User talk:EffK
Email, and Link to earlier EffK userpage and Info-Store
[edit]I am using transinterpreter+numbered one<at>xyz<gmail<with><dot>com
EffK earlier 'info store' contains loadza V [[1]]
Diffed Record of WP info removals, quickly tells u what's problematic [[2]]
Return to Wikipedia
[edit]Hallo [between Str1977 and EffK]
[edit]I guess you know hallo means 'I hear' in hungarian. Well, it was the earliest apparent Str unsigned edits which I dug up recently that persuaded me as to why you did not care to answer my question as to whether you were paid to promulgate your views here, and why I may have been close to the mark in considering you a professioanl faith editor...I don't expect I need to say more than 'ancient uni'...Now, old chum, I am glad to see you are wide awake, and perhaps I should have come here first thing I did to congratulate you on your survival etc ( perhaps on the successful conversion of me into a known wiki-criminal?).. as you remember my first concern is always verifiability, so let's see....you have spent the last year of my block in avoiding answering the issue that User:Bengalski raised... poor Mr B- like everyone else, he was foxed by the dire intricacies of Weimar regarding the 'coalition'..however yes..you left it that you would return to Scholder and check that which Mr B had verified, and which had exceeded and confirmed all that had been classed as my Original Research...however you did not do what you wrote you would do, and Mr B got bored...or is far away... I somewhere- I think in Italian, studied the review of Scholder that you had claimed represented counter-weight to him, and must dig it out of some hard disk soon...of course the review is not counterweight under any conceivable historiography as you call it and rather the reverse...User:Savidan curiously allowed the verifications of Scholder to disappear entirely from Pius XII, in such manner as to reinforce attention....of course such Scholder accusations do not figure either in the Hitler nor Ludwig Kaas nor Centre Party articles, and where they do in Weimar they are emasculated...they are emasculated because the essential Bruning demand is either ignored or obfuscated, contrary to my verifications, thus sparing the world today the requisite of understanding that Bruning represented the last hurdle in the empowerment of Hitler...of course you wish to neutralise old Bruning as unreliable and were it not for the Wheeler-Bennett Hindenburg:The Wooden Titan, might have succeeded....we know what what you wish to neutralise, which is Bruning's own accusation against Kaas, and his witness of Pacelli's 1931 Hitler empowerment wishes...with regard to the latter, as I point out, perhaps solely for your benefit as the rest of WP appears semi literate, I have benefited from this furlough you achieved by expanding my understanding of history...the later German situation as regards papal/Pacelli interference lies within the continuum of the Holy Roman Empire beyond its apparent demise, such that Wheeler-Bennett references to secret paperless Holy See intrigue towards a restoration of the 'monarchy' (Emperor) have become more understandable...and naturally the 1933 trickery between Hitler and Kaas and Pacelli, howsoever proveable or not, for which Bruning's August 1931 meeting with Pacelli is sufficient to link the names Hitler and Pacelli, whatever about the Kaas admission referred to by Scholder regarding 24-31 march, or the Hitler cabinet meeting of 15 march, or the von Papen reference Bengalski dug up regarding mention of the Reichskonkordat at 31 January, thus justifying the inclusion of Kaas within this axis in at least an NPOV report of the accusation....all these things remain to be dealt with honestly and within WP guidelines...all these join together to add to the simple reasoning that outweighs your own claim that Scholder represents a ' minority view ' ( the reason being that since the Church seem to have both arranged and published results of a formal seminar between specifically Repgen on the one hand, and Scholder's professorial descendant on the other, thus demonstrating clearly to us both that Scholder represents one side of a two sided dispute, and therefore not a minority but a direct balance in the dispute...the central obfuscation at present however lies in the Hitler article, where 'deecisive' is later follwed by 'oral guarantees', which were I beleive in fact written under the 'Working Committee, and the Bruning required written 'Constitutional Guarantee, and Kaas' avoidance ore failure to obtain it.... therefore having expressed to you my continuing alertness to the actual WP and historical realities I shall here state that I do not wish to have you banned for your anti-verification actions, despite these being immense, but wish in a spirit of friendliness and reconciliation to convert you to a behaviour that would benefit the project, and society today...saying this I hope to interact with you under what I call the flag of truthfulness and what you might consider christian principles. I have written the above in briefest manner, knowing that you will understand and accept the brevity for what otherwise could have entailed far greater expansion. I believe it is better that we deal directly, under verifiability than involve parties who will not in 12 months even begin to follow the nuances. However this must be done under verifiability, and denial of that can only lead to study as to why denial is made. as\you well know I formulated an an article resolution template, which could allow us to assist the entire project by the example of its use. However I have to imagine that you would find difficulty in presenting criticism of 'the Church' in public....yrs EffK 18:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Hallo" means "Hallo" in German and is also an acceptable, thoug outdated spelling in English. Unfortunately I know no Hungarian.
- But regarding your posting, which I have not read in its entirety: you profess to have asked a question but this question was rather a bad-faith accusation. I will say this only once: stop your accusations against me or you will feel the consequences. I will let this one slide but do it one more time and I will report you. Goodday, Str1977 (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Please read this through and see that I make no attack here. I mention that you removed verified info, which is digitally recorded elsewhere. I repeat that if we hold to the guidelines henceforth, it will benefit the project and society. You seem however to not wish to do so, and unless you signal a willingness I shall not bother you directly again, thus a silence will be taken as such a request. Then I shall work alone thru to other editors, or not. I remind you that I -if not Arbcom- base myself always on verifiability in everything. EffK 18:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Consider that you have only recently returned from serving your time and that your return was placed under restrictions (see your ArbCom case for details). Don't think a repeat offender will be treated as nicely as you were before. Str1977 (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Str, your reply when apparently you desired closure leaves me in a quandary. Perhaps you would like to come out with a denial of co-operation as to the substantive issues, rather than solely concern yourself with my criminality. Should I note that you refuse to deal with the subtantive issues of verifiability concerning the empowerment of Adolf Hitler? Is it somehow criminal to have to return to the fact that verifiability lay at the centre of a WP dispute? I do not accuse you of making removals, only remind you of this. Will you co-operate within the guidelines in restoration of the verifability and towards proper NPOV reference to them? EffK 19:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- The centre of our dispute was your obsession with blaming the Third Reich on Kaas and Pacelli. And that's all she wrote. You never were about verifiability but about misreading sources, blowing things out of proportion, POV pushing, soap boxing, personal attacks etc. And you received the reward for your actions by being banned by ArbCom - and by being banned by half a dozen WPs. Now get on with. Str1977 (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Str, it appears that you prefer to remain in accusatory and incivil mode, and wish to forget the verifications I and others made, which seems odd when all was so public. As to saying that I wished to blame Pacelli and Kaas for the 3rd Reich, well in fact I wished to report that others had reached a such-like conclusion, that is that the quasi-legal seizure was of their complicity, they supplying of a chief facilitation. Anything further was by way of Jimbo Wales' guidelines as to explanation, and relevant to the difficulty of presentation, within Wikipedia, and within of course, the Church itself. As you know it was Pacelli who assisted in writing the latter's Canon Laws, and, others here in Wikipedia who devised the guidelines. As was proved after I was silenced, the accusation you still attempt to make personal to me is in all serious scholarship made by the chief german ecumenical scholar, and my own piecemeal verifications were simply spot on with his conclusions. They were thus vindicated as being described as such, under NPOV. Therefore this your personalisation remains rather the weak Straw man argument. I should be repeating myself, but otherwise, for the common good, be happy to verify all real verifations and factors. It would be very boring, but such is the importance that one should submit to the common good and work without need for ad hominem and personalisation. Regarding your own efforts these were always against such verification as I provided over years, and witnessed closely by me over a long period as traceable to each of your edits and consequently stored by me at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EffK&diff=78835609&oldid=75777807#Removals_from_Wikipedia.2C_by_Str1977. The over-whelmingly concerted removal there recorded of all that I had earlier attempted to verify from the very first of my editing is what led to my categorisation of you as editor. That categorisation was admissable under AGF at the time, as was confirmed by your associate User:Robert McClenon direct from AGF policy. I myself cannot account for why the various cardinal WP policies I followed such as that were not up-held by Arbcom, but I can account for denial of verificatory references and removal of textual verifiabilities. That these were your work was your choice, and done quite against my repeated advice. I was equally careful to adhere to civility, something that your recent posts avoid. It appears that bluster and attack is your chosen path today rather than adherence to Wikipedia policy within clear recorded editing. This surprises me as does your entire last email, but I have learnt not to be too affected by such variations as appear. To recap, it does not appear that you wish to share in any open validating verifications now, that is, in the NPOV presentation of other's historical works or, am I wrong? I am quite happy to work within general history sub-projects to ensure that the NPOV of articles is maintained whilst the full history I verified is re-inserted. I do not need to return to explanations, as they are copiously recorded, alongside the stored verifications. Of course if it is a desire to prevent verification of the history on the many inter-related articles, then you already know the means to silence me. I shall copy these words of mine over to my own pages at some stage as I doubt you wish your space to be clogged by me, and, I shall I suppose have to judge from your several mails that we cannot co-operate at verification. It is a pity for us both that outside scholastics should deny us normal wikipedia friendliness, and a pity for the project. The difficulty for the Church is of course the chief matter, and as I verified, entirely within her regularisation. I have to believe that verifiable NPOV or truth is the basis towards a wholesome future, and that its opposite is not.EffK 21:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC) [EffK parts retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Str1977"]
You are free to post on my talk page when you have something to say as long as you can put it concisely. (I know that's hard for you but it is also hard for me to read your posts.) You are not free to spam my talk page even though there is nothing to say. You are not free to shower me with accusations and your conspiracy theories. I thought that was clear from what I wrote before. Str1977 (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back to Wikipedia- admin incident report
[edit]from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, 10 02 2007
User:EffK has just come off a one year block due to an Arbcom decision, and is running around repeating his assertions that only he knows what is true. At least he hasn't edited any articles yet, but it's a good idea to keep an eye on him. Corvus cornix 23:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
His only non-user talk edit today seems to be this, which reads like that autogenerated screed text... I forget the website it's on, but there's a site that let's you put in a few nouns and select a 'point' and length, and it autogenerates the argumentative letter using lots of 3 cent words and hyperbole. If so, then he's trolling from the get-go. If not, then he's REALLLLY off in his own world, and he'll no doubt set off all the alarms and warnings, resulting in another long block soon enough. ThuranX 01:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC) 18 month block, actually. I fail to understand how policies allow for my entry as referenced to become an 'incident'. I see here an incident in the making, one contrary to WP policy. The ad hominem reappears instantly ('running around', 'at least', keep an eye on', 'autogenerated', '3 cent words', 'hyperbole', 'in his own world', 'trolling', 'block soon enough', 'he'll do himself in soon enough'....). The argument I actually made is that the plethora of articles relating to the verifications I effected, which when and if I am invited I can substantiate, have all either suffered from my blocking, or returned to a parlous un-historical state because of my punishment. How this can be sign of some new ill-will by me against the project beats me. I remind both these users that the project is supposed at this time to defend me rather than attack me. I state that my interest remains the good of the project, by constituting historical fact upon historical articles. I repeat that the good of society is a legally recognised concept, and that therefore verifiability, NPOV and AGF extend beyond the confines of even Wikipedia. I suggest users address the actual issues, as stated by me in good faith. EffK 10:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Using language such as "effected", "plethora", "parlous" makes one wonder just how serious you are, and how seriously you want to be taken. Corvus cornix 15:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC) This is too minor to warrant attention, other than to say that it reminds me of attacks made long ago. I was pleased to see Cc did not quite join with Thuranx' open personal attacks. My advice is- dont. EffK 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Personal attack? Where? You're admitting to writing every word of that yourself? Sure reads like trolling. ThuranX 04:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Admins, regarding this you might also be interested in this query. PS. I believe he wrote the Village Pump posting entirely by himself. Str1977 (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Admins, EffK is already beginning to spam my talk page, kicking things off with a personal attack (whether I get paid for contributing to WP - a question harking back to one of the things he got banned for) - I at first let that slide because he was just returning, but as he has not ceased spamming overly long messages on my talk page all revolving around his pet conspiracy theories and insinuations against me I wanted to bring this to your attention. Cheers, Str1977 (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually I wrote to the man as he had taken it upon himself to enter here, he replied, I replied saying if he didnt reply I'd take that as a wish that I not, but he replied. So that's roughly the situation. I also told him I would remove the entire to my page. At no time was I told not to write to him there....so, what does that tell you? EffK 22:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- He is free to post on my talk page when he has something to say as long as he can put it concisely. He is not free to spam my talk page even though there is nothing to say. He is not free to shower me with accusations and his conspiracy theories. Str1977 (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
State of the Project- Punishing of WP by WP
[edit]As\upon 'Village Pump'
I refer here to WP guidelines and policies concerning punishment, blocking, banning, censorship, verifiability, with un-written reference to assumption of good faith rules, arbitration life-sentencing and inability of the project to divide itself into a religious and a secular sphere.
It was an un-called for relief being punished for 18 months, and the only result was that the punishment has been of the project by the project. As ever, I only refer to facts that can be verified, and this isn't the time nor place and I'll just say that I have done a 'recce' and noted the plethora of articles which either still labour under mistruth or whose mistruth has profited from the very long punishment. (Doubtless a clever-dick will speed in and try and curry favour by maligning me, despite the project's guidelines, so that'll come as no surprise. i don't plan on responding to such..) My point here is solely that the project has only succeeded in punishing itself, whilst I have gained considerable free time to clarify the truth. Just as it always was, my entry is out of duty, to 'benefit society' (a legal concept). The persecutions of me will be no more justified ahead than in the past and the truth alone necessitates my personal effort. For enquiring minds I shall however endeavour to reveal something of relevant interest to today. The scope of my corrections before dwelt upon the 7 week period between 30 January 1933 and 23 March 1933 (the particular period of the 'Common-Plan' or conspiracy as defined by the Nuremberg Tribunals) whereas now it is possible for me to see the relevant religious element in this period as being descendant of a continuum to, in the latest, 800 AD. The illegal re-invention, in that year, of what we could call a christian 'Caliphate' bears directly forwards in spirit, philosophy and politics through to that 23 March 1933. I will shoulder the burden- in so far as denialists' hitherto non-existant respect for the project's laws determine- of supplying the most interesting textual verifications, in the sure understanding that by alerting the world through the project to this continuum I shall even further incur the odium of those for whom this 'caliphate' was, since 800 AD, their chief project. This is to say that I shall supply texts concerning historical events such that these will benefit disparate articles. The only other good news is that, as I am exceedingly interested in the entire 'caliphate', seeing it as exemplar towards our superscension of its co-terminal or slightly preceding twin and parallel absolutist concept, that the Wikipedia project's plethora of 'Common-Plan' flaws and denialism, since they have already been verified by me, become solely repetitious details for correction. Anyone who is concerned by the fact that I aslo persecuted and punished by a 'life-long' ban from 'catholicism' articles, might ask themselves in the first instance why a certain Ludwig Kaas - who's action is termed 'decisive' for the empowerment of Adolf Hitler, at Hitler's article, whether Kaas there should better be recognised as Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, or, whether the 'monsignor' Kaas article is or is not a 'catholic article'? If it is not, then it is not closed to me. If it is closed to me for the period of my life on earth (or the life of Wikipedia) then, logically, Ludwig Kaas is a 'catholic figure' and his status as Monsignor warrants immediate recognition as such at the Hitler article, and, that recognition also absolutely proves the point of contention verified by me through User:Bengalski from the eminent ecumenical historian, the late Klaus Scholder, that at the least Kaas is accused by this eminence as acting secretly upon the instructions of his religious mentor, (ie. boss) the future Pope Pius XII. Such an honest person would also be keen to see the allowance of full and true verification concerning the exact known elements of the final act of the Common-plan, which is to say, how it was that Kaas actually amassed the unitary vote of the Party he led, and gave this to Hitler in the rigged parliament against his own agreement with a previous chancellor in his party whose retention of his 'fraction' may have changed the entire course of mid and consquent 20C history, because it verifiably wasn't as Wikipedia anywhere reveals. Please don't call me, EffK 22:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- All of the decisions on your RfAr were a unanimous 8-0 vote. When there are 8 people elected by the editors of the Project who disagree with you, as well as those who brought the RfAr and those who posted evidence, might you not want to stop and think that maybe it's you who is in the wrong? Corvus cornix 23:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I am questioned. Indeed they were unanimous, and also entirely ignored the central plank of Wikipedia, which is verifability. I am proud to stand by my efforts at explanation, allowable under policy. I cannot regret my actions which were towards verifiability, NPOV inclusion of full history, and, when policy was openly traduced, my determination of the danger to Web2 and this project by concerted -nay verifiably instructed under pain of spiritual deprivation- editing. I note for you that none of the substantive issue of verifiability was addressed by any of these, nor the policies regarding either explanation nor regarding AGF. I wouldn't expect you to spend any time on it either as it is difficult, but the facts remain whatever about the punitive judgement handed down. Your 'maybe' is kind, but misplaced as 'maybe' the Arbcom was blinded by a desire to save the project from massive contention and that that explains how an arbitration called for by myself in the first instance, was incapable of attending to the substantive policy issues. Bengalski called it a scandal, it remains a scandal, none of the issues were satisfactorily dealt with, only brushed with punitive stroke under the carpet of bureaucracy. In reality an investigation should be held as to how the policies of WP were surrendered by its own representatives. As to he who brought the Rfa, he stupidly crowed as to his christian vindiction, was thereafter recognised for his off-site racism, and re-defined himself exactly as I had concluded- as Rfa fixer for the denialist outside power. Of course, he left, and now only jimbo lives in a limbo. It remains the case that the failure to address the issues of policy hurt the project then, still hurts it, and will doubtless continue to hurt it. Do you care? Do you not consider it your duty to understand how the policies were traduced, and to repair the damage to the project. But, thanks for maybe, and to the following editor- Anonguy did that.EffK 09:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC) On a completely unrelated note, you might wish to have your talk page unprotected now that you're back. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Personal attack
[edit]ThuranX: I highlight what I take to be the personal attacks in what you wrote :His only non-user talk edit today seems to be this, which reads like that autogenerated screed text... I forget the website it's on, but there's a site that let's you put in a few nouns and select a 'point' and length, and it autogenerates the argumentative letter using lots of 3 cent words and hyperbole. If so, then he's trolling from the get-go. If not, then he's REALLLLY off in his own world, and he'll no doubt set off all the alarms and warnings, resulting in another long block soon enough. User:ThuranX|ThuranX 01:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
At the least this is Incivility and contrary to AGF. As you use a complex word (hyperbole) your attack is of a double standard. You are allowed to say that my writing annoys you perhaps, but in a civil manner. That you entered the vandal report page to be incivil demonstrates a lack of care on your part.EffK 09:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Trolling
[edit]WP definition of [[3]]
I highlight what I take to be the personal attacks in what you wrote :"His only non-user talk edit today seems to be this, which reads like that autogenerated screed text... I forget the website it's on, but there's a site that let's you put in a few nouns and select a 'point' and length, and it autogenerates the argumentative letter using lots of 3 cent words and hyperbole. If so, then he's trolling from the get-go. If not, then he's REALLLLY off in his own world, and he'll no doubt set off all the alarms and warnings, resulting in another long block soon enough. ThuranX 01:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)" EffK 08:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
And, for your benefit, I show this: The WP Troll article says/said :"Intentionally posting an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error. Often the poster will become defensive when the argument is refuted, and may continue the thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this is referred to as "feeding" the troll." Your basing yourself upon the Arbcom decision may excuse you technically from the personal attack, but the fact that the Arbcom ignored the 3rd party verification of my position simply shifts the burden of wrong to Arbcom. the 3rd party attempted to reveal to Arbcom that the "deliberately constructed.. fundamental..obfuscated flaw or error" was not mine. As I believe in Wikipedia and other social principles, the injustice made by ignoring such verification and witness cannot be left un-done. If you really, after reading the 3rd party, whose statements I have posted to my user page, continue to believe in the Arbcom justice as voted, then I suggest you immediately call for Arbcom to deal with the injustice or justice, such that my supposed trolling be confirmed as trolling, with all the consequences. I would however suggest that upon seeing the 3rd party report, that you join with the sense of justice inherent to that witness, and rather apply to Arbcom for a complete revision of its earlier convictions made against me. Personally I can say that the open-season upon me, exemplified by your intervention, and the lifelong bans, make of my effort towards ever having contributed to this Project, a punishment. As ever I have to note that generally the digital situation is that all edits are immortal, and that nothing that contradicts social norms is other than evidential, whether in WP or without. I, as anyone may, reserve the general right to re-produce all actions outside of Wikipedia , under fair use. Good day, EffK 13:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ThuranX"
Str1977 question 1a-c
[edit]Dear Str, if you wish to respond, here is question no.1 in 3 parts, relevant to my (ludicrous) 'life-long' ban from 'catholicism' articles: I might ask you in the first instance why Ludwig Kaas - who's action (or party's action) is termed 'decisive' for the empowerment of Adolf Hitler, at Hitler's article, whether Kaas there should better be recognised as Monsignor Ludwig Kaas[1a], thus as corollary, whether the 'monsignor' Kaas article itself is or is not a 'catholic article'?[1b] Within the issue the following should bear relation- If it is not, then it is not closed to me. If it is closed to me then, logically, Ludwig Kaas is a 'catholic figure' and his status as Monsignor warrants immediate recognition as such at the Hitler article, and, that recognition also absolutely proves the point of contention verified by me through User:Bengalski from the eminent ecumenical historian, the late Klaus Scholder, that at the least Kaas is accused by this 'eminence' as acting secretly upon the instructions of his religious mentor, (ie. boss) the future Pope Pius XII. As effect from a decision and according to the aim of the WP project anyone would also be keen to see the allowance of full and true verification concerning the exact known elements of the final act of the 'Common-plan', at all relevant pages, which is to say, how it was that Kaas actually amassed the unitary vote of the Party he led, and gave this to Hitler in the rigged parliament against his own agreement with Bruning. The Wheeler-Bennett tome on Hindenburg raised a double question, that Kaas was terrorised or was credulous , but Scholder amounts to at least a 3rd question. Although it is hypothetical that the retention of Bruning's 'fraction' may have changed the entire course of mid and consquent 20C history, certainly the events were not as is generally revealed in Wikipedia and I ask you if they should be reported as relevant within an NPOV[1c].
List and report upon skewed articles
[edit]You find Effk arbcom comments difficult, this is the real difficulty, and should be seen by those who would ban a real and honest contributor.
Weimar constitution needs with State of Emergency to take account of an expansion to Reichstag Fire Decree that explains that President Hindenburg when signing the latter either forgot to ask for the separate and thereto always presented relevant habeas corpus protective document or that it was not presented for his signing. It is a question of history as to whether this came about through his mental incapacity. Wikipedia pretends that the Reichstag fire decree gave legal force to a one party state, at Rule by decree saying the Nazis were able to constitutionally suppress or imprison opposition. Together with statement at Weimar Constitution(technically remained in force throughout the III Reich) and State of Emergency (wasn't suspended..simply suspended) there is nowhere the verified remembrance of the sole constitutional guarantees; this came in a letter from Hindenburg of c 27 march, sent to the various Reichstag party leaders, and is referred to by the first greatest historian, Sir John Wheeler-Bennett as a letter of most sardonic hypocrisy, and in effect saying that Paul von Hindenburg relied on a promise to him by Hitler that he would respect the Constitution.
This letter returns us to the nub of the history, as this letter was both a substitute for the written guarantee demanded by Heinrich Bruning as his minimum requirement for allowing the dictatorship by vote at the Enabling Act and a traducing of that demand by Ludwig Kaas. The most sardonic hypocrisy lay in what Shirer called was it the cruellest contradiction, as the provisions of the Enabling Act claimed to protect the Institutions of the Reichstag precisely at the moment at which it had been illegally (verified) undermined (by arrests and murders of Deputies). How Wikipedia articles can be aligned with that which is known about the rolling opportunistic conspiracy (Nuremberg) should be a matter for precise discussion, however the continued WP situation is to adopt the clean but contradictory route of assuming, against all historians and Nuremberg, that as at KPD (Communist Party of Germany) they were already banned by the Nazi regime or as at NSDAP or as at Gleichschaltung not including Communist delegates as their party had already been banned by that time[Enabling Act].
The 'removal' of the entire KPD/ 26 SPD is in Enabling Act that first the Government removed the Communist party by arresting its Deputies and under the Reichstag Fire Decree the Communists were declared dormant.. whereas at the Reichstag Fire Decree there is no mention of dormant, but claim that they were arrested on the basis of that Decree. Elsewhere the KPD leader Ernst Thalmann however was arrested by the Gestapo on 3rd March 1933 although the Gestapo did not exist for another month, and at KPD it is stated The Enabling Act which legally gave Hitler dictatorial control and that the KPD were banned by the nazi regime.
The confusion is multiple and wide ranging in Wikipedia, despite Effk verifications having been earlier provided , this confusion reigns on, centreing around an apparent need to see that the Communists were banned ( Alan Bullock verified that they never were0 or that the empowerment of Hitler was 'legal'. Effk was always startled by the presentation of Hitleriam as achieving power through legal means, at Holocaust it was pretended before EffK, that the Nazis had risen to power after a general election success. And to this day, after nearly 4 years since the first Effk corrections, Wikipedia still is unable to preserve any un-contradictory view, for as regards the essential Enabling Act, at its passage Heinrich Bruning says he yielded to party disciplie, at Hitler that he remained noticeably silent , at NSDAP that certain guarantees were given to Ludwig Kaas, at Ludwig Kaas there is no clarity, at Nazi Germany the Act was passed, at Hitler that Bruning agreed to maintain Party discipline as silent, at Enabling Act itself that the KPD could not vote..since it had been banned by that time and that certain guarantees to Ludwig Kaas were oral.
Here we return to the Constitutionality and the legality problems of Hitler empowerment. One confusion (and that is not to repeat that this results from intentional skewing despite and against Effk multiple verifications) resolves around the actual guarantees which bought the Monsignor Ludwig Kaas chaired Centre Party Germany and another being the failed Bruning demand for a Constitutional guarantee direct and signed from Hitler. In this useful confusion, that is this one that minimises the verifable historical questioning of and accusation against Ludwig Kaas as extremely close devotee and (verifiably) 'mouthpiece' for Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli later Pope Pius XII and Hitler's Pope, does so by elision of actual and presumably signed guarantees achieved at a Working Committe chaired by both Kitler and Kaas between either 17 or 20 march and 22 march 1933 ( with the final empowerment of Dictatorship on 23 march) into an elision with the bruning guarantees, which are only achieved by the very top Hindenburg letter of most sardonci hypocrisy. This confusion is actively dishonest ( as the winner in the Effk arbcom case knows and allows it still to reign in Wikipedia), as the Working Committee guarantees were not the final persuasion of the catholic centre party to empower Hitler, but a formal separate precursor to the final guarantee, the written Constitutional guarantee that Hitler promised, and yet which despite agreement Ludwig Kaas failed to adhere to. the result is that NPOV presentation should but fails to present the true course of events on the fateful day, of why bruning remained silent, because he was tricked into doing so either by Kaas' cowardice, gullibility or connivance with Hitler. The absence of NPOV reports of connexion to the verifiable papal policy to see in Hitler a saviour of Germany and christendom, that end with open and scholarly historical accusation of secret Kaas collusion throughout the Nuremberg defined Common Plan or Conspiracy to seize power, are what drive Effk to consider that Wikipedia needs correcting. The realities surrounding the rigging of the reichstag in un-constitutional means, verified, and the contrary presentation that the Communist Deputies were legally banned are the cause of all dispute. All knowledge concerning suborning of president hindenburg through tax and land scandals, despite verification from the Nuremberg Tribunals, is proscribed here, and the hitler article itself jhas the temerity to say that Adolf Hitler gained power during Germany's period of crisis after WWI [using] propaganda and charismatic oratoryAt the linked Weimar Republic we see Hitler's promised guarantee to Kaas' and thereby Kaas persuaded.... All the above articles combine to present what is, because it has all been counter-verified, a massive lie. The constitutionality, the guarantees , the arrests, the voting, the decrees, the previous Weimar history- all were 'counter' verified, and none was properly allowed wikipedia presentation, for the simple reason that the historical NPOV suggestion that there was a stitch up, a conspiracy, trickery, betrayal, would lead to an embarrassment of Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, and his actual legal masters, to whom he could not have said Niet! The explanation as to why he could not, and what the history means to his masters, is the real reason why EffK was silenced.
Place Admin/editor 'advice' here re defamation and criminalisation of EffK
[edit]The thread started because I spoke against distorted Wikipedia articles at Village Pump. I can and will soon now prove the distortions, in a list, at my discussion page, for those doubters (or in case I am beheaded again). I believe the seriousness of my above charge now, and others' recently, justifies my expanding this thread as of now, to its real subject, as it is stated. i admit it is unusual, and sub-divide it because I believe the seriousness warrants the maximum attention of admins here on this WP page.
As a previous and wide-ranging bulk-contributor I tell those who do not know me that it is I alone in Wikipedia who entered the real essential story of Hitler's seizure of power, and that this remains, but skewed and partial, throughout many articles. Under one username I can prove a 50+% ratio of actual edits to textual verification. I doubt anyone here can claim such a benign record. Due to this effort, which is embarrassing to 'a powerful and popular outside agency', I find myself now (even here) subject to incivil punishment on an intolerable scale, and simply for pointing out that Wkipedia articles are skewed, and more skewed for my banishment and inability to repair them. As a genuine 3rd party attempted and failed to over-turn the apparent assumptions of the original Arbcom conviction of me, I find the constant incivility more cruel punishment just following after verifiable injustice and 18 months extended ban punishment. Since I find myself in a reality of open-season shoot-on-sight, and am banned for life from entire sections of Wikipedia, and subject to un-informed admin will wherever I might contribute, I may as well think of taking this higher. My identity now, as all that I have openly chosen, has been turned by Arbcom's inadmission of verifability, into a criminality. This is a measurable loss to my goodness of faith and intentions. I shall perhaps have to seek justice and adherence to the Wikipedia policies, wherever- as I do not know, and if I cannot find redress for the (technical term)loss of currency to me and the defamation of me within WP, I may really have to seek it in the real world. I suggest that admins etc of good will immediately step in and pay heed to the 3rd party verifications of me in the original situation, and assist me in seeking redress inside Wikipedia against my un-just criminalisation. Advice is welcome in the matter of how to seek a complete overturning of the un-just conviction by Arbcom. I see no sense in beating about the bush here with admins about lesser events such as open anti-policy incivility, charged spamming, poor composition, and any nonsense anyone chooses to fling. Any admins advice for that complete redress would be welcome. I cannot see a sense of social justice within Wkipedia when I believe 3rd party evidence justified me almost absolutely. Original research I entered was confined to one article, wrongly deleted against a vote to keep and presented in an NPOV manner( The Great Scandal); when my soap-boxing was admissable under 'explanation' guidelines; when my supposed personal attacks were admissable under AGF policy; when my obsessive focus ranged over dozens of inter-related articles of history (whilst editors can spend years upon Ebionites alone); whilst no example in mainspace of a POV editing by me was proveable; and whilst it remains the case that my supposed personal 'conspiracy-theory' was in fact NPOV presentation of mainstream verifiability proven by the 3rd party after I had myself repeatedly verified it. All else was provocation against the un-welcome verification, ad hominem attack, straw man diversion, and dishonest cabal anti AGF attack, or anti-verifability article censoring. Thankyou though,to those who have made this necessary. If the Wikipedia Foundation is frightened of annoying a certain faith, it should be seen to be the case, as this lies at the root of the criminalisation of an innocent editor of good modern social will. I should repeat that by virtue of the historical facts that the case of 'EffK' involves a subject and reality that far out-weighs that of Wikipedia itself. EffK 19:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Indef block
[edit]
.
I have indef blocked this user, based on his behaviour, the discussion in WP:ANI, and the legal threats he made in that discussion[4], including "[...] a real world action remains as Jimmy Wales was forewarned, the sole likely arbiter in this case.". Fram 08:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
What is the previous history? I asked for advice about how to un-do the previous history, and all that was proposed was the indefinite block. I never appealed to Jimbo regarding the Arbcom/previous history, because he and they ignored Verifiability, evidence and 3rd party witness, cabal removals & provocation in anti-Wikipedia activity by those on the opposite accusing side. There was in fact no arbitration as designed, as there was no counter editor studied. Therefore on the basis of 'previous history' the indefinite block should be immediately lifted.
If an organisation does not and will not recognise its own principal policy, then it is a hypocrisy or a negation of its Foundation. I advise you whom I address here to formally lodge an appeal on behalf solely of Verifiability, for that EffK Arbcom result, on behalf of Wikipedia itself, not EffK, though specifically to question whether the result is or is not a mailicous defamation upon User:EffK.
The legal situation as regards the 'threat' conceived as reason for the indefinite block is this: In real world Law to which Wikipedia is subject, a threat is not a threat when legally it is an action admissable under Law. A threat is the menace of something which is not permissable in law. Therefore to say that failure by Wikipedia to adhere to its own policies, firstly that of verifiability, secondly that or malicious defamation, may end up in real world Law, is not a threat but a statement of reality. it relates to the constitution of Wikipedia as a Foundation under Law.
EffK has made every attempt over many years to summon Wikipedia to uphold its own constitution, much prized by it. Never has Wikipedia addressed the principle policy of Verifiability that EffK used in good faith, and, has rather always chosen to surrender the good faith and verifications of EffK to a malicious defamation, published by the same Wikipedia Foundation. I EffK write here solely to alert the Foundation to the great harm it is doing itself by not thereby upholding its published principles and Foundation. Any legally permissable notice of this failure is completely admissable whether by simple publishing or direct study under Law. Wikipedia is well aware that it has no sovereign rights to publish defamation outside of the Law that applies to it, and a continuance in so publishing a defamation of EffK as a promoter of 'conspiracy theory' is a conscious act made against a verifiably informed knowledge to the contrary, thus defining it as a malicious defamation and thus nullifying the actual word 'threat' in the legal manner described above.
Therefore Wikipedia should immediately un-publish the word threat and replace it with one permissable at Law, as the Wikipedia by publishing this word legally accuses EffK of attempting or promoting an illegal act. Signed EffK 04 10 2007 EffK 11:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
EffK (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
your reason here
Decline reason:
User admits making legal threats but tries Wikilawyering around the plain meaning of the word. Suggesting that you may sue the founder of the Wikimedia Foundation is obviously a legal threat.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.