User talk:Lou franklin/Archive2

Argument on the talk page
As I read over the talk page, I noticed that you were being treated extremely unfairly, and while it was pretty much you just bringing back a dead argument over and over, they did not give you any sort of good faith. I believe that you want to improve the article, and while that may not be what you are doing, note that I will most likely be backing you in that they aren't treating you fairly on the talk page, while not backing you in the debate on whether your edits are vandalism or not, along with 3RR debates.

Also, I recommend that you archive your talk page. 89KB is quite a size, and it hurts the eyes :D. GofG undefinedundefinedundefined Contribs 01:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have archived my talk page. Thanks for the tip.


 * I am "bringing back a dead argument over and over" because that is the only way to improve the article. I have had to address the same points over and over again before getting them resolved.  Ultimately the "consensus" usually comes to.  (eventually).


 * You are welcome to your opinion, but there is absolutely no question that I am improving the article. Look through the history and take a look at the article before I got involved.  It was alarming.


 * Look at what Wikipedia says about obscenity:


 * Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.


 * That seems pretty clear to me. If you are writing the Penis article, it might make sense to feature an illustration of a penis.  But that is clearly not necessary for this topic.  Clearly "cocksucker" would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers.  And it is clearly not central to the topic.  I'm not sure how they can argue that one with a straight face. Lou franklin 01:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

block
You have been blocked for one month after violating 3rr; you have been blocked a number of times, for extended lengths of time. Please do not continue upon your return. While I do believe that the length is warranted, please feel free to ask for a review by placing on your user page. -- He ah?  03:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A note discussing the situation has been posted at ANI. -- He  ah?  04:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To characterize the removal of a "Troll Warning" on a talk page as "revert warring" is a bit of an overreaction, wouldn't you say? Do you honestly think that justifies a month-long block?


 * Please either unblock me or inform ArbCom that I have been blocked. I suspect that they have held off on making a decision in hopes that we would be able to reach a compromise on the article.  That obviously can't happen if I am not able to post. Lou franklin 04:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it does justify it, yes; but i may be wrong, which is why i made an incident report at ANI, which is the proper place to bring the question and to report the incident. -- He  ah?  05:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny how the admin who jumped right in to offer a response on the ANI page is also an editor of the article.  Does that seem proper to you?  What is it about removing an uncivil "troll warning" that you feel justifies a month-long block?  I wish to appeal that decision. Lou franklin 00:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that I posted on the ANI hardly prevents anyone more 'neutral' from doing so. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your posting on ANI gives neutral administrators the impression that there is no need for them to get involved. They are not aware that you have an axe to grind.  It looks to them as if a real admin has looked into the problem so they don't have to.


 * Administrators are supposed to be neutral. They are not supposed to have "any direct involvement" in the issues they administrate .  Do you think it is appropriate for an admin to characterize my concerns as "bitching"?  Is that the way to earn a reputation as the "trusted member of the community" that you are supposed to be ?


 * Is it honest to point out how many times I have been blocked without disclosing how many times you have initiated those blocks? Lou franklin 02:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm flattered that you think administrators put so much blind faith in my opinions. However, I can assure you that they don't. And yes, I consider my characterisation of your continuing failure to see that there is no cabal and that you have only yourself to blame to be accurate.
 * I don't consider the number of times I "initiated" a block on you as particularly relevant. I haven't ever blocked you. I think I filed a 3RR report on you once, maybe twice, you'll have to forgive me if it's difficult to remember with you. The admin that denied your unblock request had nothing to do with me. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

He read your disparaging remarks on the Administrator's noticeboard before making a decision. Do you really think it is appropriate for an admin to characterize an editor's concerns as "the usual bitching"? 

Administrators are supposed to be "neutral". "They do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with." Would you say that you have been neutral here? Would you say that you have had no "direct involvement"? When asked if "another admin cares to review the situation", did you disclose that you are an editor of that article and that you initiated some of those blocks that you cited as evidence?

I do consider the number of times you initiated a block on me particularly relevant. As you well know, you have initiated blocks on me multiple times, including for adding a POV tag to the article - which I had every right to do. With admins like you, who needs vandals.

And thanks for explaining that there is no cabal. It must be a coincidence that 10% of the general population is gay, but 90% of the editors of the article are gay. Good thinking. Lou franklin 10:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never blocked you. See for yourself. . --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You initiated blocks on me multiple times, and you know it. You did it twice on this page alone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive12#User:Lou_franklin Lou franklin 11:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I said that already. At the time of my reply you hadn't yet corrected your post and it said "you have blocked me". --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not so. Click the history tab.


 * I have asked you twice: "Do you really think it is appropriate for an admin to characterize an editor's concerns as 'the usual bitching'"?


 * Do you think it's fair that I be blocked for a month for removing an uncivil "troll warning" tag based on my history of being blocked for adding a POV tag and removing improper voting on a talk page? As a neutral admin, do you really think that justice has been served here? Lou franklin 11:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I clicked 'edit this page' before you made your second edit.
 * Yes, I think it's appropriate for anyone to characterise your usual bitching as your usual bitching, though I know that you're sensitive regarding profane language so I tried to avoid using it to you directly.
 * And yes, I think your continued flagrant disregard for the policies of Wikipedia and the feelings of other editors justifies a longer block than the last time. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not able to post now. Why won't you inform ArbCom? Lou franklin 05:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Lou_franklin/Proposed_decision KimvdLinde 05:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You can still participate in the arbitration case by emailing your evidence and proposals to an active arbitrator or a clerk. I'm a clerk and my email address is minorityreport@bluebottle.com (you have to click a web link to confirm your first email to this address) and James F, an active arbitrator who publishes his email address, is james@jdforrester.org --Tony Sidaway 18:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If "5 votes are a majority" how did the case close with only 3 votes for enforcement? Lou franklin 01:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin
This arbitration case has closed. Lou franklin is indefinitely banned from editing Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and related articles and discussion pages. He is also placed on personal attack and revert parole. These remedies will be enforced by block. For further details, please see the arbitration case page. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What steps are being taken to correct the actual problem? How are policies being changed to prevent advocacy groups from using Wikipedia to disseminate propaganda?


 * I have now raised a red flag about this to the very highest levels. I have now gone through all of Wikipedia's bureaucratic hoops.  There is widespread agreement that this is not an impartial article written by impartial people, but nobody cares enough to fix the problem.


 * Is leaving the same group of editors in charge of the same article supposed to produce different results somehow? How long will it be before the article claims a correlation between natural disasters and Protestantism again?  Now that this has been brought to the attention of the powers that be, what mechanism has been put into place to prevent that from happening again?


 * Can it be that nobody in the Wikipedia community, including ArbCom and Jimbo, cares about the integrity of Wikipedia? I have suggested several approaches to help prevent this kind of misuse of Wikipedia in the future.  Is Wikipedia going to adopt these approaches, or will you continue to ignore the problem and discipline whistleblowers instead?


 * We all know that ArbCom knows how to give users the boot - they do it all the time - but who is going to actually fix the problem? Lou franklin 01:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Posting on ArbCom members' pages
Please don't disrupt by telling all 15 arbitrators the same thing.  Will  ( E @ )  T  15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, I commented on the talk pages of 7 arbitrators, not 15. Lou franklin 04:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is your second warning. Please cease this disruption  Will  ( E @ )  T  15:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is your final warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked  Will  ( E @ )  T  16:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocked for what reason? I have not disrupted Wikipedia. I am trying to improve it.  Lou franklin 16:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your arbitration case
The relevant enforcement did not pass. The arbitrators appear to have agreed that the existing remedies already described the necessary enforcement in sufficient detail. A case does not need an enforcement section for its remedies to be enforced; the enforcement section only clarifies how the enforcement of the remedies will work, if this is insufficiently clear. Johnleemk | Talk 16:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is enforcement voted on at all then? Lou franklin 16:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For deviations from the standard enforcement. KimvdLinde 16:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Because as I said, in some cases, it might not be clear. Johnleemk | Talk 16:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What? How does voting on it make it clear?  If there is a vote at all then the vote should continue until a quorum has been reached, don't you think?  And what do you mean by "the arbitrators appear to have agreed"?  Why not let them finish voting and remove all doubt? Lou franklin 02:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In case I didn't make myself clear the first time, the enforcement section is meant to make the necessary steps to enforce the remedies crystal clear. In some cases, making them crystal clear is not necessary. I was specifically instructed by an arbitrator to disregard the enforcement section. As I am not an arbitrator, I cannot assume that they decided to disregard it, but I have safe reason to believe so. You appear to have totally ignored the implementation notes section of the proposed decision subpage. Stop quibbling over petty issues. Johnleemk | Talk 06:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If banning legitimate users seems like a "petty issue" to you, perhaps you should find another use for your time. You actually didn't make yourself clear the first time - nor the second time.  My question was "If there is going to be a vote at all, then why shouldn't the vote continue until a quorum has been reached?" Lou franklin 12:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (deindent) As I said, I was instructed by an arbitrator to ignore the vote. Since you are clearly here to annoy people and quibble over a non-issue, I will not be responding to further enquiries of this sort from you. Johnleemk | Talk 13:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I shall miss your insightful wit. Anybody else here disturbed by the phrase "ignore the vote"? Lou franklin 02:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Question
You stated that the article Societal attitudes towards homosexuality had information that claimed that natural disasters were related to Protestantism...where was that exactly?...don't edit the article of course, just tell me where it was and when.--MONGO 16:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here: : "Statistically, damage from natural disasters in the modern United States is not correlated well with homosexual population, but it does correlate with Protestantism". Do you know how long that statement remained in the article?!?  I was able to get it removed, but what will happen to the article now that I have been booted?  The article should have been removed months ago.  The group of editors that control the article have shown time and time again that they cannot deal with the subject matter in a neutral manner.  Lou franklin 01:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at that...it is uncited anyway and should be referenced, but I see no evidence of that passage now. Looking at that link and the way the article is now, it has evolved enormously, with references and other things that make it better. I would have to say that probably due to your efforts, whether they were right or wrong, you helped force the editors of that article to at least substantiate their claims. Now you can move on and as Fred Bauder stated, a some point someone else will have a few questions about the article and will then help it also move forward in a neutral way. This is not the only article on Wikipedia that is biased of course (not that I think it is all that bad, really), so if you're looking to ensure bias stays out of wikipedia, there are tons of articles that do need some adjustments to conform with policy. Happy editing.--MONGO 01:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. It was clearly "due to my efforts".  Even the gay group that controls the article made that point during the arbitration.  So what do you think will happen to the article now that I'm gone?


 * There is no "moving on" here. There were two ways to get the article cleaned up: the easy way or the hard way.  I have now exhausted all options within Wikipedia, haven taken this to the highest levels within Wikipedia.  That was the easy way.  That didn't work, so now we go to plan B.


 * Some of the editors of the article have commented that I am as stubborn as a mule. They are 100% correct.  When I go to a park and I see that kids can't use it because of graffiti and broken glass and vandalism, I make it a personal mission to fix it.  I can't fix all the swings and slides and jungle gyms in the whole world, but by God, I will not leave that park until it is cleaned up.


 * This article is very much like a park that is full of graffiti and broken glass and vandalism. I am surprised that nobody in the Wikipedia community cares about this park, but no matter.  It is clear that I can't fix this from within the Wikipedia framework, but I am not "moving on" until it's done. Lou franklin 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is nothing you can do about it...but with over 1 million other articles, you can still find something else to work on. As I said, from the link yo provided to now, the article is much improved...and while I don't condone edit warring or hostility, I also understand that this is hard for most of us to avoid at times if we become deeply invested in one article and that article is POV. Just for the record, I am unabashedly hetero and a moderate conservative, but I support gay rights. The whole world is cracking at it's seams, we are over populated, wars rage everywhere, our resources are becoming depleted...in the scheme of things, a persons sexuality is small potatoes. Try to figure out an area of interest to you that is completely different and that will be the way you restore good faith.--MONGO 07:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * May I ask, what is "plan B?" Rainman420 05:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 83 more days. Lou franklin 13:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Integrity: Does Anybody Care?
Over the last few months I have worked hard to raise a red flag about extremist groups using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes. I have now brought the issue to the attention of those at the very highest levels within the Wikipedia community.

Now that I have gone through all of Wikipedia's bureaucratic hoops, what steps are being taken to correct the problem? How are policies being changed to prevent advocacy groups from using Wikipedia to disseminate propaganda?

There is widespread agreement that "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is not an impartial article written by impartial people, but nobody cares enough to fix the problem. Is leaving the same group of editors in charge of the same article supposed to produce different results somehow? How long will it be before the article claims a correlation between natural disasters and Protestantism again? Now that this has been brought to the attention of the powers that be, what mechanism has been put into place to prevent that from happening again?

Can it be that nobody in the Wikipedia community, including ArbCom and Jimbo, cares about the integrity of Wikipedia? I have suggested several approaches to help prevent this kind of misuse of Wikipedia in the future. Is Wikipedia going to adopt these approaches, or will you continue to ignore the problem and discipline whistleblowers instead?

We all know that ArbCom knows how to give users the boot - they do it all the time - but who is going to actually fix the problem?

Lou franklin 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would not view users who advocate integration of gays into society as extremist. If the article is somewhat biased it is because certain problems associated with gay life are not adequately addressed from a negative viewpoint, for example, extreme promiscuity among some gay subcultures and the obvious attraction of some men to youth. I think you have shown a pattern of obsessional concern with homosexual issues and our decision is sound. There are lots of other people who can edit the article. They may not show up tomorrow, but they will. Just leave this issue to cooler heads. Fred Bauder 16:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not view users who advocate integration of gays into society as extremists either. I advocate integration of gays into society.  I have no problem with gay people; I have a problem with dishonest people.  Deliberately using an encyclopedia article to push the gay agenda is very wrong and it should be stopped.


 * It would be great if these "lots of other people" would show up, but until then Wikipedia has a biased and obscene article that is controlled by 90% gay advocates. If there is no mechanism to correct that, then the Wikipedia project is a failure and needs to be either fixed or torn down.


 * I have a pattern of obsession with doing what is right. From the perspective of the reader - which is who Wikipedia should be serving - your decision was not sound.  You have a badly biased article that was made that way on purpose.  ArbCom has been made aware of the situation, and seems to agree, but won't do anything about it.  You gave the keys back to the same group of gay advocates that created that drivel in the first place.  That is not "sound".  That is dereliction of duty.  Lou franklin 01:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr Franklin, some of us have come to realise that the Wikipedia may well be a camouflaged organ of The Left. Your personal experiences are interesting. But I feel it is safe enough to say that if you are saying anything remotely right-wing you will be constantly watched and your contributions doctored in the cause of "neutrality". Sussexman 07:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that Wikipedia is an organ of The Left. I disagree that there is any camouflage.  Fewer than 10% of the population is gay, but 90% of the editors of this article are gay.  Now that I have been shown the door, 95% of the editors are gay.  It is little surprise that the article is biased drivel.  I wasn't trying to say anything right-wing, I was just trying to remove some of the absurdities.  But I was stomped on each time because "the consensus" (read: an organized group of gay activists) "disagreed".


 * For example, why must an article about "societal attitudes" include obscenities? They refuse to remove the word "cocksucker" because they claim it is central to the topic.  They refuse to remove a picture of a penis from the article because "nudity should be favored so as not to be swayed by puritan concerns".  For trying to straighten this mess out I was given the boot, yet they all still remain.  Lou franklin 12:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Lou was given the boot because he couldn't follow the rules, not even a very simple rule like 3RR. If he had deigned to follow the rules, he'd still be there pursuing his life's goals: reverting the McCarthy quote, arguing with the dictionary about "civil rights" and "marriage", and pursuing a fatwa against depiction of a penis.  So he got himself banned by not controlling himself, and now he claims it is Wikipedia's fault.  Cleduc 15:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh please. I was banned because I couldn't follow your rules.  Funny how a group of extremists can game the system by taking turns reverting legitimate changes.  Funny how these same extremists are able to get users banned for 3rr, even when there was no 3rr - just a violation of the spirit of 3rr.  Yep, no cabal here.  Lou franklin 03:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think ArbCom made it pretty clear that the rules you (still) can't seem to follow aren't the creation of the "gay cabal". So who does 'your' in sentence two above refer to?  Cleduc's rules?  No, it seems pretty clear Cleduc didn't just go around making up rules for you to break.  I think its pretty clear that you're incapable of following any rules but your own.  -Smahoney 16:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there are two things. First of all, nobody is forced to be here, including Lou. Second of all, people are free NOT to consult wikipedia if they feel it is biased. And what some people do, they start their own wiki, dealing with stuff in a way they think is better. So, if you come here, you can dealw ith the rules set by this place as there is not requirement for someone to be here, those rules can be set. Kim van der Linde at venus 17:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Rest assured
I don't know what you want to do next, but I can assure you one thing: the article Societal attitudes towards homosexuality will be removed on the same day the entire Wikipedia website is removed. This will not change in the forseeable future, no matter what you do. 04:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.7.84 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep watching, my anonymous friend, keep watching. Lou franklin 04:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you for 48 hours for violating remedy 1 of the recent arbitration case, which specifically includes related discussion pages in its ban. Johnleemk | Talk 06:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The text at the top of the talk page explicitly said "The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page." But you know that because you changed that text after you blocked me.


 * Obviously if the talk pages says I am "not prevented from discussing or proposing changes", you can't ban me for doing so. Please unblock me and reinsert my text.


 * Lou franklin 12:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you would have taken care to read the posting of the decision on THIS page (your own talk page), you would have read: Lou franklin is indefinitely banned from editing Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and related articles and discussion pages. Kim van der Linde at venus 13:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the decision says you are barred from BOTH the article AND the talk page. It was the template's bad wording that was confusing. As a result, you MUST serve out this block. 15:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Who are you and what have you to do with this? Lou franklin 23:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would not bring it this harsh. My suggestion would be in such a case to ask for clarificatrion at the relavant ArbCom page. Kim van der Linde at venus 15:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to clarify. The arbitration committee was crystal clear in their wording, and KmvdLinde posted an additional message to the talk quoting the remedy verbatim (inclusive of the "related discussion pages" clause). Specific rulings overrule a general template. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I can see how someone might get confused by the two different things, and in that case, I think is advisable to ask clarification instead of assuming that the information tag which is for the other editors overrules the explicite text of the arbitration case itself. Kim van der Linde at venus 03:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please post a link to the Wikipedia policy that says "specific rulings overrule a general template". If a clerk adds the words "the user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page" then the user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page.  I can't read your mind.  If you are trying to convey information in a wiki you have to actually type it. Lou franklin 03:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What could be clearer than "The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page"? How can you post "the user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page" and then block him when he does? Lou franklin 23:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think he's got a point - since the template was misleading, the block should probably be lifted, though in the future it should be noted that it is the decision of the arbitration committee and not the text of the template that makes the rule here (in other words, future edits to talk:societal attitudes towards homosexuality will result in another block). -Smahoney 00:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Lou read the results of arbitration like the rest of us, and he knew damned well exactly what it meant.  As usual, he's trying to exploit what he sees as a loophole to continue to disrupt WP.  He can certainly wait 48 hours to continue his endless disruption and harassment of arbitrators and administrators, and wait that long to update his ultra-scary "countdown." Cleduc 00:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Which word are you having trouble understanding: "The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page" Lou franklin 00:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a ridiculous argument. Lou must be held accountable to read the results of the arbitration he demanded. Cleduc 00:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Was it the word "discussing"? Lou franklin 01:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess. Hey, Lou - what's the deal with that anyway?  -Smahoney 00:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Since my attempts at levity are not appreciated, I'll state it plainly. Lou is threatening us.  That is hilarious enough in itself.  Cleduc 01:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * With what? Spamming our talk pages with long-winded diatribes?  -Smahoney 01:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe that he'll leave? Naaah. Maybe it's a pool on how long until he earns an outright ban. Cleduc 01:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (this is a repost from the email I just sent Lou)
 * No. The *template* (not my own writing) said so. You should know better than to rely on a general template when there was a *specific* decision. You were informed of it on your user talk (when I directed you to the specific arbitration page) and by KimvdLinde who posted a verbatim copy of the remedy in question on the talk page. If there was any confusion, you should have enquired. You clearly did not pay attention to the discrepancy, which indicates you either did not bother reading the arbitration decision *and* Kim's message, or you ignored the template, which invalidates it as a course of appeal. In either case, the burden of blame lies on you. You can't lawyer your way out of this. Johnleemk | Talk 05:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Per Johnleemk, the wording of the arbcom decision is the important part, you violated that so the arbcom ruling is being enforced. --pgk( talk ) 07:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please post a link to the Wikipedia policy that says "the wording of the arbcom decision is the important part" and that when a clerk posts "The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page" it means that the user is prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. Lou franklin 12:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are rulelawyering. Nobody will bother entertaining you if this is your only line of defense. Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't just make up your own rules. You have to abide by Wikipedia's policies like everybody else.  If Wikipedia does indeed have a policy that says "when a clerk posts 'The user is not prevented' it really means that the user is prevented" then post a link to that policy.  If Wikipedia has no such policy you can't just pretend there is one.  Lou franklin 01:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If you feel you've been mistreated by an administrator, you can take your case to WP:AN/I or WP:AE. However, I would find it unlikely that any administrator would choose to get involved discussing an already-expired block, no matter how much you pile on that charm. Cleduc 02:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you think it looks that you are getting me blocked and then coming here to twist the knife.  Where has your good faith gone?  Aren't you supposed to be pretending to be the victim?


 * By the way, a "homo" is "someone who practices homosexuality", it is not a "homophobic epithet". "Homo" is Greek for "same" - as in same sex.  You sure are easily offended for somebody who won't remove the word "cocksucker" from the article.  Lou franklin 02:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh come on Lou. You know full well that 'homo' is a homophobic epithet.  You're also undoubtedly familiar already with the wikipedia policy stating "don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point", which this entire bit of nonsense seems remarkably similar to, if your intent here is really to compare 'homo' with 'cocksucker'.  Remember, Lou: The rules you need to follow aren't the ones that you make up, but the ones the community has decided on (I can see the response now: Lou: "And what does community mean here?  A bunch of homos trying to control wikipedia for the purposes of propaganda blah blah blah").  -Smahoney 18:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How am I "grasping at straws"?  Lou franklin 02:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Seth
Seth, did you read these comments? That seems only fair, don't you agree?


 * No, not really. You're grasping at straws.  -Smahoney 01:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How so? Lou franklin 01:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked and reblocked
In light of this edit, which massively assumes bad faith towards other editors and attacks them as "homos", I have blocked you for the maximum of one week as allowed by your personal attack parole on Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin. This coupled with your earlier violation indicate you have yet to learn your lesson. Please reform and learn to work with others (or at least not to disrupt their work). Johnleemk | Talk 17:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Admin Intervention
I need intervention on an out-of-control admin, Johnleemk. As the result of an arbitration case, he posted these words on a talk page: "Lou_franklin is banned from editing this article... The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page." 

Since it explicitly said "The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes", I did. As a result he blocked me for 48 hours! He apparently made a mistake posting the wording because he changed it to "the user is prevented" after he blocked me. Obviously since the talk page said I am "not prevented from discussing or proposing changes", it is not appropriate to ban me for doing so!

Other users (above) suggested to him that he "ask for clarification at the relevant ArbCom page" and "I think it is advisable to ask clarification" and "since the template was misleading, the block should probably be lifted", but he flatly refused saying "there is nothing to clarify... Specific rulings overrule a general template." I asked him to post a link to the Wikipedia policy that states that. He could not provide one, and responded by saying "you are rulelawyering". He said "you should know better than to rely on a general template".

When the 48 hour block was over, he blocked me again for a week!

This time he blocked for using the word "homo" on a talk page. I didn't feel that the word "homo" was all that offensive. A homo is "someone who practices homosexuality" (see http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=homo ), which is what we were talking about. It comes from the Greek word which means "same" - as in same sex.

This admin is making up rules as he goes. Once I am unblocked I will file a complaint against him, but since he still has me blocked I can't even do that.

I need intervention on two fronts: I need somebody to unblock me, and I need somebody to mentor John.

If an admin posts that it's OK for a user to add to the discussion, it's really not reasonable for the same admin to block the user for doing so. Is there an admin here who would be able to explain that to John? Lou franklin 12:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The current block – for calling a group of editors "homos" – is legitimate. You were under a personal attack parole as specified under the terms of your Arbitration case, and you chose to describe your adversaries using a pejorative term.
 * I'm not sure what the purpose of your etymology lesson is above&mdash;words with Greek and Latin pedigree can still be quite offensive. The word homo has long been used as an offensive slang term to denigrate homosexuals.  I would recommend dropping a word into Google and clicking the definition link (upper right corner of the page) to see a selection of different dictionaries' results; this might help you to avoid these sorts of confusions in the future.  (Example.)
 * Context is everything. While there may be a subset of the homosexual population that has tried to co-opt the word homo as a badge of identity and pride – in much the same way that some black people have adopted the word nigger (from the Latin niger via the Spanish negro, if you're wondering) – the use of the term by hostile individuals outside the community is still seen as highly offensive.  (Perform the following simple experiment: approach a group of black people and say "Hi!  How are you niggers today?"  Please report on your results here.)
 * One might expect an editor who has spent so much time working on the article Societal attitudes towards homosexuality to be a little more familiar with these ideas. I hope you'll take this time, while your editing privileges are suspended, to contemplate this.  Please also note that in general admins aren't as stupid as you're trying to treat us with this argument about the word homos.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What exactly does saying "How are you niggers today?" have to do with this discussion? "Nigger" is a far more inflamatory word than "homo" is!  There are far more derogatory terms for homosexuals than homos - that would be on par with "nigger" - but I did not use any of them.  And whether admins are "stupid" or not is equally irrelevant.


 * I was blocked for 48 hours for doing what an admin said. If saying "homo" is the cardinal Wiki-sin, at least shorten the block by the 48 hours that I was unfairly blocked. Lou franklin 01:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * While I'm pleased that you didn't choose to use a term that was 'far more derogatory...than homos', you will only fulfill the terms of your personal attack parole if you avoid using derogatory terms completely. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And that seems fair to you? Lou franklin 02:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a rhetorical question, isn't it? Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks of any kind, and you've been reminded of this repeatedly.  If you're not prepared to contribute to Wikipedia while remaining within the bounds of its policies, then you will not be welcome.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Does it seem fair to you that I was blocked for 48 hours for following the instructions of the admin? Lou franklin 03:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it's considered a derogatory term. Secondly, no one told you to call other editors that. Thirdly, your block is quite correct. --InShaneee 03:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was blocked for 48 hours for editing a page that the admin said I could edit. Justify that.  Lou franklin 03:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * When he says, "You can edit", he doesn't mean, "You can violate policy however you wish". Policy is policy, and that should be pretty obvious. --InShaneee 03:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't violate policy. All I did was edit.  Do you see something wrong with my comments?  Lou franklin 03:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the ArbCom told you not to post any comments on the discussion page. ban. Please re-read the ArbCom decision so that there are no further mistakes. -Will Beback 10:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What could be clearer than "The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page"? Lou franklin 12:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The arbCOm ruling. Or would you argue that if the clerck of a US court says it is ok to murder someone, that you are excempt from the law because he said so? Kim van der Linde at venus 12:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course. If you got a hunting license and then got arrested for hunting, you wouldn't think that was very fair.  Would you? Lou franklin 02:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that would be very fair as the judge had forbidden you to hunt ever because of that nasty hunting accident. Kim van der Linde at venus 02:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Want to run that by me again? "The user is not prevented" means "the user is not prevented" no matter how you slice it. Lou franklin 02:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * O yes, here it is: "I think that would be very fair as the judge had forbidden you to hunt ever because of that nasty hunting accident." Kim van der Linde at venus 02:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are going to have to explain what that was supposed to mean. Lou franklin 02:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) A judge convicts you, and a ruling, specially written for you, is handed to you to read so that you will know what he judge has decided. 2) Someone gives you a general piece of paper (say, a press release for the local media to inform people about the conviction) stating something slightly different. 3) You ignore the ruling of the judge because that press release says something different and commit the same crime again, violating the conviction. 4) The police arrests you because you violate the law, the ruling and the parole you are under. 5) The police laughs in your face if you try to convince them that the press release trumps the ruling of the judge, as well as that the law does not apply to you in the first place. Kim van der Linde at venus 02:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's quite an analogy. But in Wikipedialand the judge is an admin.  An admin saying "the user is not prevented" is very different from a press release from a local media outlet, wouldn't you say?


 * That's why I was a little confused by John's assertion that I should have known because I was "informed of it" by Kim VD. You are not an admin.  You are the equivilent of a local media outlet. Lou franklin 03:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the ArbCom is the judge, not the average admin. Do you think a real judge would be pleased with you when you start calling his assistent the judge and flatly ignore him? And what I did was not using the press release (they contain to often errors etc), but the actuall ruling and used that for the news report. Results in general in less biased news..... Kim van der Linde at venus 03:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is getting a little silly, wouldn't you say? Obviously an admin is an officer of the court and you are not.  You are the equivilent of a local media outlet.  In this case your information was correct, but when the clerk of the arbitration hearing says it's OK to post it's a little different from some random user. Lou franklin 03:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is really silly to ignore the ruling of the judge that was handed down at the arbitration hearing and think that a press release of the courts cleck can trump the ruling of the judge. Kim van der Linde at venus 03:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So we can refresh everyone's memory, here's why Lou's crazy defense of "The template said I could do it!" doesn't fly (again). It's worth noting Lou's only defense to this is "You can't make up your own rules!" Haha. Yeah. As if the arbcom decision means nothing.
 * (this is a repost from the email I just sent Lou)
 * No. The *template* (not my own writing) said so. You should know better than to rely on a general template when there was a *specific* decision. You were informed of it on your user talk (when I directed you to the specific arbitration page) and by KimvdLinde who posted a verbatim copy of the remedy in question on the talk page. If there was any confusion, you should have enquired. You clearly did not pay attention to the discrepancy, which indicates you either did not bother reading the arbitration decision *and* Kim's message, or you ignored the template, which invalidates it as a course of appeal. In either case, the burden of blame lies on you. You can't lawyer your way out of this. Johnleemk | Talk 19:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what a "general template" is, or how I could have known better than to "rely" on one. If a user posts on the very same page where an admin said it was allowed, how can you block him for that?  Does that honestly seem fair to you?  Am I supposed to scour all of Wikipedia for conflicting messages in case the admin made a mistake?  Is that really reasonable?  Lou franklin 01:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * cough* If there was any confusion, you should have enquired. You clearly did not pay attention to the discrepancy, which indicates you either did not bother reading the arbitration decision *and* Kim's message, or you ignored the template, which invalidates it as a course of appeal. Johnleemk | Talk 08:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What exactly does "*cough*" mean? What do you mean "If there was any confusion"?  There was no confusion at all.  The admin who served as the clerk at the arbitration hearing posted "The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page" on the actual page in question.  Nothing could be clearer. Lou franklin 13:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If there was no confusion at all, you didn't bother reading the arbitration committee's decision. They overrule me; I'm just a clerk. Conclusion: It's your fault. Johnleemk | Talk 13:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Which word are you having trouble with: "The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes"? Lou franklin 15:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of laws
Jurisprudence has a concept called conflict of laws.

I've noticed that the rule of law is not a well understood concept in wikipedia, including by arbcom. But that is to be expected in a young project and one which inevitbably reflects the power of appointing members to arbcom. Nonetheless, in this case, and even if Lou is gaming the system, the rule of law should be respected and applied.

Since I'm a legal positivist in my thinking and training I argue that the law and the concept is applied to suit the outcome desired by those making the decision. It would be better though, in this case, to give the benefit of the doubt. The 48 hour block was thus not justified.

As to the 7 day block. Excessive. Homo is derogatory, yes but not as derogatory as some words. Lou should be unblocked and templates should be improved.

To put the matter beyond doubt, my comments should not be read in any way for support of his views. Mccready 16:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What "views"? I just want a neutral article.  My favorite example of how "the rule of law" works here was when I got blocked for 3rr when I didn't commit a violation of 3rr.  3rr says you can't revert a single page more than three times in a 24 hour period  .  My changes did not meet that criteria so they blocked me for violating the spirit of 3rr.  Classic! Lou franklin 02:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You will note he doesn't mention the six times he broke the spirit and the letter of the law with 3RR. And he glosses over the fact that the letter of 3RR specifically mentions that "In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day."  Classic! Cleduc 02:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. There was the time the POV tag was removed in violation of policy, and I was booted for reinserting it.  There was the time when you tried to have a vote about removing the POV tag (again, against policy) and I was booted for removing that vote.  Then there was the time that I was booted for removing an uncivil "troll warning".


 * My favorite part is how they get me blocked and then use those blocks as evidence of how horrible I am.


 * Ah, the rule of law. Lou franklin 02:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I tell you something different. You are so predictable, that I could have pushed you over the limit of 3RR and other wikipedia policies numereous times. I have not done that. Why, because I hoped that you would be able to discuss in a reasonable manner. Because I feel sorry for you. Kim van der Linde at venus 03:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You have done that. You have done that many times.  Lou franklin 03:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong on that. Kim van der Linde at venus 03:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh please. .  Any of those would be grounds for administrative action, but I am not a vindictive person.  Getting you blocked won't fix the article so it's not worth my time. I won't even mention how many times Miss Compassion tried to get me booted, e.g.,  Lou franklin 03:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And yes, I think you can find more reverts by me of your POV edit wars, in which you tried to impose your opinion on the rest of the editors. And yes, I reported you, because I really do not like it when people think they can bend the rules, especially of ArbCom decisions. So, now that we have that established, I repeat that You are so predictable, that I could have pushed you over the limit of 3RR and other wikipedia policies numereous times. I have not done that. Why, because I hoped that you would be able to discuss in a reasonable manner. Because I feel sorry for you. Lou, I did not say I never reverted anything of you, what I said was that I could have done it much more if I wanted. I didn't. Kim van der Linde at venus 04:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "POV edit wars" means that I add a POV tag - which I have every right to do - and you remove a POV tag - which you have no right to do. As a result you get me blocked and then you want me to be thankful because you could have done more.  That's rich. Lou franklin 04:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you do not have to be thankful. Kim van der Linde at venus 04:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's an example of Lou turning the other cheek. . Whoops, I mean bearing false witness.  Classic! Cleduc 04:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Lou gets himself blocked, and blames everybody else. Classic! Cleduc 02:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you had the right to remove a POV tag? Are you saying that it is fair to boot a user for violating the spirit of 3rr? Lou franklin 03:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and if Lou really thought otherwise, he'd request an arbitration case against me, the other editors, and every administrator and arbitrator who touched his case. By the way, I wonder why exactly he couldn't produce any evidence in his arbitration?  Cleduc 03:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here you have arbitrators officially voting that the article is not neutral: . Have you ever seen that before?  Even the ones who opposed only did so because it was a content decision, which they normally wouldn't even vote on!  How much evidence do you need that the article is biased?


 * I could have had several of the editors blocked on several occasions but my focus has been on improving the article. Do you think that is true of the other editors?  Check out the "Violation of ban" section at the bottom of this page:  .  That's a beauty! Lou franklin 03:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Homo' is not the most derogatory term for gay people, but it should be kept in mind that Lou's not continuing to make personal attacks (presumably of any kind) was one of the conclusions of his case. I don't care if he called someone a butthead - its still a personal attack.  In this case, though, it isn't as if the word 'homo' was the extent of the personal attack - he continued to characterize other editors as acting in part of an organized group intent on spreading propaganda, which, I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) was acting against another specific conclusion of his arbitration case, and which strongly indicates that the arbitration against him has so far not made him consider that perhaps he was acting in the wrong (I mean, considering that he's still doing exactly what got him in trouble in the first place).  To the contrary, it has just seemed to make him angrier, less likely to assume good faith, and more likely to engage in personal attacks.  At this point, to me, a seven day ban seems insufficient, not excessive.  -Smahoney 21:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Talk about taking political correctness to the most absurd levels imaginable. Apparently the word "homosexuals" would have been OK, but "homos" is not.  Would I have been allowed to say "queer"?  How about "gays"?  Would that have been OK?


 * We all know what the offensive slurs for gay people are. If I wanted to make "personal attacks" I would have used one.  I have no interest in making personal attacks on gay people or anybody else.  All I want is a neutral article.


 * But you win. I will use only officially-sanctioned synonyms from this point forward.  By the way, please don't refer to heterosexuals as "straight" anymore because that is a personal attack. Lou franklin 01:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ugh, Lou, you did use a slur and you know it. You admitted it elsewhere, where you said that, although you used one, you didn't use the worst one.  But that wasn't even the point, so I don't know why you're responding to my post here, the point of which was that you once again systematically fail to assume good faith (I know, I know... "the gay agenda/propaganda/whatever"), which is just as much in violation of your arbitration case as the slur was.  Moreover, the whole situation seems to have gotten worse, which makes me think that the best remedy is just to block you permanantly.  -Smahoney 19:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Where did I admit to using a slur? And why won't you answer my question: How am I "grasping at straws"?   Lou franklin 23:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Countdown
Hi, on your userpage you have a quotation from Rosa Parks, a userbox indicating your interest in pistol shooting, and a countdown in days that seems to end some time in early August.

The juxtaposition freaks me out a bit, to be frank. Could you supply the missing information that will dispel my fears and explain what the countdown is for? --Tony Sidaway 13:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The pistol image is not new. It has been there for quite some time.  Once I am unblocked I will remove it if it freaks you out.


 * I urge Wikipedia to delete the article, or at the very least remove the obscenities from it and then freeze it from future revisions. Look at the image that they are considering adding to the article: .  This has got to stop. Lou franklin 14:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So, where is he count down to? Kim van der Linde at venus 14:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's not the pistol so much as the juxtaposition of a countdown with a pistol. What is the countdown to? --Tony Sidaway 17:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My best guess is meatpuppetry or some other attempt to hijack the article or perpetrate large-scale vandalism. On the other hand, Lou's always been creative, so I'm sure he could come up with something to surprise me. Whatever it is, I'm willing to bet money that it'll get him permanently blocked. But regardless of what he's got planned in however many days are left at this point, the countdown itself is pretty obviously an attempt to freak us all out. I don't think it's worth bothering him about it -- he won't give you an answer, and you'll just make him think he's succeeding. Hbackman 04:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Who wants to mentor me?
I have been criticized for for not assuming good faith. So here's a chance for some good Wikipedian to mentor me.

Check out this page. KarlBunker asked "are there any objections to removing the NPOV tag?" There were objections. But then he removed the tag anyway (with a comment of "Removing POV tag, after discussion"!). He then said "I moved the tag, and then belatedly saw that the discussion here isn't really concluded". He said "I somehow missed that in my review of this page's history".

Can somebody explain to me how "I somehow missed that" is a valid excuse? Can somebody explain how not reinserting the tag once you realize you have made a mistake is exhibiting good faith?

I certainly would always assume good faith. I would never accuse this user of gaming the system and not playing by the rules. But just in case some other user was confused, how could I explain that this type of behavior is operating fairly and in good faith? Lou franklin 18:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want someone to mentor you, I think you first should start to realise that there is a problem with your own cnduct, and that you can learn something from others by being mentored. Mentoring does not work if you already have your mind set on that you are right and that you basically want to hear that from the mentor. If you are serious about this, than I would suggest that you first start to accept the ArbCom ruling and that you made a mistake by posting on the page in violation of that ArbCom ruling. Kim van der Linde at venus 18:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Say, you are a good mentor. Let me ask you another question.  Does "assuming good faith" mean assuming "meatpuppetry or some other attempt to hijack the article or perpetrate large-scale vandalism", as was done just above? Lou franklin 19:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So what's your user page counting down to? --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Given your behavior since you arrived here, and given this edit, I don't think that such suspicions are necessarily off base. I would love to be proven wrong. I guess we'll see in however many days are left now. Hbackman 01:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 81. Does everybody have to assume good faith, or is it just me?  Are you somehow exempt? Lou franklin 01:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming good faith becomes ridiculous when an editor has consistently behaved in an antagonistic and unconstructive manner. I still do assume good faith in that I actually think you're trying to "fix" the article. However, I can't assume good faith in your interactions with others any longer. If you start behaving in a way that merits a change in my opinion, given what I've already seen of your behavior, I will start assuming good faith in you again. Until then, I'm sorry, it's pretty clear to me that you are unwilling to figure out how the system works and to work with other editors rather than yelling at them and trying to push and shove people into doing your bidding. Hbackman 05:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you say you "can't assume good faith"? Oh, but you must assume good faith!  You cannot decide that assuming good faith is "ridiculous".  I would hate to see you get blocked!  I have never used "meatpuppetry" or "perpetrated large-scale vandalism", and you have no reason to suggest that I ever would.  Assume good faith! Lou franklin 10:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think nobody would be willing to mentor you, because you just can not start with the point where it should start, YOU. You just keep pointing at everybody else, which is your choice, but not helpfull. Kim van der Linde at venus 23:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I just want to understand. Is it OK for me to assume "meatpuppetry or some other attempt to hijack the article or perpetrate large-scale vandalism" too?  Lou franklin 00:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you do not understand where it starts. Kim van der Linde at venus 00:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Lou, regarding your possibly threatening statements (certainly ambiguous enough to appear threatening, if someone is inclined to see them that way), see:
 * May I ask, what is "plan B?" Rainman420 05:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 83 more days. Lou franklin 13:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

-Smahoney 02:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not threatened anybody. I have agreed to change my user page once I am unblocked and able to do so.  The article contains unecessary obscenities and I have done everything possible within the Wikipedia framework to get them removed.  I urge Wikipedia to remove the article. Lou franklin 02:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't say you have threatened anybody. I said your statements can be read as threatening, and are certainly (and, I'd wager, intentionally) vague enough to support such a reading, as has your obstinant refusal to address exactly what you're referring to.  But whatever.  I'm hot and tired and don't feel like arguing, and you're acting like a little kid with his finger about an inch from my face yelling, "I'm not touching you!".  You asked a question, and I answered it, that's all.  -Smahoney 03:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of answering questions, I have asked you two questions that you haven't answered. You said that I "admitted to using a slur".  Where did I admit to that?  And how am I "grasping at straws"?   Lou franklin 03:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of being evasive, look who's doing it again. -Smahoney 03:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you are. Lou franklin 03:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but so are you. -Smahoney 03:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you made the claim that I "admitted to using a slur" shouldn't you at least provide some evidence of that?


 * I am trying to improve the article. You maintained that the obscene image was necessary because the nudity was a reference to homosexuality.  That has since been discounted.  So how is the image relevant to the article?  And what does it have to do with the topic anyway?  Lou franklin 03:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're not getting any further response unless you return to the prior topic. -Smahoney 03:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have "returned to the prior topic" now. So where is the evidence that I "admitted to using a slur"?  And how is that image relevant? Lou franklin 01:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Bueller... Bueller... Bueller... Lou franklin 10:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A good way to start mentoring is by doing general cleanup of random articles you get like fix typos or cleanup, also participate in wikipedia discusstions like WP:AFD. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to AfD. We've tried that and the editors of the article just vote it down.  Lou franklin 02:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For turning me on to the Societal attitudes towards homosexuality article! I would never have known about it if it hadn't been for you, and I certainly would never have visited the page if I hadn't known it had the word cocksucker in it. A Google search of 'wikipedia "lou franklin" cocksucker' returns 9 different pages on Wikipedia, so thanks for spreading the word about us cocksuckers! You're doing a better job than we could ever do! With the 9 extra references to the word on Wikipedia because of you, those fragile 14 year olds are much more likely to come across it! Anchoress, your friendly neighbourhood c*m g*zzling q*een 04:22, 16 May 2006


 * Very classy! Which admin is going to ban this user for vandalism and incivility?  Let's see if Wikipedia's policies are enforced consistently.


 * Not that your silliness deserves a response, but anybody Googling for "cocksucker" will get what they asked for. That's a little different from sneaking it into an article about "societal attitudes", don't you think?  Lou franklin 10:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom requirement
Please stick to the Arbitration Committee remedies, and if you need any help post on my talk page. You can become a better editor, just try and enjoy editing Wikipedia and don't get heated if things don't go your way! --Sunfazer | Talk 20:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I need more mentoring please
If you know anything about me at all, you know that I am on a crusade to assume good faith. Just above I received advice about a user who asked if there were objections to removing a POV tag, saw that there were objections, then removed the tag anyway. Heaven knows I always assume good faith. Of course I would never think of this user as an extremist breaking the rules to further his own agenda, but how can I explain to others that this user's actions were an act of good faith and not blatant POV pushing?

The same user has removed the POV tag again and again  and again ! Certainly I know enough to assume good faith here. But how to explain this to my fellow editors? Such a quandary! I fear that unless I can explain how such action is warranted, my fellow editors may not assume good faith and may feel that this user is gaming the system!

Could some wise Wikipedian mentor me about this? How can I best explain that removing POV tags over and over again is an act of good faith?

Lou franklin 01:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin or anything, but I think the mentoring advice most wise Wikipedians would give to you is to spend your time on something other than the Societal attitudes towards homosexuality article. Wikipedia has a lot of other articles. Jimpartame 03:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * None that need more attention. Do you see those actions as fair and representitive of good faith? Lou franklin 03:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you said you're assuming good faith. I'll agree with you on that. Jimpartame 03:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What does that mean? Are you saying it is OK to keep reinserting a POV tag without fixing the article first?  Lou franklin 03:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't you just say it was an act of good faith? I'm agreeing with you on this; that editor was doing the right thing. Jimpartame 04:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're the mentor; you tell me. I think that removing a POV tag over and over again without regard to the editors that inserted it is operating in good faith.  I don't think that this user is using Wikipedia as a PR vehicle to push a radical homosexual agenda at all, but what do you think? Lou franklin 04:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I already told you. I also think he's operating in good faith. This seems to be pretty clearly established now. Jimpartame 04:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll not revert your removal of comments, but I thought I should write to say that substantive and amicable appellative was ascribed to Cleduc's original suggestion that you seek out articles apropos of other topics to edit; I didn't address his subsequent remarks, which were likely intemperate and untoward, even as they stemmed from your taking seriously something he offered in jest. In any case, I wasn't trolling; you will note that I defended you, saying I don't know that we can infer from Lou's reversion of your comment (in which comment, of course, I concur, inasmuch as I think  other editors would be much more likely to assume good faith in Lou's work were he an active and valuable contributor to articles apropos of other subjects) that he is uninterested in "reform"; perhaps he simply didn't understand your facetious comment w/respect to his we locutions.  In the end, though, all you should take from this exchange is that several editors, at least some of whom have no prior history with you, suggest that you edit some articles with which you haven't worked before; properly or not, the community writ large think better of editors whose contributions are diverse.  Joe 04:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Intemperate and untoward indeed. I have taken your advice and edited an "article apropos of other topics" in your honor.  Thank you for your good faith comments. Lou franklin 04:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In whose honour? Cleduc 05:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

For the above personal attacks, I'm blocking you for another week. --Tony Sidaway 11:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What personal attacks were those? Lou franklin 12:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Allow me to present an illustrative example.
 * I always assume good faith and I would never suggest that you were trying to skirt the terms of your personal attack parole. How can I explain to other admins who may have misinterpreted your statements that your intentions were pure as the driven snow?  How can I explain that you were trying to turn over a new leaf and not to continue to troll and attack other editors?
 * In the above passage, a reader might well be given to doubt the sincerity of the remarks. Indeed, only an extremely gullible or obtuse reader would assume that my intent was to cast your behaviour in a positive light.  You may have noticed certain parallels in style between my example and your remarks above.
 * Stop trying to game the system. We're not going to go "Aw shucks, he said he didn't mean it that way".  You're barred from Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and its talk page.  You're not responsible for its editing, management, POV (neutral or otherwise), editors, layout, or tags.  Stay away from it for a year.  Be unfailingly polite in the meantime. Write about something that doesn't stress you out.  There are more than a million articles out there, most of which have nothing to do with homosexuality. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the unblock notice because TenOfAllTrades, a sysop, concurs with this block. --Tony Sidaway 21:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How dare you tell me "stop trying to game the system"?!? I have done no such thing and you have a lot of nerve to suggest that I did.  Is it your contention that if a reader "might doubt the sincerity of my remarks" that makes them "personal attacks"?


 * It is not your place to tell me to "write about something that doesn't stress me out". I have not been prohibited from writing about things that "stress me out" on my own talk page and I have every right to do so without harassment.  What policy do you think you are enforcing here?


 * My question was "what personal attacks have I been blocked for?" If you are going to block somebody, don't you think you should tell them what it was for?  "Allow me to present an illustrative example" doesn't cut it.  This isn't creative writing class.  Specifically what personal attack was I blocked for? Lou franklin 02:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You were blocked for (at least) three personal attacks.
 * You described another editor as an "...extremist breaking the rules to further his own agenda...". Regardless of the sarcastic niceties in which you wrapped it, it was a personal attack.
 * No, I described another editor as not an extremist breaking the rules to further his own agenda. That is very different. Lou franklin 09:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You called Cleduc a "troll" in this edit summary:.
 * What would you call him? Did you notice that he visited my talk page to call me dishonest and tell me I have no sense of humour?  Did you notice that no matter how many times I removed his inflammatory comments he kept reinserting them?  Are you are really serious about preventing personal attacks?  If so, what action do you plan to take on that?  Lou franklin 09:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You then opted for Latin in your namecalling in another edit summary: "Stultus".
 * "Stultus" is latin for "foolishness". This user added foreign words to my talk page and suggested that "there is more than one Lou franklin".  I removed this foolishness with a comment of "Stultus".  This is no way assumes bad faith or constitutes a personal attack.  It just removes the foolishness. Lou franklin 09:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to consider any one, two, or all three the reason for your block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And you're welcome to answer my question. What right do you have to block me for "personal attacks", insist that I be "unfailingly polite", and then come over here and accuse me of "gaming the system"?  I am not gaming the system and your suggesting so is far more of a personal attack than I ever made.  Lou franklin 09:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your unblock request was already denied by TenOfAllTrades. Stop re-adding it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Lou, if I protect your talk page to stop you wasting the time of the administrators looking at unblock requests, I know you'll accuse me of having a conflict of interest. So please don't make me. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Which one of you neutral admins is going to block Cleduc for his personal attacks? Lou franklin 21:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected
Your page is unprotected. NoSeptember  talk  12:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Lou franklin 12:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)