Lou franklin (talk | contribs) |
Your arbitration case |
||
Line 117:
::Blocked for what reason? [[User:Lou franklin|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. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 16:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 16:03, 7 May 2006
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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 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)
- 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 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)
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)
Given the above, I've lifted the current block on you, as I see no reason for it to continue. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- No you haven't. I am still blocked. Lou franklin 01:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Try again - see if you can edit your front user page. If you can, this means you are no longer blocked. Perhaps it was your IP that was autoblocked - if that's the case, use the {{unblock}} tag and mention your IP along with it (autoblocks can be lifted only if the IP is mentioned). 02:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks.
- Please unblock 66.30.208.149 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lou franklin (talk • contribs) .
- Unblocked by InShaneee. [6] --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- It still didn't work. Lou franklin 23:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Unblocked by InShaneee. [6] --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Try again - see if you can edit your front user page. If you can, this means you are no longer blocked. Perhaps it was your IP that was autoblocked - if that's the case, use the {{unblock}} tag and mention your IP along with it (autoblocks can be lifted only if the IP is mentioned). 02:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
your email and being blocked
first off, your tone in that email was totally uncalled for; secondly, if you had bothered to do some investigating yourself and clicked on the bright blue link that said autoblocked you would have discovered why you are still blocked- or rather, why your ip is blocked, as it is clearly stated right in the blocklist that the block was because your IP address has been recently used by "Lou franklin". So i'll go ahead and fix that autoblock on your ip, but in the future, try to be a bit more civil. --heah 00:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- What?!? I know that my "IP address has been recently used by 'Lou franklin'". I am Lou Franklin! There's not much need for "investigating", is there?
- When will you "go ahead and fix that autoblock on my ip"? I am still blocked! Lou franklin 02:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks like something is indeed not going right as it just generated another autoblock. 00:13, 7 May 2006, Heah (Talk) blocked #157537 (expires 00:13, 8 May 2006) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Lou franklin". The reason given for Lou franklin's block is: "constant 3rr".) KimvdLinde 05:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, my point was that you had been autoblocked, and had you clicked on the link to "autoblock", you'd have discovered what that was. I obviously know that you are Lou franklin, and it was not your identity i was encouraging you to investigate, but the nature of an autoblock. Something isn't working correctly- i've gone ahead and unblocked you again, but i'm not convinced that it will work- and this has nothing to do with me, inshanee, or anyone else being unable to figure out how to unbock a user, and it'd be nice if you could stop saying that. unblocking is just clicking a little button. I've also gone ahead and blocked you for one minute, not because you should be blocked, but because perhaps a real block on the ip will help clear the autoblock . . . when a block expires, the block lifts automatically . . . hopefully this will work. sometimes an unblocking just doesn't take with the system, for whatever reason. --heah 13:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- I wish you would. Lou franklin 14:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- ok, someone else has lifted another autoblock, and i've just blocked you (your username, not ip) for one minute to see if that will clear it. so the autoblock should be clear, and the block on your name should be up in about 30 seconds . . . and we can see if this works . . . --heah 15:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- All set. Thank you. Lou franklin 15:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- ok, someone else has lifted another autoblock, and i've just blocked you (your username, not ip) for one minute to see if that will clear it. so the autoblock should be clear, and the block on your name should be up in about 30 seconds . . . and we can see if this works . . . --heah 15:10, 7 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)
- Blocked for what reason? 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)