User talk:Lou franklin

/Archive /Archive2

Blocked
For using a sockpuppet to circumvent remedies 1 and 2 of your arbitration case, I have blocked you for two weeks, with the blocks to run consecutively instead of concurrently. Special:Contributions/Hernando_Cortez illustrates a number of cases where you assumed bad faith (e.g. insinuating other editors were banning non-homosexuals from contributing their viewpoints to an article) and obviously violated your article ban. For further detail, please see the latest Lou franklin header under Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Johnleemk | Talk 11:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How dare you accuse me of that! Before you go blocking people next time make sure that you are right.  It's not going to be very hard to prove malice here. Lou franklin 12:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The report did not originiate from Johnleemk he is just enforcing the block based on the evidence given. Since this is enforcement of arbcom remedies, I suggest you email an arbitrator to look into it. --pgk( talk ) 13:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been falsely accused. Unblock me.  Unless you can prove your libelous claim that I have a "confirmed sock puppet" (and I know that you can't because I know it is not so), you need to unblock me now.  ArbCom has nothing to do with it.  They are not the ones who falsely accused me "based on the evidence given". Lou franklin 14:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You can jump up and down as much as you want, and are now verging on legal threats. As I have said a request was put forward which indicated an issue and it has been enforced. If you want that reviewed then contact an arbitrator. --pgk( talk ) 14:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What does an arbitrator have to do with it? How would an arbitrator know whether the accusation is correct or not?  The onus is on the the admin, since he is the one who blocked me. Lou franklin 14:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * He is enfocring an arbcom decision. He links to the enforcment page above which lists the evidence and the basis for the block. --pgk( talk ) 14:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was blocked for having a "sockpuppet". I have no such sockpuppet.  Unblock me now.  If you want to consult with ArbCom that is your prerogative.  I can't post anymore anyway.  Lou franklin 14:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Already denied by Pgk. I warned you last time about continual fishing. Stop it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You stop it. Before you make libelous accusations you'd better be damned sure you are right.  I have been blocked for having a "sockpuppet" and I have done no such thing.  You need to present some proof before you libel somebody like that.  I know for a fact that you have no proof because I know that I have not done what you accuse me of.  Unblock me immediately! Lou franklin 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just in case anyone has second thoughts
''Threatening email I received from Lou franklin today. By the way, I ran the checkuser, do have proof, and can make complaint to the involved service providers. Essjay (  Talk  •  Connect  )  01:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)''

I have been blocked (and my user page protected) for having a "sockpuppet". I have done no such thing. You had better clear this little misunderstanding up and quick. Before Wikipedia admins falsely accuse people they had better be damned sure they are right. I know for a fact that you are not right because I know for a fact that I have not done what I have been accused of. Unless you have PROOF - which you don't - you need to unblock me. Don't make me escalate this.

- Lou

''And another. Essjay (  Talk  •  Connect  )  02:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)''

I saw your post on my talk page. You have proof of nothing. I am being falsely accused, and I suspect that you know it. I'm going to give you one day to straighten this out or there's going to be a problem.

As per your indef ban, your vote is therefore invalid and has been stricken from the RfA. -- Tawker 02:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)