This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

1) Delete the "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The article is biased and is being used to push an agenda. Legitimate changes are simply reverted. The article does not serve the reader and should be removed. Lou franklin 11:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already been nominated for deletion and kept by a comfortable margin. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly a surprise that we didn't have to count hanging chads. The people who voted to keep the article included many of the same gay activists that polluted the article in the first place. I don't see anybody on the arbitration committee who is also a member of the gay advocacy group that controls the article. For that reason, this is the appropriate forum to have the article removed. Lou franklin 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the people involved in writing the article voted, but even discounting them, among editors who had nothing to do with the article there was a comfortable keep consensus. As this is an RFAR and the arbitrators rely on evidence to make their decisions, you should make clear exactly which of the 27 keep voters (against 3 delete) were acting in bad faith. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to take the time to match the list of people who voted to keep against the list of people who have edited the article, be my guest. The point is that no objective person could look through the things that have been said in the article and conclude that it is an impartial article written by impartial people. Lou franklin 13:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have no idea if my own sexuality may stand in the way of my counting skills, I did the work, in the hopes of putting this to rest. The results: Of those users who, to the best of my knowledge, have had nothing to do with the article societal attitudes towards homosexuality, 17 who voted keep on the AfD for this article make no mention of being gay on their user pages. Two of those make specific mention of their heterosexuality. Several others (which don't overlap the two definite heterosexuals, but some of which do overlap the group of LGB people) make specific mention of being religiously affiliated and/or being conservatives. I hope this helps to make it more clear that not everyone who disagrees with you, Lou, is an extremist gay activist. -Seth Mahoney 19:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite where I said that "everyone who disagrees me is an extremist gay activist". I have no idea if your numbers are accurate, or what the preferences of the people who "make no mention of being gay on their user pages" is. The point is that no objective person could look through the things that have been said in the article and conclude that it is an impartial article written by impartial people.

As you looked through the articles for deletion page, did you see these user comments: "The article is obviously an opinion piece", "there's obviously some legitimacy to your concern", "the article needs expansion and improvement", "article is generally sympathetic to modern liberal homosexual rights agenda", "the information in the article does appear to indicate societal support of homosexuality", "if it can't be kept neutral, then some mediation will be called for".

True for False: The majority of the editors on the article are gay. Lou franklin 03:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that you're arguing two contradictory points here? You're saying that a) the opinions of the people editing this article should be disregarded because they're a gay cabal working to make the article propaganda, and b) the editors of this article have admitted that the article needs/needed work and is/was biased. (Yes, some of those comments came from people who didn't edit the article, but similar comments to those you cite, if not the exact comments cited, were written by people who went on to work on the article.) Hbackman 22:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence that the article is controlled by an organized group of activists:

The POV tag informs the reader that "the neutrality of this article is disputed". It is clearly true that the neutrality of this article is disputed. The presence of a POV tag "means that IN THE OPINION OF THE PERSON WHO ADDED THIS LINK, the article in question does not conform to NPOV standards". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute .

The POV tag should be removed by working through the dispute and making corrections to the article. But this group just removes the tag without addressing any of the issues. Worse, they take turns removing the tag so that I get blocked for a 3rr violation for reinserting the tag but they do not.

I wish that I could assume good faith here, but this is clearly an organized group of advocates hell-bent on using Wikipedia to push their agenda, truth be damned.

Lou franklin 14:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lou, let's be perfectly honest about what's going on here: You have never once assumed good faith. You have never encountered a section of the article you disagreed with and assumed anything but conspiracy, agenda-pushing, or outright dishonesty. So don't say, "I wish that I could assume good faith here" when it just isn't true. -Seth Mahoney 19:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to explain why "the neutrality of this article is disputed" is being removed from the article? Do you have a more plausible explanation? Does this group of editors honestly think that the neutrality of this article is not disputed? Lou franklin 02:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I suspect is happening? Everyone is tired of your edit warring and bombasticism, and therefore very few people are actually willing to listen to you anymore. When you constantly attack people -- and if the other editors feel as I do, they feel attacked and disrespected -- they simply become reactionary. They dismiss you as that person who's always yelling and doesn't ever want to compromise, because all of their past experience has been you edit warring, writing these long diatribes, and never actually seeming to listen to anything that anyone who doesn't agree with you is saying. It's a completely human reaction. And yes, that's the wrong way to react. But when they've dealt with a couple of months of edit warring and tirades, can you blame them (especially now that you're putting parts of edit summaries in all caps, which just reinforces the "rudely aggressive, uncompromising editor" impression)? That's not to excuse them entirely, but it's not to say that you're in the right, either. I'm not sure that anyone is in the right in this instance. Your behavior since you encountered this article was also the wrong way to react -- to the article, to other editors, and to your frustration. And yelling at them isn't going to get people to stop being reactionary, it's going to make the problem worse.

(I'm trying very hard not to sound like I'm taking a stand on the POV tag itself, but I'm not wholly sure that I succeeded there. For the record, though, I'm staying out of the debate as to whether the POV tag should be there or not.)

I feel as though you're going to take what I say and twist it around so you can go off about the other editors on this article being bad editors again. Unfortunately, I can't do much about that. I hope that you, and other people who read this, will at least note that this problem only arose because of the issue that is actually at stake in this arbitration, namely your behavior regarding this article over the past couple of months. That's not to cast you as the villain or to make the other editors out to be persecuted saints, but I do see a strong cause and effect here.

Hbackman 03:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might make sense to revisit the NPOV tag issue once the Arbitration is resolved. It is clearly true that Lou has managed to make (in essentially everyone else's eyes) many of the legit content issues "about him" instead of the article. Georgewilliamherbert 03:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that's a good idea. And thank you. You managed to say what I spent three paragraphs trying and not quite managing to say in just one sentence. :) Hbackman 03:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that any objective person would agree that's it's a good idea. I'm not sure why nobody else would reinsert the tag though. You must admit that smacks of a cabal.

By the way, I put "parts of edit summaries in all caps" because I was trying to highlight part of the Wikipedia policy that I was quoting. I'm sorry if that offended you. I wish that I wouldn't have to keep reinserting the POV tag over and over again, and this would never have come up.

Don't forget that "edit warring" requires more than one party. I was blocked for 48 hours for inserting a perfectly legitimate POV tag. Those who removed the tag were not subjected to any action at all. Lou franklin 03:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After being blocked 5 times for 3RR I would have thought you would have understood how it worked now. From WP:3RR: "the policy specifically does not apply to groups". The point of 3RR is very simple: "If an editor wants to make a change that no-one else agrees with, he can't use persistence and spare time to force it into the article without being blocked". That applies to inserting the POV tag as much as anything else. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no it doesn't. The presence of a POV tag "means that in the opinion of the person who added the link, the article in question does not conform to NPOV standards" [1] . The fact that you keep blocking me for 3rr proves only that the group is reverting my changes. There would be no need for me to keep reinserting the POV tag, for example, if y'all would stop removing it. Lou franklin 13:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Impartial? No. Moving towards neutral? Yes. Georgewilliamherbert 21:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) I would like to petition the Arbitrators that the current Proposed Solution that Lou be banned from editing both the main article and its talk page be reduced to merely the article itself. I believe that the other sanctions proposed are plenty enough to deal with any abuse he might launch on the talk page, and that banning him from making suggestions and points on the talk page turns him into a martyr in the end, despite his evident abuses of everyone else that led to this point.

This is clearly your discretion, but I wanted to make the request. I suspect that, in the long term, letting him make suggestions and comments and propose (but not impliment) changes will be the path of least resistance. Other editors of the article may have a different opinion on that point and are welcome to disagree here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think that this could be a good idea. As has been mentioned in some other places, Lou does at times bring up legitimate issues. If he were allowed to edit the talk page but not the article, his more reasonable criticisms could be implemented, and there wouldn't be edit warring over those criticisms that community consensus went against. I would appreciate it if he could learn to present his thoughts in a less confrontational manner, however. I have a feeling that unless his attitude changes, the talk page will just become a war zone if he's blocked from editing the article only. Hbackman 03:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that, personally. If his personal attack parole passes, which includes a broad definition, and is properly enforced, then I see no reason why he shouldn't edit the discussion page. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) LF should be banned from editing Societal attitudes towards homosexuality during this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

LF is continually being blocked for 3RR on this article [2] (by me, most recently). Some peace would be nice. A restriction to 1RR/d would do William M. Connolley 16:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Edit wars or revert wars are considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My edits are repeatedly reverted. Legitimate edits are reverted apparently without even being read. Some of my changes that ultimately make it to the article are reverted multiple times first. Lou franklin 03:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our perspective is that Lou occasionally packages edits that might be acceptable in with obvious edit warring (making edits that are against consensus or are POV). Hbackman 03:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the use of the term "our perspective" very interesting. This is an organized group controlling the article. Lou franklin 04:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which consists of everyone else. If you're all alone out there complaining we're all out to get you, it's probably your problem, not all of ours put together. Again, I'm a conservative, and if I think you're doing obvious edit warring (and I do, with a lot of what you've done) you're on the fringe. Georgewilliamherbert 06:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The last sentence is great in principle, but other methods of dispute resolution have been tried and have failed. I am convinced that Lou is not going to listen to anyone on this matter unless it is someone who agrees with him or unless he is forced to listen. Hbackman 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines such as Neutral point of view. Editors are expected to respect consensus in their edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other, see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4) Users are asked to assume that other editors are acting in good faith unless there are grounds to believe otherwise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

5) Wikipedia articles and their talk pages are not vehicles for political advocacy or propaganda. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

6) Users who disrupt particular articles due to obsessive concentration of attention on them or insistence on unrealistic standards may be banned from those articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · count) has engaged in sustained edit wars in an attempt to insert POV edits. Examples: [3] (inserted 6 times) [4] (21 times as of 14/3/06) [5] (29 times as of 14/3/06). He refuses to respect consensus that these edits are inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Lou franklin characterises anyone who does not support his edits as a gay cabal who edit Societal attitudes towards homosexuality for the purpose of pro-gay propaganda. This cabal is not limited to those who revert his edits, but also the many editors who voted to keep Societal attitudes towards homosexuality when Lou nominated it for AfD, the chair of the mediation committeee Essjay and the mediator he assigned, Guanaco. Examples: [6] [7] [8].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) Lou franklin does in fact raise several legitimate points regarding the neutrality of Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. Lou, by editing and participating on the article, forcefully exposed bias in the article. As both a direct and indirect result from Lou's participation, the article has been debated, expanded, given a significantly more neutral tone, and improved. That being said, Lou's manner of interaction with other editors and editing style are not consistant with established Wikipedia policies, such as (but not limited to) the civility policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nobody denies that Lou's involvement has helped expose and remove some bias in the article. He keeps mentioning the unfortunate "38% of the general public think that homosexual behavior is wrong" remark, for example. This sentence was quickly corrected once he pointed it out. Yet he keeps bringing it up, as if he had to fight tooth and nail to have it removed. He keeps claiming that the only people who voted to keep the article Societal attitudes towards homosexuality were those involved in the dispute, even though several people have pointed out that he is wrong about this. He should read the AfD again. Linuxbeak, he didn't have to do anything "forcefully". Every editor has been willing to correct legitimate instances of bias in the article. The only edits which Lou was required to do "forcefully" were the ones where he was dead wrong: Claiming that ex-Gay groups are unbiased scientific organizations, removing an obscenity from a McCarthy quote 33 separate times, and accusing every other editor of being a "gay extremist". These are the only things he's done "forcefully" because nobody has opposed his many helpful changes. Rhobite 03:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is just not so. For example, I changed the sentence "They [conservative opponents] argue, for example, that in seeking the right to marry gays are seeking a special right for themselves" to "They argue, for example, that in seeking the right to marry members of the same sex, gays are seeking a special right for themselves". [9] Gay people are not "seeking the right to marry" they already have the right to marry. They have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like all other American citizens have. The issue is that they want the right to marry somebody of the same sex. It was simply a clarification. Who could possibly object to such a benign change? It turns out that this group could. They reverted my change again [10] and again [11] and again [12] and again [13] and again [14] until finally the change was applied to the article with a comment of "thanks Lou, we could use more edits like this one".

As the diffs show, that change was repeatedly reverted because it was packaged with other edit warring such as putting "so-called" in front of "LGBT civil rights movement." Hbackman 06:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither change should have been "repeatedly reverted". As discussed at length on the talk page, the term "LGBT civil rights movement" is biased and should be removed. Gay people have all of the civil rights that everybody else has. Civil rights are rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship, especially the freedoms guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments (slavery and due process). Black people in the United States had a civil rights movement because they were being denied their civil rights (e.g., voting rights), but gay citizens have identical civil rights to every other American. Instead of removing the term "LGBT civil rights movement" (which is really the right thing to do), a compromise of changing it to "the so-called 'LGBT civil rights movement'" was offered. As you can see it was flatly and repeatedly rejected.

Editors should actually read the changes that they are reverting, don't you think? 13:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Another example: this sentence appeared in the article: "The change in attitudes of Western societies regarding homosexuality have led to a greater acceptance of gay men and women into both secular and religious institutions". I argued that "the change in attitude" and "greater acceptance" are the same thing; One has not led to the other. We had a battle royal about that point [15]. I tried removing it but it was simply reinserted over and over again [16]. In the end it was finally seen that "causality would be tricky to prove".

Another example: I objected to this statement "Violence against homosexuals and gay bashing remains common; the experience of gays during the Holocaust is one example." Since the Holocaust happened over 50 years ago I didn't understand how the experience of gays during the Holocaust could be an example of how "violence against homosexuals and gay bashing remains common" today. I broke those two statements into separate sentences. [17]. Surely nobody could object to that change, could they? It turns out that they could [18]. Amazing.

That was a question of readability. In my opinion, it did read better the other way. Hbackman 06:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had to fight tooth and nail to get this far mitigating the bias and errors that were in the article, and the article is still badly biased.

To say that "Every editor has been willing to correct legitimate instances of bias in the article" and "nobody has opposed his many helpful changes" is just patently false. Anybody who takes the time to look through the history of the article and the discussion page can clearly see that. Lou franklin 06:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Lou's edits to me echo of a newbie. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as everyone was at one point (or still is) a newbie. Lou sent me a well-written and intellegent note via User talk page giving me a basic outline of his complaints. After investigating and considering all of the evidence in this arbitration case, Lou sounds very much like a confused and upset newbie that most likely did not read the guide for new users. I am not saying that what he did was justifiable or consistant with our policies. What I am saying is that Lou's apparent lack of exposure to Wikipedia's community and lack of time on the project reflects upon his edits. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion on the matter is that all Lou has done is to draw attention to initially poor neutrality, and for the actual correction of it and the writing of the material we mainly have the 'gay cabal' (by which I mean everyone who isn't Lou) to thank. The majority of Lou's edits are semantic - changing adjectives and so on within existing paragraphs (some of which have made the article neutral, most of which haven't), and productive edits are fairly infrequent - this is compounded by the fact that in the same edit he will make new changes to the article as well as old ones that have already been reverted literally dozens of times.

Right now I believe the article is pretty good, and Lou isn't currently doing anything to improve it, even though his campaign continues. If he was banned from editing the article but still allowed to use the talk page, this would allow him to draw attention to any more gaps while preventing his disruption (and if he was prohibited from further assumptions of bad faith, it might make him less frustrating to deal with).

While I agree with the statement 'the article wasn't very good and now it's better' (as I'm fairly sure everyone does), I'm not sure it's appropriate as a 'finding of fact', since the Arbcom isn't here to judge on content. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be worth noting that Lou came along just after interest in this article had been renewed among several parties (myself included). Many problems about which Lou complained (and which he still complains about, even though they have been fixed) already had editors working on a solution, and I know that I at least had already begun research for rewriting and fleshing out sections of the article by the time Lou got here. So its not really as if his diatribes led to the changes that have occurred, although they may have sped them up. That said, I agree with Samuel Blanning above in pointing out that the article (though by no means finished) is far more neutral now, and Lou's constant disagreeableness and long, repetitive diatraibes on the talk page and edit warring are actually slowing down further change at this point (he has already driven me, for example, from wanting to do further work on the article, and I suspect that other editors may feel the same way, or are beginning to feel the same way). A period of mentoring, especially if Lou is given a chance to work on more neutral articles in which he has an interest and steps back from working on more volatile subjects for a while, until he starts to get a feel for the way Wikipedia works, may be exactly what is needed here. -Seth Mahoney 20:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

2) Give Lou a period of mentorship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think that part of the problem here is that Lou doesn't understand some of the inner workings of Wikipedia, what certain terms (3RR, vandalism, etc.) mean, how building consensus works, what qualifies as a good source for what, how talk pages can be used to build groups rather than divide them, etc. Maybe a period of mentorship combined with a short ban from editing societal attitudes towards homosexuality as a cool-off period could help set him down the path toward being an exceptional editor. -Seth Mahoney 20:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you exactly how "building consensus works" for this article. A group of a dozen gay activists organize themselves and overrule everybody else. I can tell you "what qualifies as a good source" for this article. Whatever the group of gay advocates says. Have you seen some of the "good sources" used in this article? Many of the editors need to learn what a good source is, but I am not one of them. Lou franklin 02:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you reject the idea of mentorship? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I am strongly convinced that Lou will not listen to anyone assigned as a "mentor." He believes that he is right and we are wrong, and he will see pro-gay bias in anyone who attempts to get him to accept the idea of compromise. When he has learned about WP policies such as 3RR, he has used his knowledge to try to game the system. Hbackman 04:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lou may well not listen to a mentor. There is some evidence on his talk page [19] and elsewhere in this arbitration process that suggests he isn't interested in that sort of thing. However, I'd still like to believe that he would benefit from it. I'd like to repeat that part of a mentorship for Lou should include an explanation about how sources and citations should work, why certain sources cannot be trusted to provide an NPOV account, etc. His comments here [20] and here [21] and here [22] indicate that he doesn't quite understand why citations are necessary, when to use them, or how or why to cite direct quotes, and may provide insight to a potential mentor as to what instruction he needs. -Seth Mahoney 20:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3) Lou franklin is banned from editing Societal attitudes towards homosexuality for a certain period.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I split this suggestion off from Sethmahoney's suggestion of a period of mentorship. Given that Lou has continued to make reverts that he knows full well to be against consensus (see /Evidence) I agree with Seth that a ban from the article is worth considering. Also, as all Lou's edits have concerned this article so far, it may be beneficial for him to stay away from it. The natural period for such a ban would seem to be until the end of Lou's mentorship if one is imposed. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to understand what the words "against consensus" means as it relates to this article. A group of gay people organized themselves to push the gay agenda via Wikipedia. "Against consensus" means saying something that this group doesn't want said in the article. I shouldn't have to "stay away from it" because it shouldn't be there. The article is biased because it was designed to be biased. The gay group does not allow any reasonable consensus to be reached because their agenda is already set. Lou franklin 00:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As noted elsewhere, and admitted by Lou, I am not gay, and I am conservative, and yet I find myself siding with the others in making positive changes to balance the article. And against Lou's changes, which are much further right-wing than I am. Consensus here represents everyone from mainstream conservatives to the left. I don't expect Lou to agree with that, but that's where it lies, in my humble opinion as the token mainstream conservative present. Consensus is not defined as an envelope as wide as the most extremist interested party involved. Georgewilliamherbert 21:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4) Lou franklin is placed on personal attack parole for one year. The definition of 'personal attacks' is to explictly include groundless accusations of bad faith edits and policy violations (such as 3RR).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It should also explicitely include groundless accusations of vandalism and groundless accusations of participating in an organized effort to push a particular POV. -Seth Mahoney 06:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I hoped to imply by 'bad faith edits'. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed made "accusations of participating in an organized effort to push a particular POV". But these accusations are anything but "groundless". Removing the biased article fixes the problem; throwing the whistleblower under the bus does not. Lou franklin 09:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

That isn't a very good definition of "personal attack." Parties should try to be more accurate. Otherwise, the workshop is sort of a blank slate from which the arbitrators have to craft everything by themselves. Why are there no proposed principles and findings of fact? --James S. 18:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the first concern, could you explain why it's not a good definition? Too specific or not specific enough? I don't want to hear any more accusations of 'everyone reverting me is in a gay cabal' from Lou, hence I explictly included assumptions of bad faith in the definition.

To the second, I've been involved with the Jason Gastrich RFAR, in which hardly anything was posted in the workshop, so I assumed that if principles and findings of fact were sufficiently 'obvious', they didn't need to go into the Workshop before they were made into 'Proposed decisions'. However, since someone's said otherwise I'll put some in later this evening. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5) Lou franklin shall for one year be limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The proposed remedy doesn't address the root problem. Wikipedia is being misused in order to promote an agenda. Shooting the messenger won't fix that. Removing the article means not only will the reader not be subjected to such biased drivel, but it also means that there will be no need to prevent anyone from reverting it. Lou franklin 09:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Everyone has an agenda, that is a fact of life. The different perspectives on each issue should be included, unless there is a large preponderance of evidence tipping the scales. --James S. 18:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Different perspectives on each issue should be included" but they are not allowed. The group of gay advocates rejects the inclusion of other perspectives on the grounds that they are "against consensus". Different perspectives are simply removed from the article.

When I tried to get fair coverage of differing perspectives, their response was "be aware that NPOV does not demand that every claim be 'balanced' by a counterclaim, nor that every position described be 'balanced' by an opposing POV." [23]

It doesn't take MacGyver to see what is going on here. The article will always be biased because "the consensus" makes sure of it. Lou franklin 02:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Lou, my response was "be aware that NPOV..." There is no their response. I am the only one who has responded to you. -Seth Mahoney 03:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real issue here is whether MacGyver would be able to construct an article acceptable to everyone out of three polemical userboxes, a broken navigation template and a lawnmower engine. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be careful with that; lots of people see two-stroke lawnmower and chainsaw engines as signs of the gay conspiracy (see Diesel engine and Diesel (clothing company)). Is that a proper missionary-style heterosexually-driven four-stroke lawnmower, as God, Nikolaus Otto, and Levi Strauss intended? Georgewilliamherbert 10:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: