16]],[[17]] ,[[18]] ,User:Str1977 ,[[19]] - [[20]],[[21]],[[22]], and to Robert Mcclenon ( talk )(false [[23]],[[24]] mediator [[25]],[[26]],[[27]] ,[[28]],[[29]] , [[30]] ,[[31]] ,[[32]] , [[33]]. See :[[34]] , updated talk at [[35]]

McClenon does not understand ,[[36]],[[37]],[[38]][[39]],[[40]], [[41]],[[42]],[[43]][[44]],[[45]][[46]],[[47]],[[48]][[49]], [[50]] the sources [[51]] of my bulk contributions [[52]][[53]],[[54]],[[55]],[[56]],http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weimar_Republic&action=edit&section=2,[[57]], and WP corrections , [[58]] ,[[59]][[60]], [[61]] , nor my real disputant : [[62]][[63]],[[64]] ,[[65]][[66]]([[67]] ,, McC thinks or pretends that I represent a vandalous attacker upon the church, when I bring only published source [[68]] ,[[69]],[[70]]

I have never wanted to give an email to WP , and so cookie-loss means I changed name variations.

As to Str1977 , pages Reichskonkordat, Weimar Republic and Centre Party Germany for today 17 November 2005 , will show that an anon & Str1977 , after a 3/4 year edit-war cf: [[71]] ,[[72]], has accepted the gist of my sources [[73]] ,and NPOV [[74]]. I believe that WP has finally/or never enabled me to correct the Str1977 ,and , after irksome discourse (filibustering to McClenon) I repaired some serious fault in WP .

Str1977 by present allowance of my edits which he consistently removed (in provocative manner [[75]] ,[[76]] ,[[77]],[[78]], [[79]]) over 12 months , the same day that Mcclenon starts this RfA , proves the RfA a form of ad hominem ,illustrating the WP faith problem[[80]] better than my supposed crime.

This is McClenon's second case against me (RfC) & I signed , a day late an RfC against him as lying bully . I take no pleasure here [[81]],[[82]] , nor enjoy intellectual provocation and denial of source by means solely of the two users' interpretation [[83]] .

I believe this RfA is last ditch attempt to remove the accusations made by the world [[84]] at large [[85]], [[86]] , [[87]] from Wikipedia , following from my demands that [[88]] ,the opposition ( my good friend nevertheless [[89]], [[90]], Str1977 ]] put up or shut up . The new allowance of my edits to remain within the above articles , is the result.

My blocker ,[[91]],[[92]],[[93]],[[94]],[[95]]/[[96]][[97]],[[98]],[[99]] has always been Str1977, who hopefully has stopped the denialism [[100]][[101]] [[102]] . I was suggested by Jimbo to leave , I did for 2 months, WP deteriorated as I proved and I came back because three users , one Robert McClenon ,started posting "FK research" , my location by country , and shared accusatory condemnation of me in WP, calling me a paranoid schizophrenic conspiracy theorist with writing disability [[103]].

All these users should be admonished .

This [[104]] [[105]] , thorniest historical issue is defended here by actual 'denialism [[[,[[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=27703162][[106]],[[107]], [[108]] ,[[109]] , of source [[110]] ,[[111]][[112]],[[113]] something [[114]][[115]] reflected in greater cyberspace [[116]] . I openly claimed recently there is not one political error I have made so far[[117]] . I unknowingly concurrently of this RfA sought an apology from McClenon and congratulated Str1977 on final good sense in accepting my NPOV [[118]][[119]]/[[120]] ,[[121]],[[122]]. Links may follow. EffK 01:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Since this was speedily appended my hopes were dashed . A reversal of most verifiable source has been effected in Wikipedia by these other parties re German History, leaving Wikipedia in a bad way. I have in-sufficient diffs to annotate this on-going action. It appears to me that I should re-write my reaction to this case herabove.... EffK 23:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Caveat by Str1977

At the moment let me just note

• that EffK's statement about our agreement are wrong. Some things he has posted I have never disputed, while other things I continue to dispute. To say we have reached an agreement or that I have accepted the gist is untrue, unless he has suddenly withdrawn his theories. Hence I place doubt upon the congratulations.
• that EffK is far from having made no error (I don't know what "political" means here
• that I was not EffK/Famekeeper's sole disputant, though the main one. Other editor, e.g. John Kenney were involved with him as well.
• that I meant no harm in posting "FK Research" - it was basically a reaction to his inquisitiveness about personal details of other editors (Robert McClenon in particular), his own seclusiveness in that matter and his insistence on being a native speaker.

I don't know whether this is the right place to post this. If it isn't, please drop me a line and show where I should place this. Str1977 10:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/1/0)

• Accept. James F. (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse (Wikinfo editor) Fred Bauder 19:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Unrecuse self from all pre-voting cases. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Dmcdevit·t 08:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Obsessive 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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Focus on Catholic Church

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

Passed 8 to 0 at 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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. [123], [124], [125]

Passed 8 to 0 at 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

EffK banned

2) EffK is banned for 1 year for personal attacks, POV-pushing, and general disruption of the encyclopedia.

Passed 8 to 0 at 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

EffK to be banned from articles that he disrupts

3) Should EffK cause disruption on any article (including its talk page), he may, at the decision of any administrator, be banned from editing that article (and, if applicable, its talk page) for a period of no more than three months. Bans are to be noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK#Bans.

Passed 8 to 0 at 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Bans

Here log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

I've banned User:Famekeeper as a admitted sock of User:EffK for 1 year also. If this was not as intended by the arbcom please revert. Secretlondon 15:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was intended. Bans apply to people, not to users. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Flamekeeper, User:Fiamekeeper, User:Corecticus and User:PureSoupS blocked for one year as admitted identities of EffK. Secretlondon 21:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Rebanned 8 February, 2006 as User:EffK has been editing. He was banned at 09:53, 7 February 2006 UTC by User:Johnleemk but started editing again at 10:40, 7 February 2006 UTC Special:Contributions/EffK. He received a 48 hour block at 14:59, 4 February 2006 UTC (see[126]) but that should have expired on 6 February 2006 and shouldn't have led to his automatic unblocking. Anyone got any ideas? Secretlondon 20:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It's just his talk page.. Secretlondon 20:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that he was allowed to use his talk page. Currently he is using it for two things:

• repeating his so-called arguments again and again (that might be soap-boxing - you decide)
• accusing me of removing material from archives.

I have repeatedly explained to him how the diffs he cites came about and what my mistake was and that he should ask me first about such things. But so far he has been true to his way of handling discussions - simply repeating his accusation, supplemented here and there, where everything has been stated.

I don't mind the soap boxing as he is free to paint his walls the way he likes but I don't think he is allowed to issue unfounded accusations against other editors.

I posted another explanation today and we will see whether he stops now. Good night, Str1977 23:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Protect it if necessary. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I want to give him the chance of stopping now, after I have explained it to him again. But anyway, how can I, mere mortal that I am, protect his user page? Str1977 23:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for the info. If he persists I will go there. Str1977 23:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have reset his ban to expire on 1 October 2007 as he's been editing his talk page profusely during his ban. Banned users may not edit anywhere on Wikipedia unless the Committee indicates otherwise. This is to prevent them continuing the activities that got them banned, in just the way that EffK has here. I have also sysop-protected his talk page (and blanked it, in a kind of WP:CSD#G5 move). -Splash - tk 02:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)