Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

The article should be removed
"Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is maintained by a group of gay extremists hell-bent on using Wikipedia to get their message out. The article is propaganda from start to finish and should be removed.

One of Wikipedia's mantras is "assume good faith". But how does the Wikipedia model deal with the reality that sometimes good faith cannot be assumed? What happens when a group of extremists purposely runs roughshod over the facts (without regard to whether it is a group of gay extremists, Nazis, Klansmen, or some other group)?

There were countless errors in the article and they were not random. The percentage of the general public that thinks that 'homosexual behavior' is wrong was understated, not overstated. Pro-gay studies regarding pedophilia were allowed; other studies were removed. Links to pro-gay personal web pages were allowed; anti-gay research pages were removed. Opposing viewpoints were described as a "form of moral panic based on a neurotic repressed discourse of child sexuality".

Given the sheer number of errors contained in the article and the one-sidedness of them, is it really reasonable to assume that these were well-intentioned errors? Even the people who filed this request agree that the editors are "roughly as biased as Lou portrays".

Of course if the same gay advocates are allowed to continue to edit this article, the same results will follow. Attempts to correct the article will be overwritten, and requests for deletion will be voted down.

Ultimately the key question is "how can extremist groups be prevented from using Wikipedia to spread propaganda?" The answer, in my view, is to remove articles that have been repeatedly used as a vehicle to spread propaganda. It has been shown over and over again that the group that edits this article is not capable of dealing with the topic of "societal attitudes towards homosexuality" in a fair or neutral way. We've seen over and over again how the article is used, not for the benefit of the public, but to push propaganda. Wikis are good for many things, but they don't work when the majority of an article's editors collude to push an agenda. That is exactly what is going on here. The article should be deleted.

The article is badly biased and is controlled by a group of extremist gay activists. Do the readers a favor and remove the article.

Response to Malthusian's comments
I have greatly improved this article. For this, I have been called "an extremist homophobe", a "crackpot", a "jerk", "paranoid", a "garden-variety troll", a "12-year-old", a "nutcase", and "an unrepentant far-right extremist bigot". So it's a bit ironic that I am accused of being "uncivil".

All I have done is told the truth. Look at the user pages of the people who have edited the article. Almost all of them state that they are gay. I didn't make that up. The section below entitled "Lou franklin is frequently uncivil" could easily be renamed "Lou franklin is frequently truthful". I wish that I could assume that the authors of this article have acted in good faith, but all you have to do is read through the history of the article to know that it is not so.

An example: "Statistically, damage from natural disasters in the modern United States is not correlated well with homosexual population, but it does correlate with Protestantism." Is that a fair and neutral statement that belongs in an encyclopedia?

Another example: "In most developed countries, same-sex relationships are accepted as normal and natural". Is that a verifiable fact that belongs in an encyclopedia, or is that propaganda/advocacy?

Another example: "Only 38% of the general public think that 'homosexual behavior' is wrong". But take a look at the information in the link cited. The percent of the general public who agree that homosexual behavior is morally wrong is broken down this way:


 * Completely Agree: 38%
 * Somewhat Agree: 13%
 * Somewhat Disagree: 16%
 * Completely Disagree: 26%

So it isn't accurate to say that "38% of the general public think that 'homosexual behavior' is wrong". The correct percentage is 51% (38% + 13%).

Don't you find it just a little dishonest that it was reported as 38%? How could that have been reported in an encyclopedia article? Another honest mistake?

A link to the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality ( http://www.narth.com ) was repeatedly removed because it was "not an appropriate source". But a link to this personal homepage ( http://www.ziplink.net/~glen ) was allowed. That site has a picture of a guy on his couch in a tee shirt (ostensibly "Glen"). It says "Welcome to my site" and purports to be "the one web page that has everything! Including me!" The site was "last updated 6-13-99". For some reason "Glen" was never put through the rigorous journalistic litmus tests that my links are subjected to. Is it a coincidence that "Glen" has a pro-gay message?

These words come directly from the talk page :


 * From the gay rights advocacy point of view, one would think that accepting and addressing the current majority opinion would be the path forwards to attaining their goal (presumably, by convincing the people in the center to change their opinion, if that is in fact what can and will eventually happen). Playing down that the majority and centrist opinions are largely against same-sex marriage is a play for media mindshare, perhaps, but not effective at changing voters minds.


 * This needs to be addressed in a NPOV manner.

Are the editors of this article concerned with making it the best and most truthful article it can be, or are they advertising? Should the best "path forwards to attaining their goal from the gay rights advocacy point of view" be the key factor for those who edit this article? Is that really what Wikipedia is for?

Should people who write encyclopedia articles really be concerned with "playing down majority and centrist opinions", "media mindshare", and the strategy that will be most "effective at changing voters' minds"?

Doesn't it bother anyone here that a discussion between editors of a supposedly impartial article would include a conversation about which strategy will be most "effective at changing voters' minds" and what "would be the path forwards to attaining the goal of gay rights advocates"? How could those terms have found their way to the discussion page of this article?

No encyclopedia in the country would print the propaganda contained in this article. Do the right thing and remove it.

Response to Sethmahoney's comments
Seth said "NARTH is known to not be a reliable source for factual statements". Says who? PBS.org is being cited in the article. Who determined that they are a more "reliable source for factual statements"?

I'm glad Seth brought up the topic of 3rr. This is the mechanism that allows groups of fanatics to control Wikipedia articles. So I add the NARTH link; Seth reverts my changes. I add it again; Rhobite reverts my changes. I add it again; the next member of the tag team reverts the changes again. By working as a group this way, they can game the system and make sure that pro-gay viewpoints are included in the article. So I get booted for 3rr; they do not; and the article remains biased.

Somebody commented on my user talk page "you missed explicitly violating 3RR with your 'so-called' edits by about half an hour. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that will get you blocked for gaming 3RR". So not only are my legitimate changes being repeatedly reverted, but I am being scolded because I didn't violate 3rr.

This group knows very well how to game the system. They understand how to organize a group of a dozen or so activists and steamroll any opposing thought. They make sure that you can't come to any reasonable "consensus" because they control the floor.

For this reason, Wikipedia should not allow articles about "societal attitudes" about anything. Not homosexuality. Not abortion. Not the KKK. What you end up with is this: A group of zealots pushing their agenda.

Additionally, I am not aware that any citation to "Focus on the Family" was ever made. I'm not sure why Seth surrounded this statement with quotes: "according to NARTH and such groups as Focus on the Family, gay men tend to be pedophiles". I don't believe that any reference to Focus on the Family was ever attempted. Lou franklin 13:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Malthusian
From 4th February to 3rd April 2006, all Lou's non-test/non-userpage edits were to Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, its talk page, or otherwise related to it (e.g. user talk pages, the request for mediation and a spurious 3RR violation report against one of the editors who has been editing the article).

He has since spread to category talk pages to further his campaign against the phrase "LGBT civil rights" (see point 4 below for the beginning of this campaign).

commentary moved to talk page

Lou franklin does not write from a neutral point of view and engages in edit warring
Note: the following diffs have been organised by theme of edit. Several edits are made repeatedly in the same diff, so some diffs have been placed in more than one point. Edits made since the RFAR began are bolded to illustrate a continuing pattern of behaviour.


 * 1) Lou's first articlespace edit is to draw a link between homosexuality and paedophilia, initially unsourced.
 * 2) Lou again claims a link between homosexuality and paedophilia which rests on the fact that the dictionary definition of 'homosexuality' does not include the word 'adult'.
 * 3) Repeatedly reinserts the paedophilia link, with an overwhelming number of external references. Consensus is that the sources are biased and unreliable. Lou received his first 3RR block for these edits. 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
 * 4) Repeatedly inserts the word 'so-called' and scare quotes around "gay civil rights movement" and variant phrases, against consensus. 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st 22nd 23rd 24th 25th
 * 5) Repeatedly removes a quote from Senator McCarthy on the grounds that Wikipedia should not allow children to read the word 'cocksucker', against consensus and our policy that Wikipedia is not censored for the proection of minors. Lou received his second, third and fourth 3RR blocks for these edits and the 'so-called' edits above. 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st 22nd 23rd 24th 25th 26th 27th 28th 29th 30th 31st 32nd 33rd
 * 6) After failing to remove the 'cocksucker' quote, inserts "Many people feel that some homosexuals lack a moral foundation and would engage in vulgar behavior such as using obscenities in front of children." into the article (violating WP:SELF and WP:POINT) 1st 2nd

Since arbitration began

 * 1) The following edits consist of semantic wording changes (some of which unjustifiably change the meaning of the text, such as changing 'recommended' to 'tolerated') and the 'cocksucker' and 'so-called' edits above. Lou complains via edit summaries and the talk page of being "blindly reverted" even though a) none of his edits improve the article b) even if they did it was inappropriate to bundle them with the edits that he knows to be against consensus, and expect other editors to pick through them looking for a positive contribution. 1st 2nd 3rd
 * 2) Repeatedly changes the intro against consensus in a way which, while not overtly POV, gives what is believed by consensus on the talk page to be undue weight to homophobic attitudes. Lou received his fifth 3RR block over this edit. 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
 * 3) Lou's sixth 3RR violation concerned adding the POV tag to the article 1st 2nd 3rd 4th which he continued to do, getting a 7th block for gaming 3RR after missing a technical breach by a few minutes. 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th. Consensus was against Lou being allowed to add the tag because when asked under what conditions he would agree to its removal, he brought up a number of changes he wanted that had already been decided by consensus on the talk page to be inappropriate (such as the cocksucker edit, see above). Therefore the tag would never have come off. See this section of the talk page.
 * 4) Adds further scare quotes around any mention of same-sex marriage, using edit summaries that was a 'compromise' arrived at on the talk page. 1st 2nd 3rd (all within 24 hours)
 * 5) Inserts an entirely new section consisting of extreme POV. 1st 2nd 3rd (all within 24 hours - potential further edits were curtailed by a one-week block for vandalising Talk:SATH, see "Lou vandalises" below)
 * 6) Lou received a ninth, one-month block for repeatedly removing the TrollWarning tag on Talk:SATH 1st 2nd 3rd 4th, during which time he also edit-warred over an image from Ancient Greece 1st 2nd 3rd.

Lou franklin is frequently uncivil to other editors and assumes bad faith

 * 1) "What you have here is a small yet vocal militant group using Wikipedia to get their agenda out."
 * 2) "Editing the article doesn't work when you have extremists who are hellbent on getting their message out."
 * 3) "Is this "consensus" solely concerned with the accuracy of Wikipedia, or might they have another agenda?"
 * 4) "Most of the people who voted to keep the article are gay... I am one of very few people here "interested in neutral points of view" ".
 * 5) Lou implies he is reverting vandalism when in fact he was reverting the paedophilia links (a clear content dispute), using misleading edit summaries
 * 6) "The article is maintained by a small well-organized group of (mostly) gay people who use Wikipedia to get their agenda out... Should this small but well-organized group of activists be allowed to continue using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes?" (from an improperly filed RfM)
 * 7) "I characterised them as an organised group pushing an agenda, because that is exactly what they are."
 * 8) "The article is maintained by a well-organized group of activists." (from the properly filed RfM)
 * 9) "The 3RR rule should not have been applied because I was correcting vandalism and the changes were discussed on the talk page." (misleading in two ways: Lou was reverting edits that were clearly not simple vandalism, and although he said what he was going to do on the talk page he did not discuss it or attempt to seek consensus). ]
 * 10) Attempts to file an RfAR, but does not follow the process correctly and is reverted. Does not attempt to re-file. The request included "The article is propeganda maintained by a group of (mostly) gay advocates who use Wikipedia to get their agenda out. Changes that are not pro-gay are reverted."
 * 11) "So I took it to a higher authority and asked for mediation. It turned out that the mediator was also gay."
 * 12) "Perhaps there is no consensus here because so many people here are gay activists."
 * 13) Files a spurious 3RR report against Sethmahoney . Tells Sethmahoney "I can't make you stop using the word "cocksucker" in front of children, but I can make you wish that you had." and links to the 3RR report.
 * 14) Veiled threat to use sock/meatpuppetry
 * 15) "You guys are unfair, but at least you are consistently unfair." (repeated accusation that admins are ignoring 3RR violations other than his - various editors have been reverting Lou and consequently only he has violated 3RR)

Since arbitration began

 * 1) "Many legimate changes have been blindly reverted. User blocks have been issued for those who dare to try to correct the problem." For the response to the 'blind reversion' accusations, see evidence point 2.1.1.1. The plural term "those that dare" is misleading. Lou is the only editor to have been blocked in connection with edit wars over this article.
 * 2) "There is an article called "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" that is controlled by a well-organized group of gay advocates. The editor in question has been a party to this... the article is still badly biased, and that is by design." (The "editor in question" is me - this was on bureaucrat Linuxbeak's talk page in response to his comment to Lou on my RFA   . Obviously I don't object to people opposing my potential adminship, but I do object to spreading this poison to anyone who comes remotely near the article.)
 * 3) Lou filed a vexatious request for comment against administrator William M. Connolley for blocking him for 3RR. "This is a renegade administrator who apparently doesn't understand Wikipedia's POV tag. I hope action will be taken to prevent William from making such poor decisions in the future." It was deleted because it went 48 hours without anyone else certifying the dispute, but can still be seen by those with admin privileges here. Lou did not make William aware of the RFC.
 * 4) "I'll tell you what is disingenuous: Ignoring the consensus of billions of people because a dozen gay guys think their opinion is more important." (referring to the adding of scare quotes around any mention of same-sex marriage, which despite the consensus of billions of people, only Lou has tried to do)
 * 5) "I don't believe that "leagal" and "cinsensus" are words" (directed at dyslexic editor KimvdLinde)
 * 6) On being shown that the dictionary recognises the same-sex definition of marriage, Lou assumed bad faith on the part of the dictionary. "You don't think that gay people lobbied to have that definition changed?"
 * 7) "Dude, if you honestly feel that refusing to add a ' is too much of a compromise" (referring to Lou's demand that all mentions of same-sex marriage should be in scare quotes) "you are on crack cocaine."
 * 8) "If deception were an Olympic sport, I know a groups of gay guys who would be walking around with gold medals right now."
 * 9) Lou's behaviour around the 22nd April 2006 involved repeated spurious accusations of vandalism  and, after being blocked, his unblock message showed his continuing inability to work with other editors: "The article is controlled by an organized group of gay activists that are not working in good faith."

Lou vandalises

 * 1) Lou has recently taken to removing other editors' comments from Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and User talk:Lou franklin, behaviour that got him blocked for a week (his eighth) for vandalism and 3RR. From Talk:SATH he removed a consensus-gathering exercise on whether the POV tag should be removed again: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th with the justification "You do not have the right to vote on the removal of the POV tag" and from his user talk page:

Other
The whole of Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality will also be instructive to the arbitrators. Lou's long-winded, page-long diatribes on this page often have little focus on improving the article, even those that do not include his explicit accusations of bad faith and rampant homosexuality among the editors. His semantic arguments over issues such as the word 'cocksucker' and the dictionary definitions of 'civil rights' and 'marriage' are not really discussions on how the article can be improved, they are debates that belong on Usenet or an Internet bulletin board.

Brief response to some of Lou's statements
In response to Lou's being called a jerk, that was by me, it was retracted by another user , and it was in response to his bad faith 3RR report against me. It was not in response to any of his article edits.

Regarding the NARTH link, it was removed because it was used to support a factual statement, and NARTH is known to not be a reliable source for factual statements. It was repeatedly brought to Lou's attention   that NARTH's site is a perfectly acceptable source for statements regarding NARTH's beliefs and policies, and that saying, "according to NARTH and such groups as Focus on the Family the American Family Association, gay men tend to be pedophiles" or whatever is acceptable, but that saying "gay men tend to be pedophiles (see NARTH and Focus on the Family the American Family Association)" is not okay. This, apparently, Lou found unacceptable.

Regarding Glen's webpage link: As far as I can tell, it is not currently in the article - when it was brought to our attention it was likely removed (or Lou removed it and no one had a problem with that change). Found it, and it has been removed. It didn't seem to be necessary in context anyway.

Lou's example: Statistically, damage from natural disasters in the modern United States is not correlated well with homosexual population, but it does correlate with Protestantism is not currently in the article. No doubt same scenario as above.

More recent evidence

 * After an attempt to restore civility to a heated discussion, Lou responds with, which includes, "I don't want to have to bring in the cavalry here, but if push comes to shove I will.", which in context reads to me like an attempt to organize a group with the goal of pushing his POV.

Threats
4/10/2006: Lou Franklin threatened to "bring in the cavalry here", which probably involves recruiting fellow Free Republic users to revert war on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. This would not be the first time Lou has asked Freepers to edit the article. Free Republic link: [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1577958/posts] Now he is using them to intimidate other editors.

First assertion
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

Second assertion
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.