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)

Does anyone here actually dispute anything I said? freestylefrappe 23:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly: I dispute that copyright violations are always "vandalism", and that the ones here are. I dispute that "Bitola does not speak English" and I take exception to your statement "if Bitola does not speak English he should not edit English Wikipedia." I dispute that Bitola's edits were clearly bad faith. I dispute in the strongest possible terms that I have harassed you.

As far as diffs go, I believe you are hesitant to provide them because you will then show people that your way of handling a content dispute is to revert with comments like [4] "rv. posting nonsense is not a substitute for copyvio" (where the content reverted was not nonsense in any sense of the word) and [5] "rv self-explanatory" (where it was not).

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell if I dispute your claims when you leave them as just that: claims. You need to provide diffs (that is, evidence) that what you're claiming is true. —Locke Cole 02:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute many of your facts, when they are stated clearly and with diffs, but I disagree with virtually all of your interpretation. I don't think I need go through the list at the moment—that's what the main page of the RfC is for. What we need now, I think, is outside opinions. -- SCZenz 08:33, 17 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 [6] "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)

FSF, statements like the above are the only reason there's any problem at all except for not working with others in regards to the Kumanovo situation to avoid future problems. Please, stop digging yourself a deeper hole. This'll all not be a problem if you just stop comments like that one and the others that have been presented as evidence. karmafist 00:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Freestylefrappe, you're not the only admin here you know. If you think all the rest of us are abusing the system, there's always Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Get some consensus that this RFC is unfair and we'll stop. Failing that, stop using constant reminders of your administrator buttons as a hammer; you could have protected the page technically, but it's not appropriate to do it over a content disagreement you're involved in, so it's good that you didn't. If you're gonna keep making assertions about how RFC's work, back them up with a link to instructions or guidelines. -- SCZenz 02:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"over a content disagreement"- I suggest you read the name of each subsection on this page. Then you'll understand my point. Please read what I say instead of ranting. freestylefrappe 03:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

We are reading what you're saying, but again, you're not helping us by providing diffs for us to examine, and therefore we have no evidence that represents your point of view. Please work on adding some diffs to your discussion on the RfC page. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok it looks like you've got some diffs added. I'm going to work on taking a look at them. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"Personal attacks against me - conveniently ignored"

I clicked both links. The only thing I see is a reversion where he says you're vandalizing the article, and a comment on a talk page where he says you're vandalizing an article. Maybe I have a screwed up view of what makes a personal attack, but making an allegation of vandalism isn't it. As to the rest of your reply, I'm still not seeing the part where you justify your 3RR violation. Seriously, you need to address this a lot better than saying "No I didn't, look what he did!". I'd begin by providing more diffs, especially at the point where you start quoting people verbatim. If the quotes come from diffs you provide earlier, I'd suggest reorganizing your response so it's in chronological order. —Locke Cole 07:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Correction

Freestylefrappe, you may want to correct one item in the "Response" section. You write:

• He reverted back to his version.

If you study that diff and the history, it's not a revert. Here is the difference between Bitola's previous version and that new one.

I'd request you edit your response section to reflect that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a revert to me...feel free to correct on my response section, but I dont understand what he did if that wasnt a revert... freestylefrappe 01:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm really not supposed to edit your response section. "Revert", to me at least, means an edit which returns the page to exactly or substantially the same state it was in before a previous edit. You can see from my diff that the edit in question did not do that. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Source of Bitola's copyvios

Addressing a point in EvilPhoenix's Outside View: I should point out that Bitola's text in this edit [7] does come entirely or nearly so from the external link Bitola added in the same edit, www.kumanovo.gov.mk, which didn't appear to be indexed well in Google. Freestylefrappe made little or no attempt that I could find to document that as the source of the copyedit, leaving it to me to dig around to find it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry (Response to outside view by CBDunkerson)

You note that "he turned out to be correct" in his accusations of sockpuppetry. Actually, your link to AN/I says that Macdeon5 was a sockpuppet. You failed to note [8] this edit, before Macedon5 ever showed up, where Freestylefrappe ungrammatically accused me of being a Bitola sockpuppet, which I most assuredly am not. I think sufficient evidence of that is apparent; I will point the evidence out if my status as a separate human being from Bitola is again disputed.) User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 05:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that all accusations of sockpuppetry ever made by FSF were accurate. Just that he was correct in the case noted at AN/I. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 10:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion from Main article page

I moved this discussion here from the section of the front page that said, well, that discussion shouldn't go there. ;-) -- SCZenz 06:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Has anyone noticed that the quality of the complaints against me have steadily gone down? :) freestylefrappe 04:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments re Zocky's view

• Freestylefrappe endorsed my view (and other) above and left this message [9] on my talk page.

To prevent this meta-meta-meta-section of this meta-meta-page from turning into a fullblown debate, I'll try to put things as clearly as possible and be done with it:

• There is no inherent right to blank one's user talk page at will. It's completely normal to remove irrelevant out-of-date comments when archiving a page, even to revert vandalism on your and other user's talk pages. Removing critical comments after just a few hours with a hostile edit summary clearly does not belong in the same category.
• Assuming condescending tone is one of the most important things that admins should not do.
• The pervasive idea of this message seems to be that being a wikipedian means that you can do whatever you please as long as somebody doesn't find and explicitely written policy to make your act "illegal". It's an appealing idea, but that doesn't mean that it has any basis in reality.
• Endorsing views that you clearly do not agree with is either lying or mocking. Neither is acceptable from anybody, let alone the subject of the RFC. I'm hereby asking Freestylefrappe to remove his signatures from views he does not endorse. Zocky 06:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you disagree with my viewpoint is your problem. I clearly agree with what you said. My support vote for Izehar was just not nice at all. Never mind what A Man in Black (discovered you were doing) wrote on your talk page (comment #44). freestylefrappe 16:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition to being irrelevant, if you look at the link in "comment #44" it appears that Zocky edited his own comment. Given A Man in Black's Remarks, I suspect that he edited it from a different account for some reason (logged out?) and the edit was later reassigned. -- SCZenz 16:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Had Freestylefrappe bothered to do more than sift through the TOC of my userpage and click on a promising heading, he wouldn't have missed the comment right above that (#43), the first part of MiB's message, which was intended as a joke. Zocky 18:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Further more, the point at which I considered this RFC "Constructive criticism" (quoting SCZenz) ended when my RFA voting style was listed as an "outside view". The only criticism I consider constructive/relevant/not completely misportrayed are the comments by Flcelloguy. I EAT TROLLS FOR BREAKFAST. RARRRRRRR. freestylefrappe 16:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, you don't get to chose what you consider relevant. The purpose of RFC is not to have a public argument, but rather for the community to discuss whether a potentially disruptive pattern of behaviour is in fact disruptive, as well as to provide an opportunitiy for the user in question to reflect on how their actions are perceived and understood by others, and to adjust their behaviour accordingly in order to avoid future misunderstandings. So far, you seem to be missing that opportunity. Zocky 18:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)