Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by SCZenz

[edit] Stephenj, a new user, tries to improve Wikipedia

[edit] Freestylefrappe blocks Stephenj without warning

[edit] Freestylefrappe responds to questions about Stephenj with hostility

  • 04:17, December 15, 2005 UTC - Bunchesofgrapes asks Freestylefrappe about the block of Stephenj
  • 18:27, December 15, 2005 UTC - Freestylefrappe replies with the statement that Stephenj's edits were "all vandalism", and accuses Bunchesofgrapes of "following him" because of his involvement in previous dispute (an edit war at Kumanovo)
  • 18:49, December 15, 2005 UTC - SCZenz replies to this statement, asserting that Freestylefrappe is incorrect about Stephenj's edits, and further noting that it's appropriate for admins to have their actions reviewed.
  • 18:56, December 15, 2005 UTC - Freestylefrappe replies, saying he'll look into Stephenj's contributions. He also makes some accusations regarding Bunchofgrapes
  • 19:10, December 15, 2005 UTC - SCZenz replies with a clarification of Stephenj's edits, and concerns about his accusations.

[edit] Freestylefrappe misunderstands, misrepresents, and claims he need not follow blocking policy

[edit] Freestylefrappe misuses the rollback button

[edit] Freestylefrappe indicates an intent to change his blocking procedure, in response to comments

  • 21:53, December 15, 2005 UTC - In response to a comment from Flcelloguy, Freestylefrappe indicates an intent in the future to warn vandals before blocking them (anons "only once"). -- SCZenz 21:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Continued blanking of talk page

  • 21:27, 28 January 2006 UTC - Freestylefrappe deletes a comment requesting that he archive his talk page. He used the rollback button for this purpose.

[edit] Evidence presented by Flcelloguy

[edit] Freestylefrappe unprotected a page in which he was involved and then edited it

[edit] Freestylefrappe has sometimes been blunt, if not incivil

  • 19:58, December 22, 2005 UTC - Freestylefrappe removed several comments from his talk page (including the conversation documented above), saying it was "too stupid for [him] to archive"
  • 04:56, December 23, 2005 UTC - Freestylefrappe later edited the header on the talk page to include a "warning to morons", advising that he would "mock you/dishonor your familial dynasty with the test1 template. Further violations shall result in the posting of the test2, test3, and test4 templates. This is sooo not a joke."

[edit] Freestylefrappe blanked and protected his own user talk page

19:03, January 15, 2006 UTC, 19:03, January 15, 2006 UTC, 00:59, January 1, 2006 UTC, including one where with the edit summary "I just...dont care....that pretty much sums up my response to all those comments" 17:25, January 1, 2006 UTC

[edit] Freestylefrappe was incivil after the protection

  • 15:58, December 24, 2005 UTC - Arbitrator Theresa Knott warned Freestylefrappe not to protect his own user talk page.
  • 19:40, December 24, 2005 - Freestylefrappe becomes hostile towards Theresa Knott, saying "I dont appreciate your comment on my talkpage... As for using my admin powers, I reject your suggestion. I never abused my powers and I'm tired of getting harassed by belligerant users with vendettas against me because I voted against their RFAs."

[edit] Controversy surrounding blocking of Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs) and voting on WP:RfA

Yesterday and earlier today (January 15, Wikipedia Day), there was controversy surrounding Freestylefrappe involving WP:RfA, which escalated into Freestylefrappe blocking another administrator. By presenting evidence here, I make no assertion of either wrongdoing on Freestylefrappe's part or anyone else's part; in my opinion, this dispute could have been handled much better in a different manner. However, I believe that the evidence may be relevant to this Arbitration case, so I submit the evidence for Arbitrators to carefully consider. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The dispute begins with Masssiveego voting on several RfAs. The majority of his votes are oppose; some are left without comment [2] and some with unusual reasons [3].
  • Both BD2412 and Jeffrey O. Gustafson tag Masssiveego's votes [4] [5], calling him the "new Boothy", a reference to Boothy443, who is known for his unusual voting style. Tagging of votes has been done before but has generated controversy in the past; this time is no exception.
  • After another user questions the tagging of Masssiveego's vote, Freestylefrappe also questions it, saying "The last time I checked, harassing other users was looked down upon. Masssiveego's vote should be counted and Gustafson should be reprimanded." [6]
  • Freestylefrappe also leaves a note on both BD2412's and Jeffrey O. Gustafson's talk page, asking them to "stop harrassing other users". [7] [8]
  • Jeffrey O. Gustafson responds politely on Freestylefrappe's talk page [9] and on the RfA page [10].
  • However, Jeffrey O. Gustafson then proceeds to change the section header of Freestylefrappe's comment from "Stop" to "A random and uncalled for comment", with the edit summary "heh, who here is being harassed?" [11]
  • Freestylefrappe responds and also changes the title back to "Stop", saying that he didn't appreciate Jeffrey O. Gustafson changing the header of his comment. [12]
  • On the RfA page, Freestylefrappe also responds, asking him "not [to] modify the comments of other users". He also says, "Do this again and you will be blocked." In the same edit, Freestylefrappe also votes oppose, commenting that he "cannot support a user whose nominator harasses any user who opposes." (The user was nominated by Jeffrey O. Gustafson). [13]
  • Jeffrey O. Gustafson then responds on his talk page, changing the header to "(False accusations)", and saying, "And, I'm changing the header again." [14]
  • Jeffrey O. Gustafson also strikes out the Boothy reference in his comments on the RfA and clarifies his meaning. [15].
  • Following that, Jeffrey O. Gustafson also comments on Freestylefrappe's oppose vote, calling it an "unfortunate vote" [16].
  • Freestylefrappe then blocks Jeffrey O. Gustafson for three hours [17], saying in the block summary, "warned, yet he continues to modify comments of other users". Freestylefrappe also leaves a comment on Jeffrey O. Gustafson's talk page, restoring his header of "Stop" and notifying Jeffrey O. Gustafson that he (Freestylefrappe) had blocked him. [18] In addition, Freestylefrappe also leaves a note on the RfA page, saying "Let this be a lesson to you." [19]
  • Jeffrey O. Gustafson then unblocks himself, saying that it was "trolling by blocking admin" and that it should be done by a third party (uninvolved administrator) if "legit" [20]
  • Freestylefrappe then re-blocks Jeffrey O. Gustafson, this time for six hours, saying, "doubling original block since he unblocked himself" [21]
  • After Linuxbeak unblocks Jeffrey O. Gustafson [22], saying that "That's enough wheel-warring. Take five minutes to cool down, FSF.", Jeffrey O. Gustafson posts on WP:AN/I, seeking "immidiate [sic] attention" to the situation. [23]
  • Jeffrey O. Gustafson also changes the header again, to "Harassment by FSF" [24]
  • After some discussion with other administrators on WP:AN/I, most of whom disagree with the initial block, Jeffrey O. Gustafson apologizes for unblocking himself [25]
  • Freestylefrappe responds to the thread at WP:AN/I. [26]
  • Freestylefrappe's second response to the posting, a reply to Linuxbeak's warning not to reblock Jeffrey O. Gustafson, was "Forget it then. Let him [Jeffrey O. Gustafson] harass everyone. That's essentially what you're saying. Anyone who votes oppose is a subversive." [27]
  • His next post to WP:AN/I said, "Do not worry my children (Or else...) Freestyle has been placed in a reeducation camp! He will blindly vote in support for all future candidates (Or else...). His anger over the subjugation of his fellow subversives shall be morphed into a gentle, but fierce love for the motherland (Or else...)! If anyone has any concerns regarding other troublemakers, report them to the Wikipedia:Cabal noticeboard immediately. Long live the Cabal! Long live the Cabal!" [28] He then proceeded to sign the above post with "The Cabal" [29]
  • Freestylefrappe then proceeded to change the title of the WP:AN/I post, modifying it from "Immidiate [sic] attention needed: User:Freestylefrappe and User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson" to "Immediate Reeducation Needed: Dangerous subversive activities by Pirate User:Freestylefrappe" [30]. He was reverted immediately. [31]
  • During this time, Freestylefrappe also replied on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. He wrote, "I've lost my patience. Harassment of Masssiveego or any other user on an RFA will no longer be tolerated. Neither will modifying other users' comments as Gustafson has been doing. Or voting multiple times as Encyclopedist has been doing. Or advocating ignoring the votes of certain users as many have been doing." [32]
  • Freestylefrappe discusses the issue on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship: [33] [34] [35]
  • Freestylefrappe also changes the wording of the RfA page to read "Please explain your vote, if possible, by including a short explanation of your reasoning, particularly when opposing a nomination, though this is never required." (bolded part added) [36] He was later reverted by a bureaucrat. [37]
  • During this time, Freestylefrappe also made several edits to his user talk and user page, alleging that he was being "reeducated" by the "cabal". [38] [39] [40]
  • Freestylefrappe also modified the heading of a message from Lord Voldemort, from "Freestyle..." to "Freestyle should DIE". His edit summary was "following Gustafson's example". [41] After Lord Voldemort made a note in the heading to make it clear that he (Lord Voldemort) had not added the "should DIE" part, Freestylefrappe reverted him and changed another heading title from "Chill" to "Die". [42]
  • In addition, Freestylefrappe left messages on several user talk pages that were blunt, if not incivil. [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]
  • Freestylefrappe then left a note on Masssiveego's talk page, saying "Someone must have forgotten to tell you, voting oppose' is no longer allowed. Now you have to vote either in support, extreme lesbian support, Strong support, or neutral. Keep in mind that voting neutral really means you vote in support. You see, this ingenious process allows everyone to become an admin regardless of aptitude or experience. Everyone is equal! This way we maintain the communist utopia that is The Cabal." [49]. He also signed the post from "The Cabal" [50]
  • Freestylefrappe then voted "support" on Jtkiefer's RfB, saying in the edit summary "since im only allowed to vote in support" [51]

I hope this evidence clarifies an extremely complex situation, which is mentioned below in another user's evidence. Hopefully, this has clarified how a trivial RfA dispute escalated into blocking. Again, I make no assertion of either wrongdoing or "right"-doing for any of the involved parties; my only wish is to clarify this situation to the Arbitrators. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: As I stated above, I make no assertions of either wrongdoing or correctness on the part of anyone involved in this particular incident. (Personally, I feel that most of the parties involved could have handled this a lot better.) On the contrary, the only reason I submitted the evidence was because another user added evidence related to this, but with few diffs. To make the situation clearer, I documented in detail how the whole dispute began and how it escalated into blocking. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Bunchofgrapes

[edit] Freestylefrappe does not distinguish vandalism from (possibly) good-faith errors

These were my first interactions with Freestylefrappe, as far as I can recall. After hearing on AN/I [52] about an edit war at Kumanovo involving an admin, now blocked for 3RR, I decided to look into it.

  • 05:13, December 13, 2005 - [53] Seeing that the talk page is nearly empty and the edit summaries are unhelpful for much of the dispute, I attempt to summarize what I can from the history of the artice and ask Freestylefrappe for clarifications regarding the reasoning behind his reverts.
  • 21:13, December 14, 2005 - [54] Freestylefrappe ignores my questions, but says that my comments make it clear he didn't break 3RR.
  • 21:34, December 14, 2005 - [55] I disagree. My reading of policy doesn't seem to indicate that reverting probable copyvio material is exempt from 3RR as "simple vandalism". (Others may have different opinions.)
  • 21:52, December 14, 2005 - [56] Freestylefrappe's response: "WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?? IF its a copyio then its vandalism. Perhaps I should engage in the same arbitrary blocking other admins have here."
  • 22:01, December 14, 2005 - [57] I disagree, noting that adding copyvio material is not manifestly bad-faith, and asserting that "simple vandalism" should be obvious on its face."
  • 22:18, December 14, 2005 - [58] Freestylefrappe calls my logic "stupid" and asks "Are you unaware I'm an admin?"
  • 22:55, December 14, 2005 - [59] I say that errors made in ignorance are not bad-faith.
  • 23:10, December 14, 2005 - [60] The discussion is characterized as a "charade".
  • 23:12, December 14, 2005 - [61] Freestylefrappe, on AN/I, states "Any user who vandalizes Kumanovo again will be blocked for a week. I will not tolerate such nonsense."

The dispute regarding blocking StephenJ is more of the same. In particular, see SCZenz's evidence above, and [62] this edit on 19:23, December 15, 2005. "Users who delete content do not need counseling. They need to not edit."

I see no sign of Freestylefrappe developing a more mainstream view of what is "vandalism" and what is not. The most recent evidence is during the request for this arbitration:

  • 17:53, December 23, 2005 - [63] Freestylefrappe adds 10 users to "involved parties", including Locke Cole. (Many seem to have had a peripheral role.)
  • 18:17, December 23, 2005 - [64] Locke Cole removes them. Probably not the right thing to do, sure. But understandable.
  • 18:29, December 23, 2005 - [65] Freestylefrappe restores them, edit summary is "reverting vandalism by locke cole and adding Akamad".
  • 19:07, December 23, 2005 - [66] I point out this innappropriate accusation of "vandalism" in my RfArb statement.
  • 22:40, December 23, 2005 - [67] Freestylefrappe tells me I need to remove the comment and that Locke Cole's edit was bad faith.
  • 22:43, December 23, 2005 - [68] I reply that it was a mistake, but not bad faith. I suggest he read WP:AGF.
  • 22:47, December 23, 2005 - [69] Freestylefrappe's reply: "You don't seriously believe that."

[edit] Freestylefrappe has a pattern of questionable blocks

Prior to StephenJ:

  • 03:06, November 1, 2005 - [70] Freestylefrappe blocks AldirmaGonul for 1 week, block comment "repeated vandalism, personal attacks, warned several times." This appears to have to do with a content dispute in Bektashi. A look at Talk:Bektashi shows Freestylefrappe and AldiraGonul involved in a content dispute; regardless of the merits there, a one-week block against a party he was in a dispute with is bad. AldirmaGonul left Wikipedia sometime after this block.
  • 04:59, November 2, 2005 - [71] Freestylefrappe blocks Wilgamesh for 24 hours, comment "personal attacks". Inspection of Wilgamesh's contribs in that time period show this comment on Freestylefrappe's talk page as the likely "personal attack". No warning or discussion about these attacks occurred that I could find.
  • 03:08, November 8, 2005 - [72] Freestylefrape blocks User:68.122.2.189, block summary "vandal." User had, to that, point five contributions, three with good edit summaries, not a one that even borders on vandalism. User never returns (at least at that IP) after the discussion-free block.
  • 23:06, November 23, 2005 - [73] Freestylefrappe blocks Rza0305 for 24 hrs; block comment "hateful vandalizing of Dajjal". Leaves notification of warningless block on talk page. Rza0305's contribution to Dajjal [74] was user's first edit; I can't tell what is hateful about it.

[edit] Freestylefrappe frequently blanks own User Talk page

Constantly blanking your own user talk page isn't against policy, but in addition to being against common-sense etiquette, this action may shed light on Freestylefrappe's willingness to communicate constructively. Since Jan 1 2006, Freestylefrappe has blanked his talk page 1011 times: [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]

[edit] Pgio block

  • 19:08, January 14, 2006 - [86] Freestylefrappe blocks User:Pgio for 24 hours.

Three days later:

  • 00:51, January 17, 2006 - [87] "Why are you telling people I blocked Pgio? I never blocked Pgio. What are you talking about?"
  • 01:45, January 17, 2006 - [88] "It appears, as shown by Flcelloguy, that I did block Pgio, but I vaguely remember the circumstances." Note that Freestylefrappe doesn't make a great many blocks... the only other blocks he made between blocking Pgio and that comment were the two blocks of User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson discussed elsewhere.

[edit] Evidence presented by Sean Black

[edit] Freestylefrappe threatens others with admin powers

  • [89] Freestylefrappe threatens to block SCZenz after he presents evidence in his RFC.
    • Saying something "warrants a blocking" is not the same as saying "I will block you". Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You can see my response to this in /Workshop, but I more or less agree that "threat" is not the right word.--Sean|Black 00:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • [90] Freetylefrappe threatens to protect a page to his preferred version. These comments are agressive and incivil.--Sean|Black 20:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Zocky

[edit] Freestylefrappe removes critical comments from his talk page with a hostile edit summary

  • [91] : Freestylefrappe deletes brand new messages critical of his behaviour from his talk page with the summary edit "removing all comments-too stupid for me to archive".

[edit] Freestyle endorses a view on RFC in bad faith

  • [92] : Zocky leaves an outside view at Freestylefrappe's RFC.
  • [93] and [94] : Freestylefrappe endorses Zocky's view on the RFC with the edit summary "Endorsement to the maXXX" and leaves a message at Zocky's talk page, clearly stating that he does not in fact agree with the view.

[edit] Evidence presented by karmafist

Freestylefrappe has an abrasive, mistrusting and confrontational personality, traits that are bad enough for a regular editor, but unacceptable for an admin such as himself. He has offended a swath of editors, so please excuse me if I accidentally copy something that has been already said.

  • I became first involved in the dispute between Freestylefrappe and several new editorshere, where I blocked him for a 3RR vio on Kumanovo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Freestylefrappe claimed he was reverting vandalism, although since Macedonian copyright law(the material in question was alleged to have been taken from a Macedonian government website) was not clearly stated, particularly to the new users involved, the edits of the new users were not vandalism under WP:VAND, but rather a WP:BITE vio by Freestylefrappe.
  • Seeing that Rbj (talk · contribs) attempted to file an rfar against me and Phroziac[95], as well as complaining about me to several other people([96],[97],[98],etc.),and offered to collaborate with him in an attempt to discredit me, adding the edit summary "non-patronizing offer"[99]. Does the same thing with arbcom sanctioned user zen-master (talk · contribs) [100].
  • Threatens me with an rfc [101]
  • Calls evidence on this Rfar "BS" [102], an NPA vio he has repeated in the past.[103]
  • Zocky tries to help Freestylefrappe in preparation on this rfar, and he blanks it.[104]
  • He attempts to intimidate Dmcdevit, even adding a {{test3}}, once again misunderstanding or misportraying WP:VAND[105]
  • Responds to Teresa Knott's attempt to assist him rudely. [106]
  • Removes a claim of WP:OWN vios on his rfc, claiming it to be "nonsense" in his edit summary.[107]
  • W.Marsh merges Israfil (archangel) to Angels in Islam. Freestylefrappe responds with this cryptic remark, which may be a veiled personal attack. [108].
  • At an rfc he initiated against Haizum (talk · contribs), he redirects his commentary from a commentary on Haizum's behavior into an ad homimem directed comment towards the only outside view currently present, which disagrees with him. [109]

[edit] See also

[edit] Evidence presented by Freestylefrappe

Sadly, not even Flcelloguy understands very basic Wikipedia policies. There has been a deliberate attempt to cover up what this "dispute" is about. This is actually not a dispute at all, but a group effort to seek revenge for my voting against their RFAs. I'm so tired of all of your lies. I'm going to dissect your biggest lies here.

[edit] First assertion: "My voting is Boothyesque"

Any user who uses the term Boothyesque will be warned for personal attacks. This warning includes all users, no one is above the law no matter how much you lie or misportray my actions.

    • (Note this comment was a reply to an earlier assertion by freestylefrappe that he has since withdrawn)If you block anyone for adding evidence to the RFAr you will leave us with no other option than to ask a developer to temp desysop you until the arbitration is over. If you do not like the way a remark is phrased simply ask the person to rephrase it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ral315 listed my voting style as unfounded and erratic. He posted on my RFC as evidence:
  • Lifeisunfair — Oppose negative nancy username. freestylefrappe 00:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thelb4 — Oppose per Splash and his accepting his own self-nom shows his inexperience. freestylefrappe 00:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • SoothingR — strong Oppose user accepted his own self-nom - clearly inexperienced. freestylefrappe 00:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This of course ignores the fact that any user can vote oppose for any reason, any user can not state his reason for as many RFAs he wants, Boothy was already attacked for his/her voting style and the users who attacked Boothy were reprimanded, and Radiant and Zordrac routinely vote in oppose with far weirder rationales.

Two lies that have been repeated by Karmafist, Wikifanatic, and Ral315 are that I voted against LifeisUnfair and Wikifanatic's RFA. These are lies. Wikifanatic had a tempertantrum after his first RFA failed, similar to SWD316's tantrum, and voted against my RFA in retribution. To be cordial, after my RFA passed, much to Wikifanatic's dismay, I promised that once he had had some minimal experience I would vote in support of him. I briefly voiced my opposition to his candidacy. When I did I had BS complaints on my talkpage from WikiFanatic and Karmafist. I didnt care enough so I removed my vote. As for LifeisUnfair's RFA, I explained my reasoning to him and Matt Yeager, both of whom are quite reasonable users, and we reached a compromise. I voted in support of LifeisUnfair. So Redwolf24, Ral315, and Wikifanatic need to stop lying about that. The other two votes - one against Thelb4 and the other against SoothingR were quite reasonable. When you nominate yourself you dont accept your own selfnomination. It gives the impression that the user is either a. vain, b. incompetent, or c. vain and incompetent. Plenty of users vote in opposition using that reasoning. The only reason why Redwolf is even getting himself involved in this is because I caught him and warned him about his vandalism - specifically he blanked another user's page and then denied that he had done anything wrong. Yet another example of the harassment and abuse of powers of so many Wikipedia administrators. This is, of course, all moot because there are no Wikipedia policies that outline how one is allowed to vote. Karmafist has suggested that I no longer be allowed to vote on RFAs. I suggest Karmafist lose all blocking privileges indefinitely.

[edit] Second assertion: "I broke 3RR"

Whether or not I broke 3RR is, according to BunchofGrapes, dependent on whether or not a. Bitola was acting on good faith b. Posting copyvios is simple vandalism c. There is a difference between simple vandalism and other types of vandalism

From the administrators noticeboard, unedited, much to Karmafist's dismay:

[edit] User:Freestylefrappe

I blocked him and recieved this e-mail
Unblock me. I did not violate 3RR. Read what BunchofGrapes posted on the talkpage. I wont revert the retarded version on Kumanovo.
I'm mulling blocking him for a few more hours. karmafist 02:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't. Policy doesn't give you the authority to do with. Let him serve out his block and then deal with any future problems.Geni 02:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice Geni. I'm worried about him coming out of this block with this mindset, but i'm sure we'll be ready. karmafist 03:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I read the talk-page he refers to above and the edit history. Based on that I think his point is that he wasn't violating 3RR because the first of those four reversions was a revert of text which included copyvios. However, as I understand it, 3RR refers to removal of any portion of valid text four times within a 24 hour period... and thus his four would still count since that first version (and the subsequent three) apparently also included some text which was not copyvio. Still, that's getting far enough into technicalities that it's understandable where he might have thought he didn't violate 3RR. --CBD ☎ ✉ 09:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
First of all I should have been notified that users were talking behind my back. I came to this page to report the lies and misconduct of Karmafist who has had a grudge against me because of my vote on Wikifanatic's RFA. I intend to tell the entire story on my userpage in a day or so that the BS of Karmafist, Bitola, Bunchofgrapes, Glenn Willen, Creidieki, and Macedon5 can be brought to light. Any user who vandalizes Kumanovo again will be blocked for a week. I will not tolerate such nonsense. freestylefrappe 23:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
You should not use your Administrative powers in regards to an article you are an active editor on, you should seek out the participation of an outside Administrator. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It was in doubt in regards to the copyvio, so what Freestyle should have done was discussed with others in regards to this. Unless it's a clear case of vandalism, it's 3RR. Also, I don't understand what this perception of a grudge is about since Freestylefrappe didn't vote on the Wikifanatic RFA, although several people who i've worked with several times before did vote oppose there. I'm going to open a user rfc here, the above comments are very disturbing, particularly considering since freestyle is an admin. karmafist 03:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
My apologies, he apparently did oppose there for a few hours. [110],[111]

.Wikifanatic's RFA was a thousand or two edits ago for me, so it's hard to remember a few hours on there. karmafist 03:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's a clear case of copyvio, you have carte-blanche to revert it away unless and until there is an assertion of permission or page-protection is applied. The law outstrips any Wikipedia policy. Imo, anyway. -Splashtalk 03:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
You'd think so, but Wikipolicy doesn't seem to read that way. Copyvio policy says to revert copyrighted text to a version without it, but three revert policy excludes only vandalism and vandalism policy doesn't classify copyright violations as vandalism. So it seems like, as the policy currently stands, you should revert copyright violations on sight... but if you do so to the same text four times in 24 hours you should be blocked. I put a question about whether this should be changed/clarified on Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule. At present it is probably a good example of ignore all rules... as you say, international law should probably trump wikipolicy. :] --CBD ☎ ✉ 11:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

So it's quite clear that the block was sketchy at best. There was no attempt to ask me whether or not Bitola's version was a copyvio, no attempt to actually look at Talk:Bitola where I had warned him not to paste anymore copyvios over a week before I actually blocked him. No attempt to actually look at the fact Akamad reverted his edits to Kumanovo earlier which were clearly not in good faith. No attempt to look at the fact that Bitola repeatedly deleted sections, repeatedly reverted and broke 3RR through his edits, repeatedly lied about me copy and pasting Christopher Deliso's writings on Kumanovo...'

[edit] Third assertion: "Freestylefrappe is removing policies from his RFC!"

SCZenz started this lie.

The fact of the matter is I should have removed more policies which were added after the fact. Once you start an RFC you do not edit comments that have been endorsed by other users.

After users had already started endorsing, Karmafist ignores the way RFCs work and starts modifying his tale, specifically here he adds WP:OWN after the fact. Karmafist, did you really think I was too stupid to go back through the history of the page? I guess not since you've been trying to pretend this incident never happened and distance yourself from any involvement. It's actually SCZenz who's making you look bad by lying about what took place. The next time you all decide you're gonna try and misportray events to make a user look bad I suggest you clarify what tale you're going with.

[edit] Fourth assertion: "I don’t understand or refuse to recognize WP:OWN"

I actually had to deal with a vandal who claimed he owned Qiyamah in the past so this is complete nonsense. The sole evidence used to justify adding this policy to my RFC, after many users had endorsed their BS, was a quote from the RFC talkpage. Here is the quote unedited, much to all of your dismay: " I created Kumanovo." That is the only quote they are using to justify adding WP:OWN. It's as if I'm in the twilight zone.

[edit] Fifth assertion:"I am indifferent to, misunderstand, or am ignorant of, WP:AGF/I did not assume good faith"

Twice I have been accused of this, 1 with Bitola, who we now know, though he still denies, engaged in sockpuppetry, and the second time with StephenJ. I'm accused of blocking other users, before and after I blocked StephenJ. I have not blocked a single user since StephenJ. I have been overly cordial and understanding to vandals because I no that otherwise I would have to listen to a condescending, patronizing lecture from SCZenz, Karmafist, or anyone else in their "group."

The fact is Bitola repeatedly deleted content from Kumanovo. Explain to me, Karmafist, Asbestos, or anyone else how these edits were in good faith: 1, 2, 3

Explain to me how after I warned Bitola on December 12 he was still acting in good faith when he posted a copyvio under his sockpuppet Macedon5 on December 13?

Or...maybe explain to me why Bitola should be ashamed since he was acting in good faith? If Bitola should be ashamed of knowingly pasting copyvios (which anyone could instantly see was my reasoning by going to User talk:Bitola) then I did not violate 3RR, then Karmafist should never have held the word of an new user above the word of a longstanding administrator, then I should never have been blocked in the first place. Perhaps that also means Asbestos and Karmafist should have made some effort to contact me as to why I blocked Bitola, or looked at the reason I posted when I originally blocked him. Quite a few "should haves."

[edit] Evidence presented by Dmcdevit

It is my belief that Freestylefrappe has demonstrated a consistent pattern of misjudgments regarding his administrator powers such that they should be removed.

[edit] Protection

Since becoming an admin, Freestylefrappe has used protection 4 times; each one was inappropriate.

Freestylefrappe's protection log

[edit] Evidence presented by Locke Cole

[edit] Freestylefrappe incivil to other Wikipedians

  • 21:24, December 23, 2005 — [112] — Freestylefrappe leaves a short diatribe on WikiFanatic (talk · contribs)'s talk page, and closes with: "Since you will undoubtedly feel a need to express yourself, please post it on my talkpage so I can promptly revert it".

[edit] Evidence presented by CBDunkerson

[edit] Links for evidence presented by Freestylefrappe

Freestylefrappe, feel free to remove these to your own section above if you wish.

  • Second Assertion - 'Reverting copyvios was valid and should not have been blocked under 3RR'
    • Statements suggesting copyvio reverts should not be subject to 3RR blocks: Splash, CBDunkerson, Geni, Zoe, Ceyockey, Alex Bakharev.
    • Bitola was warned to stop posting copyvios twice before block: [113]
    • Note that this edit shows Karmafist was aware of the copyvio issue and warned Bitola to stop it, but did not consider whether that might have been a reason to not block Freestylefrappe. He also made no mention of this potential mitigation when reporting Freestylefrappe on AN/I here & here.
  • Third & Fourth Assertions - 'WP:OWN, evidence removal, and other inflated accusations'
    • Freestylefrappe posts some comments to Talk at his RfC [114]
    • Unjustified accusation of WP:OWN violation: So labelling Freestylefrappe's above mention of having created Kumanovo requires extreme assumption of bad faith -> [115] & [116]
    • Unjustified accusations of 'intimidation': this claim that this was an "attempt to intimidate" seems to transcend 'assumption of bad faith' into 'utterly baseless'. Likewise, this mention of being an admin is repeatedly described as 'intimidation' (item 5) despite that requiring assumption of bad faith and ignoring Freestylefrappe's reasonable explanation to the contrary here.
    • Inflated accusations of RfC content removal: Freestylefrappe explained that the material was removed because he believed it shouldn't have been added after votes had been cast. Even if someone does not agree with that view it was not an unreasonable position... yet no mention of it has been made when the accusation was repeated -> [117] & [118].

[edit] Evidence presented by Ral315

  • I left an outside view on the freestylefrappe RFC, never expecting to get involved any further. (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Freestylefrappe#Outside view by Ral315)
  • freestylefrappe left a comment on my talk page: "Get off my back" ([119])
  • freestylefrappe then listed me as a party in the arbitration. ([120])
  • Without any provocation, I received this additional message on my talk page, threatening me with a block. ([121])
  • I went to respond on freestylefrappe's talk page, which was protected. I decided to officially become a party to this arbitration.

That's pretty much it. I'd like to say I have some damning evidence against freestylefrappe other than civility problems, but it seems other users can speak toward that better than I can. Ral315 (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Bitola

I believe that my constant intention during the Kumanovo dispute was to improve the quality of the article. Those attempts resulted in an edit war with Freestylefrappe. During the edit warring, the following things are worth to be mentioned:

  • I deleted his Violence and Narcotics sections in the Kumanovo article only 3 times (the rest of my edits included his sections as well):[122],[123],[124]
  • On the other side, he deleted my adds to the page 8 times:[125],[126],[127],[128],[129],[130],[131],[132].
  • Actually, only his first 3 reverts reverted my alleged copyvios material, and the rest deleted my no-copyvios, good-faith adds to the Kumanovo article:
  • [133],[134]
  • [135],[136]
  • [137],[138],[139]
  • [140],[141]
  • Here is the evidence that Freestylefrappe was blocked by karmafist for the first time on 13 December 2005, 03:05 h (see [142] block_log) after the following conversation:

[143],[144],[145], and after he violated 3RR rule on undisputedly non-copyvios material: [146],[147],[148] (surplisingly, he continued to delete my adds to the page even after his blocking expiration)

  • During the edit war, I tried several times to calm down the situation but most of the time without success:[149],[150] (eventually, after other users joined the discussion,Freestylefrappe changed his mind and in the last version of the article included all my adds to the page)

I provide the following links that describe, by my opinion, what an administrator certainly shouldn't do during a dispute:

  • [151] Deleting my comments from his talk page
  • [152] Improper reordering of my adds to the page
  • [153] Improperly answering to another user involved in the dispute
  • [154] Improperly answering to another user involved in the dispute
  • [155] Improperly answering to another user involved in the dispute
  • [156] Personal attacks
  • [157] Threatening with his administrative powers

[edit] See also

My view on the dispute presented at the RfC page. --Bitola 11:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Aumakua

freestylefrappe was involved in an edit war with Aldirma Gonul (AG) over the page Bektashi. Here is how I see the events in this war:

  1. AG tried to improve Wikipedia by adding relevant and accurate information about his own faith to the page about it on Wikipedia. [158]
  2. freestylefrappe edited it, essentially gutting AG's contribution because he considered it "racist" [159]
  3. AG tried to discuss it with FSF on his talk page, explaining why it was not racist. [160]
  4. AG re-inserted the gist of his original contribution. [161]
  5. freestylefrappe created a separate page (which amounts to little more than a stub-sized snippet) and moved AG's content there, removing it from the main article [162] (for a reason which I think ignores the fifth pillar of Wikipedia just because there was "no precedent" for it).
  6. AG, with support on the talk page, re-inserted his original contribution. [163]
  7. FSF reverted it [164]
  8. AG reverted it, requesting an explanation why the article had to be split [165]
  9. FSF reverted it without giving any more reason than the reason which had already been rejected by AG before. [166]
  10. AG reverted it, restoring his original contribution, stating that he had asked for a third opinion. [167]
  11. (The request for a third opinion [168] was still sitting there, 20 days later, ignored by the Wikipedia community.)
  12. freestylefrappe failed to assume good faith, and mislabeled AG's continued attempts to restore his original edit, as "vandalism" in a series of reverts (including one that actually did revert some vandalism as a side-effect). [169] [170] [171] [172] [173]
  13. Wilgamesh supported AG on the Bektashi talk page [174], ending "I would like to hear an argument against these lines of evidence from freestylefrappe."
  14. FSF responded with no arguments against those lines of evidence, but instead with an accusation of being a sock puppet on no evidence other than him agreeing with AG, and "If you vandalize this page by reverting you will be blocked. It's just that simple." [175] (As I see it, this threat to block another user as a tactic in an edit war is a mis-use of his admin powers to force the other users to surrender in the edit war, rather than seeking consensus with them, incidentally being uncivil in the threat.)
  15. In anger and frustration, AG left Wikipedia permanently and hasn't been back, and is therefore no longer contributing anything. [176]
  16. I, also a new user, saw the request for a third opinion, and not realizing that AG had already given up in frustration, I decided to help resolve the dispute. After considerable research into the main page, the talk page, the edit histories of those pages, and several off-site pages about the topic of the dispute, I came to a conclusion and made my decision, entering it on the talk page. [177] However, I too had been intimidated by the threats FSF had made against AG, so I didn't actually edit the page myself to make the changes to it that I felt were both justified and necessary -- I left it up to them.
  17. freestylefrappe slammed me on my talk page for not 'consulting' with him, and again mentioned that he had the ability to ban users "permanently" if he felt like it or considered their contributions to be "vandalism". [178] (Knowing that he considered things to be vandalism which clearly were not, and not caring to be banned permanently myself, I suggested taking the dispute to the next level of dispute resolution, mediation, hopefully leaving me out of it. My comment about freestylefrappe's reputation as a fair-minded admin was spoken in irony, since I strongly doubted he had such a reputation.
  18. In looking in on the Bektashi dispute weeks later to see whether my effort in the case had made any difference, I saw that absolutely nothing had been done, because AG had left in frustration, and FSF had completely ignored the 'third opinion' in the dispute (thus wasting the time I had spent on it). In trying to determine whether I was allowed, expected, required, or prohibited to take any action such as editing the page myself, I followed links and did some searches and came across a discussion about revoking freestylefrappe's admin power. I strongly support such an action.

As a new user, if I have failed to present this evidence in the correct manner, I ask that you AGF and please don't bite me for it, just let me know what I need to fix up. Aumakua 09:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC) (I have hopefully supplied all the necessary diffs in the proper manner; updated 23:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Comments on freestylefrappe's evidence

He says "This is actually not a dispute at all, but a group effort to seek revenge for my voting against their RFAs." Without speaking for anyone else, I'd like to point out that there is no cabal that I am aware of, and I am certainly no part of one. I have never had an RFA (I am assuming it's a request for administrator powers?) for him to vote against, nor did I even know that anyone shared my opinion of Freestylefrappe's abuse of admin powers until I went looking to see if he had complied with my 3rd opinion ruling in the Bektashi dispute. Aumakua 20:06, 28 December 2005

[edit] Evidence presented by Moe Epsilon

I would like to add on to what Locke Cole said above. Freestylefrappe does tend to violate the WP:CIVIL policy a lot. I tried several times to honestly just talk to him on his talk page, to him to mass delete every comment on his talk page saying removing all comments-too stupid for me to archive. Then posting the following message which he called the warning to morons, it said:

stupid/moronic comments
If you violate the above stipulations I shall mock you/dishonor your familial dynasty with the test1 template. Further violations shall result in the posting of the test2, test3, and test4 templates. This is sooo not a joke.

He also mentions above in Freestylefrappe's evidence that I had a temper tantrum over my RFA. True as it may seem, it wasn't a tantrum, Im bipolar. Even though I have apologized many times for this he still seems to hold something against me and brings the incident up every chance he gets. See:Freestylefrappe's evidence to hear him bring it up again.

He says being bipolar is no excuse to my reactions. I seem to disagree on that point considering he probably doesn't know what being bipolar is. He says on my RFA that: one thing that we should learn on my RFA is that we shouldn't blindly vote in support of everyone. He goes on to say I should retire my user name and restart from scratch and said if I apply for adminship again, no one would vote for me.

Another point of his uncivility is the message he posted earlier on this page:
Any user who vandalizes Kumanovo again will be blocked for a week.

He seems to have a high temper around certain situations, like that one. Also this one:
Any user who uses the term Boothyesque will be warned for personal attacks. This warning includes all users, no one is above the law no matter how much you lie or misportray my actions.

It worries me that someone with such a high temper tends to write messages as such.

This evidence is just from the view point from me. This was the only real evidence I had to show but it does show he lacks in the area of being civil on Wikipedia and make personal attacks in his edit summaries. But, I also went threw the contributions of Freestylefrappe to discover he has done this a lot on his time on Wikipedia, I am strongly disappointed in Freestylefrappe in the decision's he's made as admin. — Moe ε 09:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by BorgHunter

  • Incivility directed towards me on my own talk page: [179] (My own adminship had never been brought up by either of us before that, and I never questioned his oppose vote.)
  • Blanks his own UT page, again: [180]

—BorgHunter alt (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by LawAndOrder

[edit] Freestylefrappe unjustly blocks a user under libellous pretenses

  • [181] My edits clearly show that I have never vandalized. I have even reverted vandalism.
  • [182][183] Pgio's edits show that the only user talk page upon which he criticized William M Connolley within the past few days is my own talk page, in which he basicly reaffirmed what we both acknowledge.
  • 19:08, 14 January 2006 - [184] Freestylefrappe blocks Pgio for 24 hours under the libellous false accusations that myself and Pgio are likely sockpuppets of eachother, that I am a 'known vandal', and that Pgio made a personal attack on William M Connolley, who is Freestylefrappe's POV ally [185]. Personal attacks are meant to create or change beliefs, and my beliefs were clearly already in agreement with Pgio.

[edit] Evidence presented by Mackensen

[edit] Incivility and unsubstantiated accusations

  • [186] Freestylefrappe changes his vote on my arbcom nomination to oppose (which is fine) and implies in strong terms that I used a sockpuppet to vandalize his user page.
  • [187] [188] [189] Attempts to clarify his accusations are met with a blank talk page.
  • [190] Concerned that he was going to leave his accusation/personal attack sitting there without actually following up, I filed the CheckUser request myself, and it's working its way through the system. Prior to this, my only interaction with Freestylefrappe was in connection with his dispute with Jeffrey O. Gustafson. I made a few remarks on the noticeboard, and was also the user who informed FSF that the discussion was on-going: [191]. Thanks for your time. Mackensen (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)