User talk:Lou franklin

• /Archive

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 _|^|_| 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 {{unblock}} on your user page. --Heah? 03:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A note discussing the situation has been posted at ANI. --Heah? 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. --Heah? 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 [1]. 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 [2]?

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"? [3]

Administrators are supposed to be "neutral". "They do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with." [4] 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. [5]. --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#Per_request_of_User:Lou_franklin 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)

Wikipedia: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: [6]: "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)

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 the 3rr. Yep, no cabal here. Lou franklin 03:06, 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)