Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin/Evidence

Response to evidence presented by Malthusian

moved from main evidence page, regarding Lou's beginning to edit pages not related to SATH

I was encouraged to comment on that discussion page by one of the gay editors of the Societal attitudes towards homosexuality article [1]. Not exactly a "campaign". Lou franklin 12:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As if the evidence doesn't speak for itself, I can vouch for that (I was the "gay editor" - I'm not just a sexuality, but do actually have a name, Lou). I thought that since he had already taken issue with Category:LGBT civil rights and there was already discussion about changing the name, a loud voice would actually be useful there. -Seth Mahoney 01:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that. My opening statement was incorrect, because it said that all Lou's edits related to SATH, which is no longer true, so I changed it. That's all. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seth, I referred to you as "one of the gay editors" because I wanted to make it clear that I wasn't "furthering a campaign against the phrase 'LGBT civil rights'" as Malthusian so inaccurately asserts. I'm not sure why you would take offense to that, especially since you are the one who professed to be gay.

Malthusian, stop moving my text. If I wanted it on the talk page I would have put it there. You now have the text "all Lou's non-test edits were to Societal attitudes towards homosexuality", and you have accused me of "furthering my campaign" on the evidence page when you know that neither one of those things is true. Not only didn't you have the decency to remove them once you discovered that you are wrong, but you relegated the correction to a separate location. Lou franklin 01:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lou, not to butt in. But perhaps a more polite way to phrase it might have been, "Seth Mahoney encouraged me to comment on the discussion page. Hopefully, since he is gay, that will put to rest the idea that I was trying to 'further a campaign against the phrase "LGBT civil rights."

My point is, referring to someone as "one of the gay editors" gives the impression that we are all interchangeable units in a collective. --Chesaguy 02:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The /Evidence page is for evidence. Threaded discussion of evidence belongs on the /Evidence discussion page, which is here. If I wanted to hide your comments I wouldn't have linked to this page when I moved them. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have put statements into evidence that you know are not true. I am not "furthering my campaign" and I have made other edits, for example, to vote for administrators. Once you discovered that you were wrong why didn't you correct yourself? Lou franklin 11:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you are furthering your campaign is a matter of opinion. Personally, I think trying to get rid of a phrase in one place (twenty-five times, no less), then going to other places to do the same, is a campaign, even sans the disruptive behaviour. And, um, I have corrected my statement (only after it became wrong, not because I knew it was wrong when I wrote it). This entire discussion has arisen because I corrected my statement. And that's "statement", singular. Did I miss one? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did. I just listed the statements above. Your first statement said "from 4th February to 3rd April 2006, all Lou's non-test edits were to Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, its talk page, or otherwise related to it". Not true. What about this one? [2] There are probably more, but it's not worth my time to go through the history. But before you go making irresponsible accusations on the evidence page, it might be a good idea to actually check to see if what you are saying is true. Don't you think?

Your second statement was "he has since spread to category talk pages to further his campaign against the phrase 'LGBT civil rights'". But you just saw the link that shows I was not "furthering a campaign" but was encouraged by another editor to comment on that page. Yet your babble about my grand "campaign" remains on the evidence page just the same. Lou franklin 02:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed 'non-test edits' to 'non-test/non-userpage'. No, it's not worth your time looking for anything else I missed, because you know as well as I do that until last week you've been single-mindedly focused on this one article. As for the second statement, that's still a matter of interpretation, and I still stand by my take on your editing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chesaguy is correct. I'm not upset that my sexuality was mentioned but annoyed at being referred to as "one of the gay editors" as if we are a faceless, singleminded mass. This isn't to berate you, but hopefully one of those things you might keep in mind for later, but how would you feel if I referred to you by saying, "one of the ultraconservative editors referred me to this page" when I know full well (and that information is right there in front of me) that your name (on Wikipedia) is Lou Franklin? Anyway, Sam's point above seems to settle this problem, and I think this became a less-than-productive discussion a while back, so I'll back out slowly now. -Seth Mahoney 22:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an ultraconservative editor, but if I were then it be OK for you to call me one. Lou franklin 02:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I tried. -Seth Mahoney 06:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]