Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Freestylefrappe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:39, December 14, 2005), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Freestylefrappe has been incivil and attempted to game the system in his role as an administrator.

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

I was asked to step in by Creidieki (talk · contribs) at Kumanovo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) during a content dispute between Freestylefreappe and a few other editors. Many of Freestylefrappe's edits were in good faith at first,[1][2], and his intentions in the edits seemed to be good faith, but how he approached other editors went down from there.

He also blocked a new user for a single page-blanking, without warning or discussion. In the course of being asked about this, he made accusations of other users, made false statements and misquoted policy to suit his views, then eventually asserted that he did not see the point in following blocking policy.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. [3] This content here went back and forth between Freestylefrappe and Bitola (talk · contribs) a few times, although there isn't any real reason to show it over and over because ultimately, all that concerns me with this here is that it becomes the basis for his confrontational behavior later.
  2. [4] Content conflict continues. FSF calls other edit "nonsense" in edit summary. This is the first in his 3RR vio seen here.
  3. [5] He insults Bitola on the talk page
  4. [6] He calls asbestos (talk · contribs) lazy, and says he will start an rfc on me because he believes I have a grudge against him.
  5. [7] Belittles Bunchofgrapes (talk · contribs) comments with an attempt to intimidate him with his admin status in order to add weight to his side of the argument. Edit Summary is "Cut the BS"
  6. [8] Threatens me while blocked from his IP Address.
    [9] incorrectly insults me here.
    [10]Anon edits again changing his mind over what the problem is. At the page, it was copyvios, not it's the poor editing skills of those who disagree with him.
  7. [11] Loses temper on his talk page apparently(edit summary is in all caps) about something as small as section naming.
  8. [12] FSF turns his user page into an attack page against all those he has a grudge with apparently, which he copies below here on this rfc.
  9. [13],[14]Talk Page Section On The Issue FSF blocks a newcomer, Stephenj (talk · contribs) without warning for a large blanking.
  10. [15] Assumes bad faith in regards to Stephenj (talk · contribs) to SCZenz (talk · contribs)

[edit] Conduct during this RfC

  1. [16] FSF attempts to intimidate SCZenz into withdrawing his findings at this rfc.
  2. [17] Removes a Wikipedia policy from the applicable policies section of this page, calling it "nonsense".
  3. [18] Threatens to block another user over an alleged procedural error during his own RFC
  4. [19] Blocks 70.178.69.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for 48 hours on 16 December; anon has had one edit since 6 December and his first, last, and only warning was on 4 December.

[edit] Detail on Stephenj

Since it's been raised, I will thrown in a detailed description of my conversation with Freestylefrappe with regard to the Stephenj. I think it indicates a serious misunderstanding on the part of Freestylefrappe of a number of Wikipedia policies and the role of administrators, which I think must be corrected, hopefully voluntarily. -- SCZenz 21:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • 04:17, 15 December 2005 - [20] - Bunchofgrapes asks Freestylefrappe about a user he has blocked. The user is Stephenj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). It should be noted that Stephenj is a new user, who appears to have made some legitimate contributions in addition to an incident of page blanking, such as uploading an image, placing it in the relevant article, and fixing an error he'd made in the image name. Freestylefrappe did not give any warnings or information on Stephenj's talk page, either before or after the block.
  • 8:27, 15 December 2005 - [21] - Freestylefrappe replies with the statement that Stephenj's edits were "all vandalism", and accuses Bunchesofgrapes of "following him" because of the previous dispute.
  • 18:49, 15 December 2005 - [22] - I reply 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, 15 December 2005 - [23] - Freestylefrappe replies, saying he'll look into Stephenj's contributions. He also makes some accusations regarding Bunchofgrapes
  • 19:10, 15 December 2005 - [24] - I reply with a clarification of Stephenj's edits, and concerns about his accusations. I say I'll look into the dispute if he provides info
  • 19:19, 15 December 2005 - [25] - I note that he's commented at his RFC, promise to look into it, and express concern about his attitudes toward a user's fitness to edit because of alleged grammatical errors.
  • 19:23, 15 December 2005 - [26] - He replies, asserting that vandals do not need to be warned.
  • 19:33, 15 December 2005 - [27] - I reply, noting that they do according to Wikipedia:Blocking policy
  • 19:38, 15 December 2005 - [28] - he replies, with a partial quote from blocking policy that is misleading. He also states, "StephenJ is a stepup from an anon. He has no talkpage and no userpage."
  • 19:44, 15 December 2005 - [29] - I reply, giving the full quote and noting that it says he should have warned Stephenj. I also suggest he review WP:BITE in regard to the comment quoted above.
  • 19:52, 15 December 2005 - [30] - he replies, saying he doesn't see the need to warn vandals and saying "I doubt he'll ever edit under that account again."
  • 20:02, 15 December 2005 - [31] - I state I am concerned about his views of administrator discretion over policies, and ask him to read WP:AGF as well as WP:BITE.

[edit] Bitola's view on the Kumanovo dispute

I would like to present my opinion about the dispute. In the past period I was trying to improve the quality of the article about the Macedonian town of Kumanovo. I was irritated by the version of the article I met for the first time, because it included only three sections: one with short description of the town and two sections with unpleasant content: Violence and Narcotics. I decided to improve the image of the town and to add good-faith materials to the article. In the following period a complicated dispute raised between me and User:Freestylefrappe (later, other users joined the discussion as well). The dispute resulted in an edit war around the article content. During the dispute I was accused for vandalism, inserting copyvios into the article, using a sloppy and ungrammatical language, adding nonsense to the page and using sock puppetry.

  • About the copyvios, I admit that my first additions to the page used material from the Kumanovo official website, but I also included an external link to that source (if I was trying to use intentionally copyrighted material I would not expose my source). FSF sections about Violence and Narcotics were also taken from the Christopher Deliso’s article in Antiwar.com and he included the source of the info in the same manner as I did, as an external link.
  • My English is probably not so good because it is not my native language, but I believe that Wikipedia allows people that have an intermediate level of English language knowledge to contribute in article editing.
  • I have been constantly accused of using sock puppetry. That is not true. Nonetheless, during my block I anonymously did some corrections in the Kumanovo article, but that couldn’t be a proof of sock puppetry. I disagree that someone is my sock puppet only because he was using the same IP address as I did. I discussed the Kumanovo dispute to some of my colleagues and friends here and it is very likely that somebody used the same IP address as me in order to join the discussion.
  • I strongly believe that my adds to the page were not nonsense by all means, because I tried to add info about the Kumanovo’s important monuments, geography, climate, history, roads and tourist attractions.

Here is my view on the history of the events:

  • 8 January 2005, 21:30 - FSF (FreestyleFrappe) added the article about Kumanovo. It contained three paragraphs: Introduction, Violence and Narcotics.
  • Next five edits of the page were only minor changes
  • [32] 22 May 2005, 21:04 - FSF correctly reverted the country official name
  • [33] 22 May 2005, 21:04 - FSF again correctly removed vandalism on the page
  • [34] 12 November 2005, 03:15 – 203.122.97.13 introduced an apparent commercial into the page
  • [35] 23 November 2005, 20:12 – Believing that the sections: Violence and Narcotics shouldn’t be present in Kumanovo’s official page, I removed those sections and inserted info related to the city's history and culture monuments. I also noted the source of the info through an external link (official page of the city). I was guided by the fact that FSF’s Narcotics and Violence sections are taken from the Christopher Deliso's writing for Antiwar.com, because he also noted that as an external link.
  • [36] 23 November 2005, 20:24 – I added the Economy section
  • [37] 23 November 2005, 22:53 – FSF reverted to the previous version, completely removing all my additions to the page, without any explanation.
  • [38] 23 November 2005, 23:44 – FSF blocked me 24 hours without any warning with the reason: deleting content and adding copyvios to various pages
  • [39] 24 November 2005, 08:47 – I reverted to my version with the following edit summary: Please don't put things like drugs, narcotics and violence in the page for this beautiful macedonian city.
  • [40] 24 November 2005, 08:50 – User:Akamad reverted to the FSF version
  • [41] 24 November 2005, 19:42 – I reverted to my version, but also I gave up on removing his Violence and Narcotics sections. I thought that I was expressing good will with that and that he would let me info to the page. My edit summary was: OK FreestyleFrappe, I will leave your "violence" texts, yet I'm not sure why it is so important to you to have only bombs, blood and killing in an article for a normal town like Kumanovo
  • [42] 8 December 2005, 02:00 – A period of half a month passed and I believed that the things were settled, but FSF reverted back to his version with the edit summary: rv to last version at 22:53, I previously reverted yet my reversion seems to have inexplicably disappeared....anon c & p'd a copyvio
  • [43] 12 December 2005, 07:43 – I reverted to my version noting that his version is unacceptable
  • [44] 12 December 2005, 17:28 – FSF reverted back his version
  • [45] 12 December 2005, 18:19 – FSF blocked me for 48 hours with reason personal attacks, reverting to copyvios
  • [46] 12 December 2005, 21:34 – I again reverted my version, AGAIN leaving his sections with the edit summary: Now there are no copyvios by my side. I’m stressing the fact that for the second time I was accepting his sections and only adding the new ones.
  • [47] 12 December 2005, 22:32 – FSF again removed my adds with the edit summary: rv. posting nonsense is not a substitute for copyvio
  • [48] 13 December 2005, 00:13 – Other users are beginning to notice the dispute. User:Glenn Willen corrected the article with the following edit summary: Revert good faith edits removed without consensus by freestylefrappe -- please see talk page. If they are removed, I don't intend to revert again.
  • [49] 13 December 2005, 02:38 – FSF didn’t accept that and reverted to his version with the edit summary: rv – self explanatory
  • [50] 13 December 2005, 03:05 – Several administrators blocked FSF with reason: vio on Kumanovo plus several NPA vios, including one while blocked from an IP
  • [51] 13 December 2005, 11:20 – User:Macedon5 reverted the previous version with the edit summary: Reverting to the Bitola's version, FreestyleFrappe is vandalizing the article
  • [52] 13 December 2005, 17:29 – User:Glenn Willen reverted to the previous version with the edit summary: Please, don't remove other people's contributions! If you have a dispute about the article, please, PLEASE _discuss_ it on the talk page. Don't just revert the article until this has been discussed!
  • [53] 13 December 2005, 18:41 – While FSF was blocked, I tried to calm down the situation, saying that I’m accepting his sections, but also I hope that he will leave mine as well.
  • [54] 14 December 2005, 21:01 – FSF, after his unblocking expiration, AGAIN removed all my adds, with edit summary: cleanup and restoration
  • [55] 15 December 2005, 13:20 – I added more good-faith material to the page that included: Geography and climate, Road connections, History, Kumanovo tourist attractions and again LEFT his sections
  • [56] 15 December 2005, 20:25 – FSF removed all my additions, leaving only a few sentences, but in inappropriate sections.
  • [57] 15 December 2005, 21:43 - I asked him why he was doing that in the discussion page: His answer was: what are you talking about? All I did was correct grammar.
  • [58] 15 December 2005, 20:55 – I reverted to the previous version that included my new adds as well as his previous sections.
  • [59] 15 December 2005, 21:44 – FSF again reverted to his version
  • [60] 15 December 2005, 21:50 – User:Flcelloguy protected the page
  • [61] 17 December 2005, 02:43 – FSF unprotected the page
  • [62] 18 December 2005, 13:04 – FSF started to add my info to the article and I put a comment in the discussion page regarding the positive development of the situation
  • [63] 18 December 2005, 17:14 – In his next five edits (this it the last one), FSF added all my info to the article

--Bitola 20:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:CIVIL
  2. WP:3RR
  3. WP:NPA
  4. Wikipedia:Blocking policy
  5. WP:OWN

[edit] Applicable guidelines

  1. WP:BITE
  2. WP:AGF

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [64]
  2. [65]
  3. [66]
  4. [67]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. karmafist 04:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. SCZenz 21:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (with regard to banning of Stephenj and appropriate response to questions, not with regard to original edit war)
  4. User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 06:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. --Sean|Black 22:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. —Locke Cole 21:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jbamb 05:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. — Moe ε 06:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Stifle 20:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Over the past few days several users, 2 of whom are administrators on Wikipedia, engaged in deceit and arbitrary blocking. They lied in order to create an atmosphere of mistrust and tried desperately to hide the truth. Here are the indisputable facts:

January 8
November 23
November 24
December 8
  • I reverted Bitola's vandalism with the edit summary: "rv to last version at 22:53, I previously reverted yet my reversion seems to have inexplicably disappeared....anon c & p'd a copyvio"
December 12
December 13
At some point after Asbestos decided to lengthen my block.

Macedon5 was never warned for his personal attacks.

Throughout this entire ordeal I was accused of breaking the 3RR. Originally I thought the arguing over my actions was over once Bunchofgrapes explained my actions (emphasis added):

"Attempted summary of the history I'm just trying to understand. I've dug a little into the history. Bitola's original changes on Nov 23 here (with the edit summary of "Don't put things like narcotics and violence!!!") were clearly a copyright-violating dump of this page. His later changes, at least until Dec 12, also largely dumped text from that same page. Freestylefrappe's reversions seem to make sense up to here. The Dec 12 change [1] by 62.162.225.230 (with summary "Bitola:Now there are no copyvios by my side") appears to add "History" and "Cultural Monuments" sections to the existing contents, leaving the others (including "Violence" and "Narcotics" alone.) For reasons unclear to me, Freestylefrappe then reverted these additions with the comment "rv. posting nonsense is not a substitute for copyvio.". [2] I'm not sure why the new content was "nonsense", though I very much want to believe I am missing something. At that point, Glenn Willen and Creidieki started reverting the article back to the state before Freestylefrappe's revert. Freestylefrappe has the last edit right now, edit summary "rv self-explanatory." Freestylefrappe, it isn't. Please fill us in. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)"

The later reverts removed the nonsense Bitola added. Bitola's edits were sloppy and ungrammatical. If Bitola does not speak English he should not edit English Wikipedia.

Later on, when questioned, BunchofGrapes seems to change his stance:

"That's simply not true. Vandalism must be manifestly bad-faith. See Wikipedia:Vandalism. Slapping in some copied text from a web page is not manifestly bad-faith: some people don't know it isn't permitted. Even if you, from a past history, believe Bitola knew and understood copyright rules, that still does not make it "simple vandalism", removable without regard to 3RR. Simple vandalism is obvious on its face and does not require further research, neither into the origins of the text added during the edit nor into the motivations of the editor adding it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)"

As the earlier evidence shows, anyone can see that Bitola's edits were bad-faith. He deleted content he disagreed with. As for the erroneos claim that he was unaware that what he was doing was wrong, I would suggest looking at User talk:Bitola where he repeatedly accused me of adding copyvios. Unfortunately it was conveniently, mysteriously deleted, most likely by Karmafist...Now it seems to be back...I dont understand what is going on with this page... Fortunately, Bitola's edit summaries on Kumanovo can still be seen, and Criedieki's comment about not adding copyvios on Talk:Kumanovo remains.

Throughout this entire time, the word of an administrator was considered less reliable than the word of three anonymous users, and three registered users, none of whom have been here long enough to have a userpage. Now I have to deal with harassment by BunchofGrapes.

I am requesting that Karmafist have his blocking privileges temporarily revoked until he can demonstrate good-faith.

Recently, another user stated in another (not sure how related to this) incident- "In particular, the notion that contributions should be thrown out simply because they're not well-written is entirely contrary to how Wikipedia works" This statement is not at all true. If users only engage in sloppiness then their edits are incorrect. There's a difference between starting an article to the best of one's ability and messing up existing articles by dumping text.

[edit] Personal attacks against me - conveniently ignored

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. freestylefrappe 19:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

[edit] Outside view by Evilphoenix

First, I'm going to discuss some issues with the content dispute, and attempt to explain certain aspects of the content dispute as I understand them:

Freestylefrappe asserts under the November 23rd section of his response that "Bitola deleted content with the edit summary: "Don't put things like narcotics and violence!!!".", and links to [68] this edit, however this link is not in fact a diff but is a comparison between this edit from anon 212.124.247.77 (talk · contribs) and this edit from Bitola, skipping over this edit from Bitola, which does contain the edit summary "Don't put things like narcotics and violence!!!". Bitola's first edit [69] adds a significant amount of text, but I can find no evidence that this added text is a copyvio of an external website, though that does not eliminate the possibility of a potential copyvio from a non-Internet source in this edit. This edit also removes a significant portion of text, which is problematic. The next edit [70] adds some more text, which again I can find no evidence of a copyvio of Internet sources with this text (edit:Other users have since pointed out to me where the copyvio was of, so this too is a problem with Bitola's first edits, however I also note that there was no mention of the copyvio issue on the Talk page until December 13th, after Bitola had already posted an allegedly non-copyvio version to the page, which Freestylefrappe was nonetheless continuing to revert). However the text is in a poorly written, halting style, and is clearly written by an author whose native tongue is not English, however that in and of itself is not neccesarily a problem. Freestylefrappe and Bitola continue to edit war, and then Bitola reverts with an edit that leaves in the sections he opposes, [71] (comparison between Freestylefrappe's last revision and Bitola's version), but also removes significant content from the Economy section, which is problematic.

Freestylefrappe asserts in his response under December 12 that Bitola reverted, with the Description "He reverted back to his version.", linking to this revision. However, this is incorrect, the edit was not in fact a reversion but an attempt to remove the copyright issue, which we see by comparing that reversion by Bitola to the 2nd revision back, immediately before Freestylefrappe's reversion: [72]. As far as I can tell, this edit by Bitola does not have any copyvios, does not remove Freestylefrappe's content or remove the interwiki links, which were problems in previous edits by Bitola. This new revision by Bitola was reverted by Freestylefrappe, which Glenn Willen reverted: [73], which was then reverted by Freestylefrappe, which was reverted by Creidieki, at which point we have the first block enacted by Karmafist against Freestylefrappe.

There are a lot of things that are simply getting out of hand here. Bitola is a new user who does not understand Wikipedia policy and practice, but who was I believe attempting in good faith to add valid information to the article. However, Bitola also removed content and useful wikilinks. This is all basically a complicated content dispute that could have and should have had a better conflict resolution approach on the Talk page. All of the above occured before there was any discussion on the Talk page. Based on the evidence provided, my feeling is that Freestylefrappe does not have a firm grasp on Wikipedia policy and practice, nor does he have a good sense of appropriate use of his Administrator tools. Threatening to use Administrative tools in a content dispute is unacceptable. His repeated mentions of his status as an Administrator is intimidating and unneccesary, one's Administrator status need not be mentioned or discussed while engaged as an active participant in a content dispute. His response to a reasonable inquiry on a block on new user Stephenj was also very inflammatory and innappropriate for an Administrator, and the block itself was not needed, and for too long. Bitola has spoken harshly to Freestylefrappe and made some personal attacks, however there has been a loss of patience and a general lack of civility on both sides of this dispute. In such situations, I feel that the onus for civility should rest with the Administrator. Administrators are users who have successfully passed a peer review and have achieved some level of consensus that they should represent that community as an Administrator. As such, Administrators should be users who are above average in the strength of their contributions, their understanding and application of policy and consensus, and their civility and politeness in dealing with conflict. Freestylefrappe has not achieved that standard in his actions during this situation.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. karmafist 07:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Excellent summary, Phoenix. karmafist 07:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. —Locke Cole 07:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. I will note that I may be biased due to freestylefrappe's recent unexplained no vote in my recent RFA, but I endorse this summary. —Simetrical (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. delldot | talk 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by CBDunkerson

I've been trying not to get involved in this case, but a couple of important facts seem to be getting lost.

  1. As stated on the Talk: Kumanovo page, the copyrighted material clearly came from here.
  2. Also, this shows that Bitola used a sockpuppet to get around a block and voice support for 'Bitola' against Freestylefrappe's 'vandalism'.

I don't disagree that Freestylefrappe handled this badly (and could have explained his position alot better), but that ought to be considered in its proper context. Neither reverting copyrighted material nor giving Bitola a short block for repeatedly posting such was inappropriate. The hostile attitude and continuing to revert after the copyrighted material was removed were incorrect, but not particularly egregious. There's even some question whether he ought to have been blocked for 3RR violation given that the first of the four was a reversion to remove copyrighted material. Freestylefrappe has acknowledged that his statements and attitude were at points inappropriate (as were those of others)... is there really any more to this than that? He ought not to be hostile in discussions, he should explain his positions better (with links), and he shouldn't act based on assumptions about people being sock-puppets... while he turned out to be correct about that he didn't know it at the time. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I was asked about my view on the User:Stephenj situation. Basically, more of the same... Freestylefrappe should have assumed good faith on Stephenj's part and been less hostile in his interactions thereafter. It looks like Stephenj was just trying to perform a 'redirect' from National Democratic Institute for International Affairs to NDI, but wasn't familiar with Wikipedia practice in that regard and thus 'blanked' the article by replacing it with a statement to go to NDI for information... in truth the two articles are clearly on the same subject and ought to be merged.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. CBD ☎ ✉ 12:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. freestylefrappe 17:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Radiant

This RFC is entirely too verbose, and whatever facts may be in there are obscured within the lengthy diatribes. Somebody should state plainly and simply what the issue actually is, with an example or two. Until and unless that is done, this is indistinguishable from a lengthy POV rant. Radiant_>|< 15:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Concurring opinion...the point, as it were, does seem to get lost in the verbiage. DolphinCompSci 07:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Ral315

I'm not sure about freestylefrappe's conduct as above. But freestylefrappe's RFA voting is completely erratic and unfounded:

  • 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)"

The first was opposition solely on the user's name, which he perceived to be "negative". The second and third are because the user accepted his own self-nomination; however, this has not been disallowed; in fact, I count approximately 10 administrators created in the last 10 days who accepted their own self-noms. It's certainly freestylefrappe's prerogative to vote support or oppose, but I would like it if a decent reason for doing so can be given.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Ral315 (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Yeah, I've noticed this for months now. Boothyesque... Redwolf24 (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. freestylefrappe 12:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. WikiFanatic 05:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. I hadn't been commenting here due to possible bias, actually, because of exactly that. In my failed RFA, Freestylefrappe voted against me with no reason stated. I would have failed anyway, but nevertheless, I'll chip in on this score. It also might be instructive to look at this—others have been having the same problem as I did. —Simetrical (talk) 06:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

    Of course, just a disclaimer: all Wikipedians are allowed to vote however they want for any reason they want on RFAs. But there is a certain point where the reasonableness of the vote has to be questioned, I think, and opposing all self-nominations regardless of qualifications does seem to be pretty clearly against the spirit of the RFA rules, even if within its letter. —Simetrical (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

  6. —Locke Cole 06:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Zocky

After reading User:Izehar's comments about the Daniel Brandt affair, I voted oppose at WP:RFA#Izehar and changed to strong oppose after it became clear that his ideas about adminship and dealing with opposing opinions are very different from mine (see the discussion which is now moved to the talk page [74], although I have asked Izehar to put it back [75]).

Freestylefrappe came in and added the following vote: [76]

  1. Support Zocky clearly has it in for this user. You should always annoy at least one troll before being considered for adminship. freestylefrappe 00:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Since I have never noticed this user before, and disregarding the peculiar adminship criterion, I assumed that he simply missed the relevant discussion, and left a message on his talk page to that effect [77]. Freestylefrappe responded by removing my and other comments about his conduct on Wikipedia from his talk page with the edit summary: removing all comments-too stupid for me to archive [78].

When an anon or a newbie does that, we revert, warn, and if nothing else helps, block. I'm astounded to learn on this page that this user is an admin.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Zocky 03:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Well said. freestylefrappe 04:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. WikiFanatic 05:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. —Locke Cole 06:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by WikiFanatic

Freestylefrappe has always struck me as...unfit to be an admin, per all this. Freestylefrappe opposed my rfa on the grounds that I was a very bad user, and was not trustable. Later, after being asked by me and Karmafist what the reasoning behind the vote was, as all we could find of me related to Freestylefrappe was an oppose on his rfa and asking him in my old, failed self nom why you "needed 1,000 edits to become an admin", as he said. However, after being unable to find the "wikistrikeout" stuff, he pulled the vote from my rfa. He's also opposed W.marsh's rfa "per Zordrac", even though Zordrac was asked to cite his sources for saying that he bad "bad run-ins with this user", referring to W.marsh. Zordrac and Freestylefrappe were both asked where the sources of the "bad run-ins" could be found, and examples were never given by either user. As of right now, I'm not sure whether the run-ins actually existed or not. Freestylefrappe also opposed Jacoplane's rfa per "short answers to questions" and "a lack of effort". I've seen people oppose (including my rfa) for short question answers, but here it just seems like Freestylefrappe's trying desperately to find a reason to oppose. Something that also confused me was that Freestylefrappe told me he'd support my rfa since I have 1,000 edits now (I have about 1,500 counting my edits as WikiFan04). Confusingly enough, though, he strongly opposed my rfa just a short while later. I had no interactions with this user (Freestylefrappe) in the period of time when he said "I'll support at 1,000 now" and strongly opposing me. I'm confused.

Also, from my talk page, he thinks all I want is attention. This shows bad conduct for a user, especially an admin.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. WikiFanatic 05:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Rob Church

I'm disturbed to see the reports of administrator abuse, but I'm disturbed even more by the pile-on. Slap on the wrist to User:Freestylefrappe who may have been promoted too soon; please keep calm during content disputes.

Having said that, it should be remembered that the best of us cock up at times; I've done it, as have several commenting here. I don't see how this kind of stupid pile-on helps us build an encyclopedia. What is desysopping Freestylefrappe going to do to help us?

The initial user could do with a friendly hand to help him through this; he's no doubt feeling very confused and perhaps embarassed. Someone volunteer to do that. The rest of you, back off, and grow up.

[edit] Users endorsing this summary

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.