Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin/Proposed decision

Proposed Remedies: "Remove the Article" is missing![edit]

The first of the "Motions and requests by the parties" [1] was to "Remove the Article". I don't see that listed under "Proposed remedies" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lou_franklin/Proposed_decision . Why is that? Can I add it, or does an administrator have to add it? Lou franklin 03:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only arbitration committee members and the clerks are supposed to edit the proposed decision. If any of the arbcom members feels that your proposed remedy is appropriate they will include it. Georgewilliamherbert 03:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Let me rephrase then: please add "remove the article" to the list of proposed remedies. Lou franklin 03:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't think it's appropriate. I'm not about to enforce a content decision on the community gainst consensus. Dmcdevit·t 03:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps another arbitrator will, since that is the only remedy that will correct the problem. Lou franklin 03:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that's not gonna happen. Even if you petition every arbitrator, they will most likely not take your side, since your "remove the article" idea will most likely get no more than 5% support from the community. Besides, Wikipedia is not perfect - it is a work in progress, just like the political concept of democracy. My suggestion: the sooner you drive the issue of this article off your Wiki-agenda, the sooner you will find peace with the community. --TML1988 05:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise, Lou, if any arbitrator feels that a motion from the /Workshop might pass, they will add it to /Proposed Decision. If no arbitrator adds it, you can take it as read that it failed 13-0. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than speculating let's see what the arbitrators say then, shall we? I don't expect Wikipedia to be "perfect", but I don't believe that nobody cares that the article is being used to push an agenda either.

If "only arbitration committee members and the clerks are supposed to edit" why is Samuel Blanning making edits? Can we make edits or not? Lou franklin 11:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that it didn't apply to correcting typos. If I was wrong then please accept my apologies, restore the typo and then correct it again :-) --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting a typo is probably OK, but only arbitrators and clerks should make substantive edits to this page. Lou, the article is not the issue. Your conduct is the reason we're here. Rhobite 17:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean?[edit]

"The locus of the dispute if Lou franklin's editong on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and related discussion pages." Lou franklin 03:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minus the typo, it just puts the arbitration case into context. It is a statement of the facts of the case in terms of context or framing information. Georgewilliamherbert 03:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is "the typo"? What was that supposed to say? Lou franklin 03:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's supposed to say "The locus of the dispute is Lou Franklin's editing on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and related discussion pages". And it seems to be one of those days, I typoed that three times entering it. Georgewilliamherbert 03:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the spelling booboo :-) but I don't see the problem. It's stated rather plainly. The dispute here involves Lou franklin's editing on that article. Dmcdevit·t 03:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem. I'm not sure that "the locus of the dispute if Lou franklin's editong" is "stated rather plainly", but now that you have clarified I understand what you meant. Lou franklin 03:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutral point of view" finding of fact[edit]

I was quite surprised to see "The editing of Societal attitudes towards homosexuality has resulted in an article which while quite sophisticated and detailed does not fairly represent negative points of view." being added and supported as a finding of fact. While I agree with it (though as Wikipedia is a wiki, I would add the word "yet" to the end), it looks like a judgement on content, which I thought the ArbCom didn't do. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In re: Requests for Adminship[edit]

Lou franklin has made a habit of voting in bad faith on nominations of individuals who have commented in this Arbitration case, and has now moved on to those who have pointed out his bad faith votes in other RfAs. He has editwarred and harassed others in regard to the matter. I strongly urge the Arbitration Committee to consider at least a partial ban from activity at RfA, and would encourage a full ban from commenting in any RfA, as I believe he will continue his practice of harassing individuals who fall onto his "hit list." Certainly, where obvious, the bureaucrat staff can discount his votes, but his harassment of candidates and other voters has become a disruption, and should be put to an end while this case is open; if it is not dealt with, it will most certainly continue, and the AC will in all liklihood see the issue before them again. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how it's necessary. Firstly, if he's harrassing people involved in his arbitration case, then when the arbitration case closes the problem will solve itself :-). Secondly, sanctioning someone on the basis of how they cast their votes (or at least appearing to do so) would be controversial enough that the level of disruption would have to be pretty extreme. All I'm seeing is a couple of perfectly valid oppose votes and being argumentative on Pschemp's RFA - and someone, anyone, could and really should have taken that discussion to Lou's talk page, so it isn't entirely down to him. And he edited it after the deadline, which could have been just a mistake and hasn't yet become a pattern of disruption. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A mistake twice? 'Cause he did reinsert it again and that was disruptive and deliberate. I never in my editing career had a single dealing with Lou, we edit in completely different areas, and my comment on Essjay's rfb was my first and only interaction. His oppose on my Rfa was blatant retaliation. At that time, he did not even vote on anyone else's rfa that was listed, instead targeting me and me only. Since I'm not involved in the arbitration case, what good does it do me when the case is closed? psch e mp | talk 12:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He did vote to support Acebrock's RFA - I think it would have been listed with yours for the brief period that it was open. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was listed days later. psch e mp | talk 18:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it was on the RFA page during the period Lou was commenting on yours, which spanned several days. I doubt any of this means that much. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does proposed remedy 1.1 refer to articles, or articles plus talk pages?[edit]

Can we get a clarification as to whether proposed remedy 1.1 (1 year ban from editing homosexuality related articles) refers to main article space only, or articles plus talk pages? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 22:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just the articles; if there is disruption it can be expanded to the talk pages. Fred Bauder 04:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that this constitutes such disruption, and request that the remedy include a ban on the associated talk pages. Cleduc 04:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the other four repetitions of that disruption (documented on the /Evidence page). Although I formerly supported allowing Lou to edit the talk page since I hoped a personal attack parole would remove the need for a ban, I would now like to see the ArbCom consider a ban from the talk page as well. Lou seemed to be improving recently, then suddenly he crosses the line from POV-pushing to outright vandalism. His behaviour is so unpredictable that I think an absolute, unquestionable remedy is necessary. ~~(Also posted this to the /Workshop, sorry if this is unnecessary duplication.)~~ *cough* Appears I'm blind, I forgot that the first choice remedy of most arbitrators so far includes related discussion pages. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. This was a dissapointing day for hopes of moderation. 8-/ Georgewilliamherbert 08:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: in case anyone missed it, User:Guanaco indef blocked Lou yesterday for (more of the same), which was converted by User:JesseW to a one-week block per ongoing Arbitration. Georgewilliamherbert 02:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per request of User:Lou franklin[edit]

User:Lou franklin requested that the ArbCom would be informed about his latest block: 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. KimvdLinde 05:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the 3RR report I submitted, and the related ANI entry by Heah about the one-month block. Cleduc 05:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated proposed decision[edit]

Someone needs to update the first finding of fact ('Lou franklin edit wars') to reflect the fact that Lou has been blocked nine times, not seven. Given that the last block was for a month, I imagine this would be the last time it needs to be updated before the case reaches its closing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]