User talk:Robert McClenon: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:50, 5 February 2006

Hi

Hi, it's nice to see you created a user name. See you around. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 01:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ground Rules

Any comments posted in this subsection will be deleted or moved.

Since Str1977 apologizes for filling up my space, I will state some ground rules. I would rather have disputants fill up my private space than clutter up article talk pages. No apology is required to using my space.

No apology is required from Str1977 or from J. Kenney. No apology is required from Famekeeper either. If he filibusters this page, I will archive it.

I will be glad to allow this exchange to continue, unless I conclude that anyone is embarrassing himself and that allowing him to be argued with would violate Formosa's rule. If I think that is happening, I will either create an archive page for the material that I think does the individual a disservice. Robert McClenon

Partial Answer to Questions

Famekeeper writes: "Your reference to Trent makes me fear you are another church stooge . How did you come into this- and why didn't you give a straight answer to my straight question about your history starting so soon before you jumped in as mediator-type."

I did not jump into the issue as a mediator-type. I responded to a Request for Comments and provided a third opinion. A mediator tries to stay neutral. I did not promise to stay neutral, only to respect POV and NPOV. I started out agreeing with Famekeeper more than with Str1977 about the substantive issue of Pope Pius XII's moral errors. I have now come to the conclusion the Str1977 and I agree on far more than we disagree about, including the need to be civil, and to avoid expressing points of view as proved fact.

As to my past history, I am hiding nothing. If you do not know who I am and what my history is, I see no need to help you further. Please explain why my past history is relevant to this discussion.

Famekeeper writes: "And McClenon , I'm telling you you will regret what you are doing which is to ignore the bad faith visible in the dispute , and your aid to the deeply POV. I still haven't got the will to think Str you are stupid- I can't in all honesty see that , though the english assistant helps. Maybe you are married to a native speaker, or maybe it is the agency , the effect is the agency (May 4 th Pius XII folks..)"

Famekeeper has not explained why I will regret what I am doing. I have indeed assumed good faith both by Str1977 and by Famekeeper. When you say that I will regret what I am doing, please make it clear what you are warning me about. Are you warning me that someone will exact revenge (which would be a threat), or that I will somehow be ensnared in a conspiracy, or that I am placing my soul at risk in the next world? If it is the last, then I will trust to the mercy and justice of God. If there is a conspiracy, please identify it.

My marital status is of interest to me, but not to you. Nobody has helped me with the English language for many years. I have spoken it for 55 years and have written it at an adult level for 45 years. Do not ask who is ghost-writing for me. I do owe my skills with the English language to my parents, but whether you can call my mother a ghost is a theological question. Robert McClenon 02:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another Request for a Summary

I have several times asked Famekeeper for a summary of the specific points about which he requests mediation or arbitration. I am still ready for a summary. I am waiting for a summary of two or three paragraphs. Exactly what are you saying is the issue about fact and POV?

Perhaps I did make a mistake in posting a page for a discussion of issues. However, if I did, then Famekeeper's pages, presented as POV, Pope's Hitler and Catholic Holocaust Conspiracy are far more biased.

I am not entirely clear what the complaints of blocking are.

Famekeeper wrote: "I ask you to stop and study or why should I bother with you except merely as an insulter. Do it yourself, or find yourself a mentor to guide you." Please clarify. If he is sincere in this claim that he is giving up on WP as a band of cyborgs, then I will not bother with him either. If you think that I need to be enlightened, then I suggest that Famekeeper either do the englightening, or find a mentor to advise me what he is trying to say. Robert McClenon 02:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Native Languages

Famekeeper made some remarks that were poorly stated about use of the English language. He appeared to be asking who was helping me read and write English. Maybe he was asking Str1977. That is not important. I can understand what Str1977 is writing. I cannot understand what Famekeeper is writing. I do not know whether Str1977 is a native speaker of English, or some other language. I have no issues with his use of this language. I do not know whether Famekeeper is a native speaker of English. He appears to be implying that he is, but he appears to have a language problem. If he does have a language problem, then he should stop embarrassing himself by posting long meaningless posts in what is supposed to be English. If he is a native speaker of English, then he should slow down and deal with his anger. Robert McClenon 02:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)==LVMI RfC== Robert - Greetings and thank you for your continued assistance in this RfC. I am writing in concern about your latest response on the Ludwig von Mises Institute RfC in which you asserted that I have "demanded that various editors recuse themselves from this commentary due to friendship with or agreement with other parties." You further characterized this as "unreasonable" and implied that I sought to exclude these participants from the RfC.[reply]

I believe that you have erroniously read my comments on the discussion page in which I drew attention to the issue of conflicts of interest. In no way was this comment intended to exclude participants from the RfC. Rather it was explicitly stated that I ONLY sought recusals of these editors in the event of mediation or arbitration on this dispute, where according to Wikipedia policy I am entitled to seek such recusals. Again this was not intended to apply to the current RfC and I apologize if you read it that way, however I do believe that I stated this clearly at the time, to wit:

"Given that a situation in which personal allegiances have exhibited themselves during the dispute resolution has emerged and given the possibility that this particular dispute may require future actions under the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process, among them mediation and, if necessary, arbitration or some further intervention, I have become increasingly concerned that the result will be to prolong the dispute itself and inhibit the reaching of a solution that is agreeable to all sides."
"Should this indeed become the situation and should this dispute necessitate further procedures such as mediation and/or arbitration, I must request that any contributer with strong personal and/or political allegiances to either User:Willmcw, User:Cberlet or both recuse him or herself from any administrative, mediator, arbitrator, or other related third party role in subsequent steps of this dispute resolution" [1]

Furthermore, I stated in this post that "participation of all editors is welcome on an RfC" indicating that this request for recusal was NOT intended to apply to the said persons' participation at the RfC. Given this, it appears that the position you attribute to me misrepresents my actual stated position on the subject. I do not believe you did so intentionally, and again I apologize if I was not clear enough, however I must also ask that you either retract or remove the said allegation against me as it is not representative of a position I took.

I also wish to thank you again for your help in this dispute resolution, and in light of recent events pertaining to the LVMI article, I am willing to withdraw the request for comment pending that the problematic conduct that necessitated it does not resume. Best regards, Rangerdude 06:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Robert : Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I received many votes from editors that I encounter frequently, which is re-assuring, but I am honoured that you and others that I don't know through Wikipedia saw fit to support the nomination. The admin powers will enable me to patrol for vandals more effectively, amongst other things. I promise to use my new powers for good, and not to inflict the retribution on my enemies that they so richly deserve, as tempting as that may be. ;-) Thanks again, Kevin. Ground Zero 13:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuelwagon

If you're looking for evidence, he first started doing it on September 16. Noting that SlimVirgin after reverts an insertion by another editor he shows up there for the very first time to revert her. On September 26 after SlimVirgin edits Refusal to serve in the Israeli military, FuelWagon show up there for the very first time, to revert her. He then goes to another item on SlimVirgin's most recent contribution list, Israel, and for the very first time starts editing there. Again, on September 30, he notes that SlimVirgin has edited Historical persecution by Jews, and shows up at there for the very first time and reverts her within minutes. He now claims he happens to have an interest in middle east politics, but this "interest" never actually manifested itself in any way before he decided to start following SlimVirgin around and reverting her. He also claims he is "widening his area of interests", but that "widening" appears to only extend to articles SlimVirgin edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a bit like, what was the word told to me... sour grapes. I criticized SlimVirgin's edit of the user Rfc instructions, citing the "words to avoid" policy about how to avoid "however". SlimVirgin and Jayjg tag teamed that page. SlimVirgin then deleted that piece of policy from the "words to avoid" page. I reverted it and put that page on my watchlist to keep her from deleting it again. So, while you can tell me about how SlimVirgin was on the "words to avoid" page first, I had CITED the page and used it to criticize her edit, AND THEN SHE DELETED THE ENTRY FROM THE PAGE. Your version is an interesting excercise in reporting only part of the story. A while later I see there's a revert war going on the "words to avoid" page about "conspiracy theory". I thought it should be added to the list given that it has connotations of "quacks in tinfoil hats", and is therefore not a neutral phrase. SlimVirgin and Jayjg both got involved in keeping it off the page (in case there's any doubt of Jayjg's loyalty here). This "conspiracy theory" dispute has been going on for a number of weeks now. SlimVirgin was quite vocal. I kept offering the "elders of zion" as a good example of how to report that some source said somehting was a "conspiracy theory" rather than to simply report it as fact. I then asked if anyone had a specific article that used "conspiracy theory" as fact. I asked the question a couple of times. no one ever answered. So I went poking around. The "Elders of Zion" article was about a jewish conspiracy to take over the world. And SlimVirgin mentioned in the "conspiracy theory" debate the claim that Isreal knew about the 9-11 attacks and warned Jews in the WTC building, so I went looking for articles about Isreal and Jews and 9-11 that used the phrase "conspiracy theory" as a factual label, rather than as the point of view of some source. As it happens, I have quite an interest in the politics of the middle east, anyway, so I figured it would be a two-for-one win. That's when I came across "Refusal to serve in the Isreali army" and "Historical persecution by Jews" articles. That's also when I learned that SlimVirgin and Jayjg are pro-Isreal and pro-Jewish POV warriors, and you both are hereby put on notice that any POV pushing in these types of topics are fair game. FuelWagon 04:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, while you're crying sour grapes over "stalking" ask SlimVirgin how she ended up on the Bensaccoutn RfC when she wasn't involved in teh article in question at all and the RfC had been around for a week without a single comment from her. She jumped on it only because she thought she could nail me for "another bad faith RfC" (her words). So, you can just get off your high and mighty and indignant horse. SlimVirgin has been harrassing me since I filed the user RfC against her a couple months ago. I haven't bothered arbcom about it, but if she wants to cry "stalking" against me, I'm going to have some diffs to provide about her. FuelWagon 04:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my comment about autosign for wiki vandalism templates is there because an adnmin wont let me have it in the article or put it in the templates...

☺Adam1213☺|talk 16:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Things like calling subjects of articles by their Christian names (or "Miss Carey", etc.), insisting on links to redirects such as Music Video Director (instead of Music-video director), capitalising all the words in headings, etc. OmegaWikipedia has more than once reverted legitimate page moves in line with naming conventions by cutting and pasting back to the incorrect article name. (WinnerMario, despite interventions from other editors as well as explanationd from me, continues to insist that songwriting is exempt from normal capitalisation rules.) Anittas (talk · contribs) is in fact unconnected with the pop-music articles, but my corrections to the English at Battle of Vaslui so enraged him that he's been pursuing me around Wikipedia since (see my attempts to get help at W:AN/I). There are many others; if you need diffs, I can supply them (but I'm going to bed now). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment to Mel

Robert, you keep inserting yourself into the FW issue with inaccurate observations, which serve only to stir things up. You said elsewhere that he had asked you (in your words) to butt out, and I'm sorry, but I'm now asking you to do the same, which could mean you're the only thing he and I actually agree on. Every single time you comment on it, you keep it going. Please let it go. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no private email

Your disclaimer that email is not a private means of communication needs to be a little more prominent in my opinion and needs to be at the top of your user page and your talk page. Anyone who wanted a message posted publicly on your talk page would simply do it themselves. The only reason to use email would be for the expectation that it remain a private communication. This is the basic understanding of email. That you go against this understanding is your choice, but I think you need to be a little more clear up front with folks who might be sending you what they think is a private email. Also, your requirement that the person request mediation for the email to remain confidential is an interesting caveat, given that ANY email might be an attempt to resolve a dispute, whether mediation is requested or not. Anyway, how you treat email is up to you, but that you go against the standard expectations seems to warrant a more prominent disclaimer on any page that has an "email this user" link to your email. FuelWagon 18:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy/Evidence Fred Bauder 15:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FuelWagon RfC

Hi. I wanted to bring to your attention that an RfC has been posted concerning User:FuelWagon. Please add any comments you believe are appropriate. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 23:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Popmusic RfC

Can you explain what you just did there? It appears that you restored a vandalised version of the page. Why, pray tell? Guettarda 20:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry - I looked at the diffs, I didn't realise that someone had restored the version I had tried to clean up because the person had restored the comments in comments form and added comments into the middle of Freddy's text. It's a horrible mess, with comments inserted wily-nilly. Guettarda 21:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

viewpoint of community

This is too long to post on teh RfC, and besides, if I post it there, I'm guessing a number of editors will simply pile on it and tell me I'm lying. Anyway, here's your answer.

"I do not fully understand FuelWagon's view of what an ideal electronic community would be. It appears to be a somewhat utopian sort of anarchy in which there are few friendships and much public criticism."

True content, true editors, true friendships, in that order.

First, the content must be true and neutral and report accurate views of outside sources, not be a place for editors to delete a verbatim quote from a notable source because they don't like that viewpoint. The entire dispute around the Terrorism article was an edit war over inserting the following text:

Noam Chomsky, senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, says that "the U.S. itself is a leading terrorist state." After President Bush declared a "War on Terrorism," Chomsky stated:

The U.S. is officially committed to what is called “low–intensity warfare.” [...] If you read the definition of low–intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of “terrorism” in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they’re almost the same. [2]

A large number of editors continued to revert or delete or otherwise attempt to coerce these couple of lines of text out of the article. In controversial subjects, wikipedia reports the different views, not just the most popular view. Obviously, Noam Chomsky has an unpopular view and whether it went in the Terrorism article became a popularity contest. This content was true, but a bunch of editors fought to keep it out. The same editors who RfC'ed Zaphram blaming him for all the prblems at the Terrorism article were the exact same editors who were fighting me on the above four lines of text. I reported that on the Zaphram RfC. For doing that, Carbonite RfC'ed me.

Second, editors need to be true about their actions. And that means if they break policy they admit it, if they abuse powers they admit it. I got blocked for NPA violations when none existed on my talk page. Yet, no one can admit that. SlimVirgin's edit contained massive factual and NPOV errors, and she refused to admit a single error.

You can argue whether Neuroscientist's post violated NPA or not. I don't think it did. I also think there needs to be a clear distinction between a "personal attack" and simply "taking something personally". If you take criticism of your behaviour as a personal attack, you shouldn't be editing wikipedia. If you take criticism of your content as a personal attack, you shouldn't be editing wikipedia. And if you can't admit that one of your edits contained a factual error, then you shouldn't be editing wikipedia. I say SlimVirgin takes criticism of her edits personally. Her opinion of RfC's being "horrendous" seems to follow the notion of taking criticism personally. But just because someone takes criticism personally doesn't mean the criticism is a personal attack.

Back to true editors, SlimVirgin tried to shaft me on the Bensaccount RfC. And no one can even comment on her behaviour there. She had just declared she coudl assume no good faith on my part, and later that day goes on a crusade to nail me for "another inappropriate RfC". She had no business involving herself with that RfC. If there was any procedural problems with the RfC (and there weren't), an uninvolved administrator should have handled it. But she refused to hand it off to anyone, she was looking for anything to nail me with. I find it laughable that I'm accused of making wikipedia a battleground when SlimVirgin turned the Bensaccount RfC into a Battleground against me six weeks ago. And NOT ONE person who supports this RfC can say a peep about it.

Truth is like NPOV policy. You can't just say part of the truth, like "FuelWagon violated NPA here" and just ignore "SlimVirgin took her battle with me into the Bensaccount RfC". And even if you want to say something like "Neuroscientist violated NPA with his critique", that doesn't mean avoid saying "his criticisms are correct, SlimVirgin's edit was rife with errors".

And I think it's sad that the idea of truth here gets turned into "blame". Blame assigns "fault". Truth is just giving an accurate representation of what happened. I violated NPA. I lost my cool. I was blocked. If you can't have truth without turning it into "blame", then there's no hope for wikipedia.

There seems to be a tendancy for "stonewalling" around here. Do something wrong. Someone calls you on it. deny it. misdirect attention away from you. Get your buddies to come in and help with the misdirection, have them attack your critics. Get a bunch of "revert buddies" who will back you up in articles. Close ranks around the person beign criticized. Do anything at all possible just to avoid saying something like "I was wrong". If this behaviour isn't discouraged, wikipedia is lost. And thus far, my experience of teh dispute resolution system isn't encouraging as to the fact that RfC's reward the "popular" editor, not necessarily the "honest" editor, or the fact that arbcom would avoid any specific findings of truth specifically because an editor has been around a long time.

Finally, if your content is true and if you are honest about your actions as an editor, then you've got the basis for a true friendship. I would consider GordonWatts a friend not because he doesn't make mistakes with content, but because when he does, he's been able to admit it. And we have diametrically opposed points of view about the Terri Schiavo case. David Bergan is another editor I'd consider a friend, and likewise, we have almost completely opposite points of view on Intelligent design. But he can be honest when he sees he's made a mistake or is wrong.

And I don't need to take their honesty and turn around and "blame" them for something. It just means I can trust them to be straight when they screw up, and I don't have to worry that they'll try to rewrite history on me a month after the fact, or that they'll come at me with a "combat negotiator" who makes all the motions to appear to be attempting to "resolve" something, but really wants to avoid admitting any mistakes. I don't have to worry that they'll suddenly shows up on an RfC they had no interest or involvement with and suddenly decide that I wasn't following procedure, but honest and for true this has nothing to do with any past grudges. Yeah, right.

I can't imagine "friendship" existing on anything other than truth. Without truth, all you get is liars who ally themselves with people telling the same lie: Cliques and revert-buddies and packs of editors who collude with each other at the expense of truth.

This is not about a "utopian sort of anarchy in which there are few friendships and much public criticism." This is about articles that are complete and true, editors that be straight about their actions, and honest friendships. FuelWagon 02:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

battlefield

Just wondering about something here:

I filed the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bensaccount 22 August.

Every diff of evidence involved relates to teh Creation science article. SlimVirgin hadn't edited the article during that dispute.

Because I submitted evidence to arbcom the day before that was critical of SlimVirgin, she posted on my talk page that she is "all out of good faith" [3]. 03:26, 31 August 2005

SlimVirgin suddenly takes a keen interest in proving the Bensaccount RfC "This looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you" [4] 22:47, 31 August 2005

She then proceeds to take her dispute of the Bensaccount RfC seriously enough to flood the talk pages with arguments. I tell her several times that given she had just announced she could assume no good faith of me that same day, that she should not be the admin to determine the validity of the RfC. If there were a problem with the RfC, another, uninvolved admin should have handled it. She refuses to hand it off to anyone and makes it her personal mission.

Now, while people keep pointing to the "Words to avoid" article and saying I "stalked" her, (despite how many times I keep showing that the timeline proves that she followed me there), don't you think that SlimVirgin was looking for something, anything, to discredit me because I submitted evidence to arbcom that was critical of her? I submit evidence to arbcom, the next day, SlimVirgin tells me she's all out of good faith because of my evidence, and then later that day suddenly sinks her teeth into an RfC that she had no involvement with for the weeks prior, no involvement with for the week the RfC had been around, and despite my repeated requests to hand it over to another admin, she refuses. Someone needs to explain to me how SlimVirgin's behaviour on the Bensaccount RfC doesn't qualify as her taking her personal grudge against me and using the Bensaccount RfC as a battlefield to prove what a bad editor I am. (forgot to sign again. posted 03:06, 24 October 2005 by FuelWagon)

Request for input

Hi Robert, long time no see! I'm trying my best to calm down a dispute between two users active on the Jehovah's Witnesses and Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses pages, but when I almost get them to stop reverting each other, they start again. I learnt from the Charles Taze Russell fracas to stay out of reverting and editing, but it doesn't make any difference.

If you have time, can you have a look at the pages and see if you can do anything, as I'd rather not do an RfC; it's really over a trivial matter. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FK Research

Dear Robert, FK's gone a while and I don't miss him. You were involved with him and have wondered about his language. Well, I asked a friend of mine, who's into computers and stuff, about his IP and he said, that FK posted from Dublin, Ireland. He also thought that his language as well as his insistence on being a native speaker of English remings of Indians (meaning from the subcontinent) he was talking about. This is also confirmed by some sections from FK's talk page: [[5]] [[6]] [[7]]

I thought I might post this, in case you're interested. Str1977 22:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this [[8]] Str1977 11:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

I read your comment on Tony’s RFC. I’m thinking of taking the reference to Wikipedia:Five pillars, which claims this is on a par with NPOV, out of the {{welcome}} template. What do you think? Susvolans ⇔ 17:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arbitration

Thanks for your response, Rob. I appreciate the input and the insight. You're probably correct that the Arbitration people will do what's right. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Thanks for alerting me; I'd seen an early version, but there wasn't anywhere to endorse it then, and it slipped my mind. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that this has now been listed under User Conduct as well. I provided some user conduct evidence, but am concerned that the larger goal User:FuriousFreddy was trying to accomplish may get lost if the RfC becomes overly focused on any particular user. Thoughts? Jkelly 18:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MoS?

Robert, you wrote in that RFC about MoS edits being ignored and reverted. What edits are you referring to? OmegaWikipedia 20:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

mediation failed

Well, Robert, I know you have quite a bit of faith in the dispute resolution process at wikipedia (a somewhat naive faith, in my opinion, but your results may vary). I have told you from the beginning that process ain't worth Jack if the people running the process are themselves part of the problem. And I know you've got an overwhelming amount of faith in the mediation process, so I thought I'd report to you that the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ed Poor and FuelWagon has failed. The mediator (Improv) has withdrawn due to a complete lack of participation from Ed Poor. 16 days ago, Improv emailed us (because Ed Poor wanted to do mediation by email) a number of questions to start mediation. I responded in full. Ed responded basically saying he "needed more time". 15 days later, no response from Ed, and Improv emails him a "prod", asking for his answers. no response. A day later, Improv withdraws from mediation because he only mediates one dispute at a time, and Ed has gone 2+ weeks without a response to mediation. Ed did, however, find the time to make about 650 edits to wikipedia in those two weeks. So, now what, Robert? The people who are part of the problem are also part of the dispute resolution process, and if they don't want to deal with something, they either get their mob friends to close ranks around them, or they simply don't respond at all. Anyway, your calls to use the dispute resolution process appear to be pointless. Arbcom ruled Ed did no wrong and "didn't have time" to deal with finding out what particular wrongs he may have done. A pardon. I asked the mediation chairman if they had any process for dealing with a mediator who failed to mediate. He asked me if I wanted to stamp Ed's forhead with something or fire him as mediator. I try mediation, and Ed simply doesn't show up. So, in the future, please spare me your talk about resolving things through channels. I've tried every step, and as long as the people causing the problems have friends who are running the process, then the process is a joke. And I think your efforts to change or rearrange the process are pointless as long as friends are allowed to pass judgement on friends and enemies are allowed to gang up on their enemies. You seem to think a jury system is overkill. Everything I've seen says its the only thing that will fix the problem. But by all means, focus on the process and ignore the problem and the problem users. All the best. FuelWagon 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hard ban

I've got to work on my "anger" issues while you threaten me with a "hard ban" for my anger issues? I was in mediation attempting to resolve something with Ed Poor. You were the person who kept pushing me to try mediation. I kept telling you it woudl be a waste of time. So when I finally tried mediation to work out my disptue with Ed Poor, and when mediation failed to produce a single productive thing, I post to your talk page saying, basically, "see, I told you it wouldn't work". And now you go on about how you don't see there being anything to resolve in the first place, that I'm dwelling on the past, that I need to work on my anger? And if I don't satisfy your requirements, its time for a "hard ban". Should I jump for joy with that threat? I kept telling you that mediation wouldn't work. When I finally request mediation, you come back telling me I shouldn't have made the request? You were one of the people pushing me to request mediation in the first place. Use the process. Get it resolved. All that jazz. Now you come after me saying I didn't have anything to mediate, and that for requesting mediation I was "dwelling on past wrongs" and if I can't stop it, I should be banned??? Got to love how wikipedia works. Damned if I do. Damned if I don't. FuelWagon 21:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one other thing, if I post something on your talk page, maybe you could reply on my talk page or on your talk page, rather than pasting it to the talk page of an RfC. I don't know, just a crazy idea. My mediation with Ed Poor had nothing to do with the RfC against me. I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish by moving it to the RfC talk page, but from my point of view, it appears to be an interesting form of escalation, or of "snowballing" an unrelated dispute into an RfC. I find your policy that email is not private unless mediation is requested to be similarly an escalation of things, but whatever floats your boat. In any event, Ed's refusal to answer a mediator's questions for two weeks while finding the time for 650 edits to wikipedia doesn't, in my book anyway, have anything to do with the bogus RfC against me, unless its related by the fact that its another piece of the snowball. FuelWagon 22:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"but I do not criticize him for being tired of the whole thing." I grew tired of this the day I withdrew my certification of my RfC against SlimVirgin. Keep it factual? There has never been anything but facts in my comments, either on my RfC against SlimVirgin, my RfC against Bensaccount, my comments on the RfC agaisnt Zephram, and my response to SlimVirgin's punitive RfC against me. She is the one who needs a lesson in "facts". But I grow tired of trying to correct the lies of her accusations of stalking to the "words to avoid" article. No one cares. No one comments. No one looks at the simple dates and diffs I provide. And I grow tired of the stonewalling of the Bensaccount RfC, and her stalking me there, turning it into her personal battlefield against me, yet no one can comment on the sheer coincidence of dates and diffs around there. You were on that page at one point, Robert, yet not a comment from you about SlimVirgin's sudden interest in the RfC or her newly declared grudge against me. And I grow tired of the selective enforcements of rules, strict interpretations in one case, and loose interpretations in another, all dependent on who the accused is.

There is no cabal, Robert, not in the sense of a secretive cult of powerful people wearing robes, meeting in secret, and plotting the dominion of the world. There is simply a group of childish individuals who give personal loyalties more priority than truth for the direct personal benefit it returns them. SlimVirgin and Jayjg are pro-Israel and pro-Jewish editors. It is a win-win for them to work together, to be each others revert buddies. It has nothing to do with an all-powerful secret cabal, and everything to do with kids stranded on a deserted island. El_C was combative against me on my original RfC against SlimVirgin. But then I didn't hear boo from him until immediately after SlimVirgin threatened me with arbcom, at which point he takes a sudden and combative interest in my subdirectories that have already been proven to be within policy. Every editor but one who initially supported SlimVirgin's position on her RfC against me just happened to be teh exact same peopel who supported her when I RfC'ed her. I grow tired of the children and their conch shell.

A 5,000 word critique by an actual neuroscientist doesn't matter. What matters is that SlimVirgin has a team of signatory buddies and the dispute resolution system works based on votes, any votes, your friends, your buddies, that's all that matters, just the number of people you can get to sign. People who will sign whatever posistion of an RfC supports the members of the club. Isn't it hilarious that Jayjg would endorse Mel Etitis's position that he didn't think his reverts counted for 3RR because he was reverting edits that were violation of policy, and just three weeks later, Jayjg is reporting me for 3RR violation for the exact same thing he pardoned on Mel Etitis's RfC? No? Well, I grow tired of pointing out the biases and the kids and their conch shell. If you don't want to see them, then I can't make you look.

And no doubt, if you manage to withold any criticism of all the folks who RfC'ed me, I would not be surprised that they endorse your nomination for adminship. That's how the system works, you know. Carbonite didn't see a need for an RfC until I commented on his RfC against Zephram in a way that didn't go along with the crowd.

So, the scenario, Robert, is that an admin who on the same day she declared she was all out of good faith suddenly shows up on an RfC that had been around for a week with no comment from her, about a dispute on an article she had never edited. The same day, and she turns the RfC into a crusade about inappropriate RfC's, which eventually proved to be wrong. So, the question is, is that turning wikipedia into a battlefield? And the answer, interestingly enough, depending on how you word it, may affect whether or not a certain band of editors will eventually support your nomination for adminship. And you're a good editor, Robert, with a pretty neutral head on your shoulders, but unlike me, you've got some political savvy. You know when to hold them, and you know when to fold them. Me, someone tells me a lie, and I have to respond with the truth, no matter who it may be critical of. But wikipedia could use admins more like you, so I don't fault you for keeping mum. I criticized the Lord of the Flies gang on the Zephram RfC and look where that got me. I'm just tired of the whole thing anyway.

And in the end, me telling the truth won't change anything anyway. Because the truth doesn't matter on wikipedia. What matters is who has the biggest signatory team, the largest group of revert buddies and RfC patsies. What matters here is who holds the conch shell, and it certainly isn't me. And I just find the whole thing tiring. FuelWagon 05:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Headline text

Concordat POV banner

Dear Robert, I flagged the Reichskonkordat article as POV after EffK's recent additions. I initially reverted them but he insisted on re-reverting, even after John Kenney concurred with me. After that I desisted for the moment from reverting again and flagged the article, as explained in the edit summary: "because of FK edits - off-topic, inaccurate, POV or incomprehensible". I elaborated a bit on that on the talk page, but it's hard to read. We both know why. Str1977 12:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Because of my wikibreak I didn't notice this until reading back on my talk page history. Anyway I wanted to thank you for attempting mediation between me and Xiong for the "ultimate battle between good and evil" earlier. Actually it's kind of a weird conversation as I read back on it. Thank you, R adiant _>|< 15:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977 and EffK at 16 Nov 2005

I hate to have to come and include you in extra work but I inform you that it appears from Str 1977 editing today that he has come to see as NPOV the information so long at contention , and the manner and balance of the presentation . He does not remove the gist of my assertive edits from either Reichskonkordat or Centre Party Germany and it seems that a mixture of , howling ban , then , politeness , then ,determined demand for proof of my error coupled with his reading some of my external attempts at linkage , may have brought this political insanity to a conclusion . However to both of you I realise that my assertions are painful , and I do not plan on desisting from the digging for episcopal source , to solve another problem (when did the church/Pacelli policy end -if it did . I ask Str to help with several remaining German questions , but am hopeful that at last I may not be cast as the paranoid, schizophrenic ,slipshod filibustering ,illiterate conspiracy theorist you yourself characterised me . Any chance of an apology ? Any chance of you changing your characterisations and adhering to good faith in my editing, Monsieu ? I'd be most happy if it were the case . Of course , I may be wrong and it is just that Str lost his spectacles today .... but I ask you to read the editing he made and upon which I base this present position . EffK 23:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on the RfA as a caveat to FK's post:

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, 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.

Str1977 10:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC) Str1977 10:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also found it strange that EffK decided on 16 November that he and Str1977 had resolved all of their agreements, when on 11 November he requested that Str1977 be banned from Wikipedia. EffK asks me to apologize for name-calling, which I am ready to do, but he offers no apology to me for four months of vile personal attacks (including telling me to wash my mouth out with soap, when I had been civil) on me and four months of baiting, and more than a year of uncivil behavior to Str1977. Robert McClenon 12:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I was already aware of the arbitration request, and I support it, but I'm not sure what I can do at the moment to indicate said support. john k 21:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977(request for arbitration of , by Effk)

Dear Robert McClenon , various things draw me to this post here. First your request for an apology : I will apologise most fulsomely for all that you can demonstrate of my ill-action. I'll even say , give , you a general apology for everything, including this post .

I come to you because of your particular capacity as , perhaps, necessary wikicop . I should congratulate you on so taking this position , as noticer of disputes and referror of arbitration . I will apologise to you , when I know what I have done wrong, and apologize as one human in cyberspace to another , given that I also have utilised the same freedom to remind the world of your relations to me . However ,

I do not come here but to profit from your virtues , and so , ask you to kindly nominate my shadow , Str19977 for the arbcom . I say , correcting myself this much , "as I have asked for tis since forever" . Or in bureacrese remind you that I asked for this at least 6 months ago of you yourself, McC...

The User is notified, and has declined to forestall such a request , put to him most clearly on his userpage .

I do not request that you aplogise to me , I have personal experience of the degree to which your assiduity leads you, and will say no more than - that which you yourself posted , is recorded . We're probably human both of us, and although I object on taste to your qualification of humanity on your user page, we can choose to look for a brighter side now and not eliminate those who do show some useful characteristic from this cyberlife , perhaps even the apologists .

I do request you , as from the very start of your involvement, and , as I repeated over at the discussion page for the ArbCom , that you , aware of my request now for 6 months , should post my request for arbitration re User:Str1977 .

I feel it is wrong that the user not be specified , nor that (he/she) should in any way feel diminuished by lack of centrality or the /our sharing thereof on the Arb Com. I say he must be invited to the party / inquest .

You may , to facilitate in several ways , reduce the allegation towards being exceedingly simple : that user Str1977 is as users Flamekeeper, Fiamekeeper, Corecticus , Famekeeper and now Effk , have charged : the user as characterised by his editorial actions is a vatican apologist/agent .

You may add that he is by no means alone , though the central and most apparent , and I require you to corrolate that this user has throughout his appearance on Wikipedia , sought to subvert the community on principle , by bad faith and denial of sources .

I require you to do this because I have confidence in your bureaucratic bite . If you should refuse , doubtless prinkingly , I shall find another such capacitor . You could , perhaps, do me the grace to let me know. I shall await this response I ask of you , and thw which claim , in good faith , OK ? Of course , a reluctance will add to general human woepedia ( thats a suggestion of a term we need , hence brackets ). As you well know , neither I not the user Str1977 , are in any hurry . 20:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC) EffK 22:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what EffK is trying to say. If he wants the ArbCom to take action against Str1977 for being a Vatican agent, the way to do that is by posting such a request as a comment on the RfAr. Robert McClenon 16:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to post a RFArb on Str's behaviour . You don't wish to do it , well you never did -though I have called for this for 9 months. Hardly the actions of a mediator, but then these always seemed rather feint . I continue to post diffs which will reveal the history of this, with you included. I cannot thank you for your action now, as it is purely antagonistic , which is normal . If I had signed your RfC in time , you'd still be up in the lights . I retain my experience of you , and hope to retrieve that reference to your changing your username , as soon as I can make your user history work fully . I remind you that you were accused of acting as a bully , and you were released upon a technicality . You seem not to have moderated that behaviour . I retained my proof of your cavalier use of the truth , and am pleased to call for your admonishment for behaviour at the Arbcom . If the case does not proceed , I shall consider another RfC for more McC bullying behaviour . You are and were a false mediator in my request that the Wikipedia be freed from whitewash . I shall not request anything else by you , but may request anything necessary against you . EffK 21:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I never posted an RfAr on Str1977's behavior is simple. I never saw any behavior that warranted an RfAr. Famekeeper or EffK claimed that Str1977 was "blocking" him from posting allegations of Vatican collusion with Hitler, but I never saw any evidence of any censorship, but only of reverting of unsourced edits. I tried to ask Famekeeper to summarize the points that were at issue, and the usual reply would be a long polemic that was not directly relevant. He never did summarize any questions of fact, nor present any charges of improper editing. On the other hand, I did post an RfC and then an RfAr about Famekeeper, because I did see and show substantial evidence of disruptive behavior, including the use of talk pages as a soapbox and personal attacks. If EffK wishes to post an RfAr against Str1977, he can do that. If he wishes to request that the ArbCom join Str1977 and me as parties to the case against him, he can request that. Robert McClenon 17:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EffK reference

Dear Robert, you asked why I cannot address him directly. It is not that he has insulted me - he has done that many times and I can put up with that. But recently he has gone one step too far, dragging in my grandfather into his speculations [9] (scroll down to the paragraph, "I repeat to you that ..."), my initial [10] and my further reaction [11]. I will not address him publicly (any "you" would be an oversight) until he apologizes for that. But you needn't do that as well. Either he listens to one voice or will not listen to any voice. He'll certainly will not listen to you, Robert, since he has vilified you even more than he has vilified me, and that with fewer reasons and at a shorter time. But thanks for your consideration, Str1977 15:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be place at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK/Workship. Fred Bauder 20:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Webcomics RfAr talk

Hi. Your comments here are a bit ambigious. If you think my action was inappropiate, please do say so. If not, could you clarify your statement, it currently reads (to me) as the classic, "Well, I'm not saying your dog is ugly, but I do notice you walk him backwards."
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rl

Wikipedia has had several crisis-es, as you call them. The RFA for Rl seems to indicate that a particular turning point had been reached at that point in time. Therefore I'm very curious as to what your reasoning was at that point in time. Kim Bruning 06:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again?

Please stop mentioning my name in relation to FW. [12] How many times do I have to ask? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I shouldn't be so sharp with you. It's just that the situation has been going on for five months and it's really getting to me. But I shouldn't take that out on you. I would be really grateful if you wouldn't mention it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Bill of Rights

You may be interested in Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. (SEWilco 05:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

EffK

I've looked (not in great detail, I will admit) at the arbitration materials, and it looks to me like your evidence is fairly comprehensive, or at least, so extensive as to not really require much further. EffK is such an obvious mess that I can't imagine that he won't get a serious reprimand, and the evidence you guys put up is pretty solid. So I'm not sure that doing anything further would be worthwhile. john k 00:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon post

If I start to revert on the Pius XII article, we need enough people present to back it up b/c I'll get kicked off after 3 rv's. Like the Bay of Pigs, I would need assurance of a few people behind me to ensure the article stays put in the October version. The removal of someone's hard work in the quote section is a disgrace and it should be reversed, but the effort must be coordinated. User:70.21.166.96 22:47, 12 December 2005

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia

I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [[13]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005

Dear Robert, may I just quickly inform you, that he has posted this not only on multiple user talk pages, but also at many article talk pages (where I deleted it quickly) and also at some wiki talk pages. Just to inform you, if you haven't noticed already and if you may want to include the "non-user" talk pages into your evidence. I think posting this on article talk pages is more serious than on user talk pages (apart from the ones of users that have not been involved). Cheers, Str1977 19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deeceevoice arbitration

As a party to her RfC, you might be interested to know a request for arbitration has been filed towards deeceevoice Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deeceevoice.

-Justforasecond 18:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy case. Raul654 22:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I appreciate your flattering response. I wish I had time to improve every article at Wikipedia on which I have some expertise. If I have any pet project on Wikipedia related to Roman Catholicism it's the effort to bring Joan of Arc up to featured article status. That article has been through mediation. I find it more productive to start or improve 30 articles than to contest one disputed subject. My university studies related to Nazism ended fifteen years ago and the few books I still have are in storage. Best wishes to you on your efforts. I might make some small contribution here and there, but I'm really not ready to undertake that project. Regards, Durova 23:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suspect it's difficult to collaborate with him. Yet when I look at the articles I have to concede that he raises legitimate points. I suggest you mine his comments on the talk pages for sourced statements that could help to balance the coverage. Best wishes. Durova 01:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's Pope

This article should not exist. It was a content fork for a person or people who wouldn't accept the editing consensus in the Pope Pius XII article. Critical biographies do not merit the status of their own article. Our current president, the prior impeached president with all the critical biographies written about them, none have their own stand-alone article. patsw 00:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MC

I'm wishing you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Str1977 11:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Robert! I'd like to wish you a very Happy Christmas as well. Or, since I'm a day late, let's make it a very happy Christmas season. I meant to post a message to you yesterday or the day before, but I haven't been at the computer as much as usual. I don't think we agree on absolutely everything, but I do appreciate the obvious integrity and efforts for fairness that you show. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 11:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party

Please note the presence of a third party at Pope Pius II. I will tell you that I am attracted to the legality of this editors mind. I say my bit, and simply alert you to the situation as is. EffK 14:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

I just came across you being remarkably sensible, calm and careful in dealing with various people who, putting it nicely, did not seem to reflect these same qualities. Well done! I just wanted to commend you for that, and let you know that your efforts are valued and appreciated. Keep up the good work. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki bot not logging in

Hi, I'm using the standard python wikipedia bot. On the most recent run I have noticed that occasionally it has problem making a change on the English wiki, then succeeds on the second try. I'm thinking that those are probably cases where it actually modified pages without the actual account.

I just downloaded the latest update to the python code, where a problem with log in is fixed (though what it is fixing is not being able to log in at all). I'll monitor this IP address's updates and ask on the mailing list as well.

--Vina 18:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IP based update is still happening with the latest code. I have asked the mailing list about it, hopefully the developer can figure out what is the problem. At the mean time, I've stopped running the bot on the English wiki. --Vina 22:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pius XII and the Holocaust

I made some edits to this section in the Pius XII article, but find EffK has leaped in with what amounts to a revert. I haven't taken a stance on the subject matter, but made my edits to tighten up the prose and render it Wiki-readable. Would you take a look please?--shtove 17:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The impression I had was that EffK wrote the top para and then the indented one. I'm not sure I want to get mixed up in this.--19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I see the edit confusion is over (for now). You say EffK has been "flaming away" on the talk pages - is that like a distant comet or one of Saddam's oil-wells?--shtove 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Scandal

I've posted a suggestion to rename this to The Great Scandal (Hitler) and perform a radical rewrite to bring the article in line with the argument it's named after. I really don't understand your quarrel with Effk (nor do I want to), but you seem interested in the general subject. My full proposal is at the article talk page. Regards, Durova 03:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left messages on the talk pages of all the people who've been party to the arbitration. I'll wait for comment from other RfC visitors. Maybe we can turn this into a good Wikipedia article. Durova 06:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re What Now?

Thanks for the comment of my RfA. Sorry about the delay; I was waiting to see what happened. As far as I can tell, nothing needs doing at present. This user pops up briefly from time to time, but doesn't stay around. Tearlach 09:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zen master

Well actually, that's the problem. Admins cannot block him. They can block him from articles and they can him ban him for short periods due to 3RR violations, but he can't be blocked for personal attacks and such by the arbcom decision. I'm just looking for some more "teeth" in the remedies since probation isn't altering his behavior one bit. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep exactly. Probation is useful but it has to have something else with it IMO in case the person does not take to probation. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Katefan0

I summarized the issue @ Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Katefan0 --CyclePat 22:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

leaving WP

I saw your comments on Kim Bruning's talk page. It would be a shame if you left Wikipedia. You were of material assistance in dealing the bullying of Ultramarine; and I have seen you consistently reasonable with others. Thanks. Septentrionalis 20:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of comments from one's talk page

Hi. I saw your comment on the (uncertified) Neutrality RFC:

As far as I know, the consensus of Wikipedians interpret civility as a rule against hostile, unpleasant, or aggressive interaction with other editors, but not as a rule against ignoring other editors. I think that it is also the consensus that a user has the right to remove comments from his own talk page.

Since you are evidently not aware of it, I wanted to point out this wording on Wikipedia:Talk_page#User_talk_pages:

Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings.

Thanks. --Tabor 02:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EffK arbitration

Hello, Robert. Thanks for your recent (well, not so recent) message, and sorry for not answering sooner. If you check your watchlist, you'll probably see that I've decided to start adding evidence to the EffK arbitration page. Indeed, by calling for me to be made a party to the arbitration, he has almost invited me to do so. I share Jimbo's wish that EffK could leave with his dignity intact (assuming that he can't or won't settle down and edit in accordance with Wikipedia policy), but by continuing to post all this speculation about people having entered Wikipedia for the purpose of undoing his posts (or whatever), he's making that increasingly unlikely. I can't understand the arbitrators' delay in reaching a decision. I have no objection to becoming a party in this case (and no particular wish for it either). I intend to add more evidence in the next few days, and then make a statement, if the case hasn't closed at that stage. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. I'm still a bit busy with an assignment, but am looking in regularly. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 20:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't tell you. This whole thing is entirely self-initated; I have no "inside track" here. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the case; hopefully it won't be much longer. BTW, thanks for your clear presentations of evidence and commentary on that; it'ssomewhat difficult to make head or tail of a lot of the evidence, which is part of why it's taking so long. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done enough to the article myself that I shouldn't act unilaterally, but I'll look into it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I think it's best to wait for the arbcom to finish. They seem to be picking up the pace a bit, so maybe it won't be too much longer. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarcelles

Hello there Robert McClenon, I saw your outside response at the above RfC page, and have updated the evidence and appended an explanation to why we believe his actions to be a behavioural problem and not a content dispute. Perhaps you'd like to take another look? Thanks. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Johnski

I wanted to thank you for your comments on the arbitration talk page regarding the Johnski arbitration case. I realize given my comments I sound very pushy in terms of my tongue lashing of the arbitration committee, but I (and others) are really trying to get a decent soultion so we don't have to put so much time into this dispute anymore. I guess one obvious soultion would be simply to walk away. As I said, I would rather invest my time positively in Wikipedia (writing and editing articles) rather then feel like I'm in a battle with editors who have no interest in following the rules. Anyway, thanks again for your thoughtful comments. Davidpdx 05:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EffK

I summarized evidence on the EffK case as an arbcom clerk, and so ought not step in. You might try asking User:David Gerard. Phil Sandifer 17:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20 July 1944

Dear Robert, let me answer your question (even though you are a procateur).

I have to make a rather long sweep:

EffK once posted (on Kaas, I think) a section called "Vatican exchange", which - in his typical style - talked about Kaas being implicated in secret talks in the Vatican between German resistance circles (represented by Josef Müller) through the Vatican to the British government. In this context, he used the same Pater Leiber he now denounces as a source, without worrying at all about his status as confessor. These talks happened early in the war but were also resumed later. The aim was to reach an agreement between a post-Hitler German government and the British government to end the war - the resistance circles wanted to make sure that their plot would not be "abused" by Germany's enemies to her detriment. All these talks came to nothing, as the British government mistrusted either the honesty or the capabalities of the resistance circles.

(BTW. Kaas was barely involved, but at least this inspired me to create the Josef Müller article.)

Now, EffK posted this and I welcomed his effort, as for once he was posting stuff that seemed to have real value. It also didn't hurt that this time it wasn't the old "Vatican is the bane of humanity" storyline ... or so I thought. EffK, as later posts revealed, denounced these Vatican exchanges as evil. Why? Because, under the attempted agreement, Germany would not have been crushed as she was in 1945 but actually would have retained Austria, the Sudetenland and even parts of Poland. This was enough for EffK to denounce these talks as evil.

What shocked me most was not so much his anger at these German gains (I mean it is not outrageous to criticize this as rewarding the aggressor), but that EffK completely disregard the alternatives and the merits of such an agreement. Had the war stopped in 1940 there would have been no Holocaust and there would have been only a few months of war - with much fewer casualties.

In this context, 20 July 1944 comes into play. On that date, some Wehrmacht officers, led by the Colonel Stauffenberg, tried to oust Hitler from power - Hitler was to be killed by a bomb and then the military would have assumed power, arresting the SS. The coup failed for various reasons (I can elaborate if you want to) and was followed by a purge of the military. (EffK probably would have objected to old Prussian Junker militarists coming to power).

Now people have always argued whether this attempt would have achieved something and in the end Stauffenberg said that it had to be done, even if nothing was to be won, merely for the sake of having tried, even if too late. But, in fact, the coup would have accomplished one thing: the war would have been over much sooner. And in this context the famous calculation is cited: more people were killed in the few months following 20 July than in the whole war before.

If this is true for July 1944, it is just as true for summer 1940. But EffK, judging from his comments, prefers a long bloody war resulting in complete defeat of the aggressor nation to a quick end to bloodshed. This is remarkable, given the things he has accused me of.

Hope that wasn't too longish but I wanted to make it as clear as possible. I post it here, but you can copy it to anywhere you like. Cheers, Str1977 20:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert, that's interesting what you are saying. Is it because your grandfather/father would have returned from war a years earlier, or something along the line?

As for your other post, I am shocked: Will EffK really be allowed to use other languages? He could also argue that it wasn't English what he ... but no. I remember that, according to his interpretation, the use of languages other than English is forbidden on Wikipedia ... along with jokes, irony and proper punctuation.

Anyway, here's a link you might want to look at. I think you know what I mean ;-) Str1977 22:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert, I hope you have noticed the irony in my "shocked" paragraph. Thanks for the information - and you are right both a great-uncle and my grand-father (the one recently maligned by ...) fell in the war, the latter in the last days if April. But then again, my mother might have never met my father. I will in the not so distant future post a comment about the "Scandal" article. Cheers, Str1977 22:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert, yes I have red what the cat said (sounds like a good title "What the cat said"). I wouldn't bite him either. As for his fears, that is why I posted the jimmy akin link. There are some similiraties. No wonder he has no problems with Avro Manhattan. I have found it interesting that he has found his Flamekeeper password again recently. I think you have also witnessed the can-can he did here. Cheers, Str1977 15:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Advocacy/Mediation

I would like to speak with you confidentially re: assistance needed. Please advise if you are available to discuss and how this can be facilitated. Thanks much. |||Miles.D.|||^{02-5-2006 18:50 (UTC)}

User:EffK

From what I can see User:EffK is not happy with the result of his recent dealings with ArbCom which are subject to a motion to close, so he has been going around removing any comment he's made with the edit summary "criminalised". My only involvement has been to undo some of that and block an IP he was using apparently to evade a block for the disruptive behaviour. --pgk^(talk) 17:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said it appears he was removing all comments he had previously added. His account had already been blocked by another admin for that, he then continued with that utilising IP addresses, which also got blocked. Bulk removing content is generally considered disruptive and as such is subject to a block to prevent further disruption. --pgk^(talk) 19:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 444: / Line 444: @@
 yes I have red what the cat said (sounds like a good title "What the cat said"). I wouldn't bite him either. As for his fears, that is why I posted the jimmy akin link. There are some similiraties. No wonder he has no problems with Avro Manhattan. I have found it interesting that he has found his Flamekeeper password again recently. I think you have also witnessed the can-can he did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&action=history here]. Cheers, [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 15:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 ==Request for Advocacy/Mediation==
-I would like to speak with you confidentially re: assistance needed. Please advise if you are available to discuss and how this can be facilitated.  Thanks much. |||<font color="#56A5EC">''MilesD.''[[Image:Space_buddy2.gif|31px|<nowiki></nowiki>]]</font>|||<sup> ''02-4-2006 15:36 (UTC)''</sup>
+I would like to speak with you confidentially re: assistance needed. Please advise if you are available to discuss and how this can be facilitated.  Thanks much. |||<font color="#56A5EC">[[User:MilesD.|Miles.D.]]</font>[[Image:Space_buddy2.gif|31px|<nowiki></nowiki>]]|||<sup> ''02-5-2006 18:50 (UTC)''</sup>
 == [[User:EffK]] ==