Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Freestylefrappe

I'd like to point out a few things.

• 3/4 of the attempts to resolve the conflict came after I was blocked.
• I created Kumanovo
• My question on the Kumanovo talk page regarding whether another user was aware that I was an admin was not an attempt to intimidate him. If I wanted to block him I would have done so. I was trying to find out why my word was second to a bunch of vandalizing anons.
• The "personal attacks" I participated in are what exactly?
• I acknowledge I violated WP:CIVIL but not the other 2 policies
• freestylefrappe 20:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why you won't acknowledge you violated 3RR. Here's the diffs—

1. 09:28, December 12, 2005
2. 14:32, December 12, 2005
3. 16:39, December 12, 2005
4. 18:38, December 12, 2005

You used rollback on the third revert, but that still counts against your 3RR tally. It should probably go without saying, but you shouldn't use rollback on an article you contribute to (or are in a content dispute on). I don't know that it's written down as policy that this is a bad idea, but in order to avoid the appearance of abuse of power, you just shouldn't do it. —Locke Cole 20:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to unravel the continued misportrayal of the facts:

Under the disputed behaviour section:

• Number 3 says that I insulted Bitola. While I was being uncivil I never insulted him in any way.
• Number 4 is a fact and is completely legitimate. Whats your point?
• Number 5 states that I "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" This is of course a lie as if I had wanted him to intimidate him I would have just blocked him. Or actually threatened him. My question was genuine.
• The first two parts of number 6 are complete lies. In the third part I am referred to as an "Anon". I wonder how long they've had this misconception. I also never changed my mind. The other users just changed their tactics.
• Number 7 is a misconception. I didnt lose my temper and thats my decision. So why is it even listed here? Exactly what policy did I violate by that edit or that edit summary?
• Number 8 is ofcourse BS.

• You cannot add to the evidence after other users have signed their support for a view so SCzenz's edits should be reverted. I'll go ahead and leave them anyway. They just hammer down my earlier points. freestylefrappe 22:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • According to my understanding, adding evidence was appropriate. The other people who certified the dispute are aware of the conversation (Karmafist noted it in points 9 and 10, and Bunchesofgrapes added to it)--just to be sure, I will leave them all messages drawing attention to my edits so they can change things if they think appropriate. I admit what I added is tangential to the original dispute. Thus if requested, I will remove it and file an additional RfC, but that would just add to bureaucracy. -- SCZenz 22:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I have notified all users who'd previously certified/endorsed the dispute summary, as promised. [1], [2], [3] -- SCZenz 22:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you respond to my question about your 3RR violation; I provided 4 diffs demonstrating your 3RR violation, I'd like to hear why you think it's not a 3RR violation. —Locke Cole 22:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Diffs in response section, please

Right now things are pretty convoluted with all the evidence for this issue. I've taken a look at Karmafists evidence, and now I would like to take a look at Freestylefrappe's evidence. Freestylefrappe, can you please provide diffs in your response? It would be helpful to see the specific edits in question that you would like to show, rather than simply stating them to have happened, it's easier if you have a specific diff linked than to go searching through various edit histories trying to get things straightened out. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Diffs would definitely help your response Freestylefrappe. —Locke Cole 22:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Just in case it isn't clear out there

The issue i've seen here isn't the content espoused, but rather the behavior of FSF. karmafist 00:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense? - request for clarification from Freestylefrappe

Hi Freestylefrappe,

Can we have a clarification of why you removed an applicable Wikipedia policy from this page here? What did you mean by calling WP:OWN nonsense? -- SCZenz 21:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not at all applicable. This is a personal attack and you know it. You should also be aware that you cannot add on policies once people have started signing. This would create a misconception that you were trying to alter what people agreed to which would warrant a blocking. freestylefrappe 21:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I just reviewed the (rather minimal) rules on RFC's, and I can't find any evidence that adding new information about the issue at hand is inappropriate. Can you please include a link to the relevant page? I'd also note that the issue at hand, as far as I'm concerned, is fundamentally your misunderstanding and abuse of administrator privileges--threatening to block people who you think have inadvertently misued the RFC process is a perfect example of that. -- SCZenz 22:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Stop trying to intimidate him please. If those of us who have signed that section feel the changes are not warranted, we will unsign it. If anyone needs to be blocked here, you have modified the statement of dispute in CLEAR violation of the procedural rules of Requests for comment. I would suggest you let things proceed according to the rules without trying to cause more trouble for yourself, but it's really none of my business if that's what you want. User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 22:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe, I think WP:OWN has been cited here (perhaps among other reasons) because of your statement [4] "I created Kumanovo" under "I'd like to point out a few things" in the first comment on this talk page. Perhaps I and others misinterpreted what you meant by this; it sounded to me like a claim that, as the creator of the page, you have special privileges toward it. Could you clarify? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You all seem to be in this fantasy land in which reverting is the only tactic I could have used to get the page version I wanted. Has it occured to any of you that I could have just protected the page after the first edit by Bitola? Why dont you just concede the block was wrong? By the way, Glenn, as noble a statement as that may be, its not a user's responsibility to go back and see if another user modified an RFC. So I really should revert all edits on the RFC to my last version. Ill refrain though. Its a testament to your misunderstanding of how an RFC works. freestylefrappe 23:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)