Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe

message: * Freestylefrappe (defendant)
* SCZenz (filing RfAr)
* Bunchofgrapes (another admin involved)
* karmafist (another admin involved)
* Asbestos (another admin involved)
* Flcelloguy (another admin involved)
* Redwolf24 (another admin involved)  No, I'm not involved. I just get slightly annoyed at his RFA voting. Two edits concerning him shouldn't really make me involved... Redwolf24 (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involved parties 

message: I'll add more to this later, but right off the bat, I'm really getting tired of the harassment by users like SCZenz, BunchofGrapes, Karmafist, Redwolf, etc. I freely admit I dont take my RFC seriously at all. My RFA voting style is listed as an "outside view" on a meaningless dispute I had with a sockpuppet wielding vandal. All that the RFC is, is a bunch of users I annoyed 'cause I voted against their/their friends RFAs. I was blocked and accused of violating 3RR by Karmafist - which curiously is not listed as one of the policies I broke here - after I reverted what was clearly vandalism. This entire "dispute" is utter nonsense. freestylefrappe 17:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All parties are not aware of this...or maybe they are..I'm not sure...they have a tendency to talk behind my back on obsure pages. freestylefrappe 18:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Time to disect the above mischaracterization.
* If you click on [9] you'll see why I blocked StephenJ-which was a short block-and if he really was being constructive-which I seriously doubt, he could have contacted me through email and I would have unblocked him.
* Number [10] is my opinion and since I rarely block anyone (maybe 20 or so anonymous users usually with short blocks since I've become an admin) you really need to get off my back about it
* Number [11] is a quote from Wikipedia policy that I have discussed at length with Flcelloguy so I hardly see your point
* Number [12] is once again my opinion whether you like it or not
* Number [13] is number [12] again...perhaps you posted the wrong diff?
* Number [14]....hahahah..SCZenz...please review Wikipedia policy...its not me who's embarassed by this diff and accusation
* Number [15] was quite humorous and technically doesn't violate any Wikipedia policy
* Figuring out the accusation associated with number [16] is a conundrum for me...perhaps he once again posted the wrong diff..?..:)
* Number [17] pointed out that SCZenz violated WP:CIVIL. Then I explained how RFCs worked...I assumed good faith here though now I realize he was just violating policy. I believe later on he called that policy something along the lines of "laughable."
* Number [18] was reverting a personal attack against me.
* As for number 19...You all seem to still 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 and an Request for Arbitration works. freestylefrappe 18:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Freestylefrappe 

message: The problems did not start after the Kumanovo incident.
This whole dispute was going on long before the Kumanovo reversions.
What SCZenz doesnt seem to understand is that its not that I'm not open to constructive criticism and other administrators helpful suggestions. I just dont want to listen to him... or Karmafist...or BunchofGrapes....freestylefrappe 18:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to subsection recently added by SCZenz

message: My modification came after yours. Yet another example of trying to misportray events.
"I stopped updating FSF's rfc awhile ago in the hope that he'd realize that he's his own worst enemy in this. Apparently he hasn't."
Actually SCZenz hasnt. I'm still trying to combat the erroneous statements on various talkpages.
"At this point, I don't think any of the admins care about his content in regards to , which have been fine"
In other words popular opinion is against your block and you want to dismiss the whole affair?
"He did violate 3RR awhile back"
No I did not. This lie was previously dissected on the administrator's noticeboard so why are you still chanting it?
"FSF is fine when he's isolated from everybody else"
I'm quite active on both the Islam and Judaism guilds so you're somewhat mistaken in that regard. I'm one of the few editors (probably the only one who's involved in both guilds) who hasnt been involved in some sort of content dispute in regards to Islam and Judaism in the modern world.
"I think the best solution for FSF is no WP:RFA (his votes are Boothy-esque to say the least)"
Okay...even suggesting this is grounds to have Karmafist lose all blocking privileges indefinitely.
"no Kumanovo (he has serious Ownership issues there)"
Fine! I dont care about Kumanovo. I'm not Macedonian. For the last time-this dispute had nothing to do with the content.
"and no talk pages other than his own for a certain period of time."
???
In regards to Locke Cole...if it truly bugs you then feel free to remove your name, but refrain from removing anyone else's. freestylefrappe 19:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to "modification", Karmafist, and Locke Cole

message: I stopped updating FSF's rfc awhile ago in the hope that he'd realize that he's his own worst enemy in this. Apparently he hasn't.
At this point, I don't think any of the admins care about his content in regards to , which have been fine, but rather the way he has acted towards others in regards to that article and the following Rfc regarding him. 
He did violate 3RR awhile back, but as SCSenz said, that was piddling compared to what came afterwards, and ultimately it's a tragic case because unlike many of the cases you see where the defenders are just habitual trolls contributing nothing to the project, FSF is fine when he's isolated from everybody else. I think the best solution for FSF is no WP:RFA (his votes are Boothy-esque to say the least), no Kumanovo (he has serious Ownership issues there) and no talk pages other than his own for a certain period of time. karmafist 18:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Karmafist

message: Other than endorsing views on his RfC, my involvement with this has been minimal. I do not believe it's appropriate for FSF to bring in everyone that was even remotely involved with his RfC, and I believe it is an attempt to divert the ArbCom from the real issues presented here. —Locke Cole 19:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Locke Cole 

message: Freestylefrappe 
* Calls many things "vandalism" which were not inarguably bad faith. (Example from this very RfA: )
* Apparently stands by his opinion that blocking people who commit what he calls vandalism is appropriate without warning or discussion. ("Number [12]" in this diff, referring to this comment.)
* Behaves petulantly and aggressively when attempts are made to discuss how administrators should best act. See almost any diff above. 
I have also been accused of harassment in this matter, and I think SCZenz and karmafist have been accused of similar; I believe this is completely unfounded, and ask for evidence demonstrating this. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Update - I find this exchange, in regards to my first bullet point above, illustrative of Freestylefrappe's indifference to or lack of understanding of WP:AGF:    —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Bunchofgrapes 

message: I had a disappointing encounter with Freestylefrappe months ago, and ended up blocking him for personal attacks. I continue to be mystified as to how he was ever adminned, or why he should continue to be one. About ten days ago, at Kumanovo, he was blocked for 3RR. During the course of that incident, he made various personal attacks. He also abused his admin tools repeatedly, by blocking the editor he was edit warring with , by using his administrative rollback in the edit war , by threatenting to protect his preferred version . To top it off, he came back anonymously to continue editing, and the IP was blocked. Statements like these , , and his statement on this page demonstrate serious misunderstandings of how blocks and protection work. Combined with the other offenses cited above, this reaches the "pattern" threshhold, and I urge arbcom to consider Freestylefrappe's adminship. Dmcdevit·t 20:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved party Dmcdevit 

message: I don't really consider myself involved in this matter and wasn't going to give a statement, but I've been listed as one, so here goes:
I first became involved with Freestylefrappe after a post to WP:AN asking for assistance with the dispute. I read through a conversation between Freestylefrappe and SCZenz and decided to talk to Freestylefrappe  regarding his views on blocking without commenting on the specific situation brought up in the RfC. His reply was courteous and showed signs of wishing to improve. I also noted that day that Kumanovo had been undergoing an edit-war (see the history) in which he was involved, so I protected the page . Freestylefrappe left a message on the talk page indicating that he didn't think protection was necessary; I asked for clarification. Later, Freestylefrappe unprotected with a summary of "not needed"; he had not (and still has not) responded on the talk page. I brought this to his attention , and he responded , telling me to "chillout". I replied to him , insisting that administrators should never unprotect a page they are involved in and then proceed to edit the page. Evilphoenix reiterated my point  later. Frestylefrappe did not reply to me after that. On December 22, though, Freestylefrappe removed many comments from his talk page, including our conversation, saying it was "too stupid for [him] to archive" .  That is the extent of my involvement in this case; I did not participate in the RfC and did not comment on the content dispute. I will be happy to answer any comments the ArbCom has. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by third party Flcelloguy

message: I already chronologically described the dispute between me and FSF at the RFC page.--Bitola 21:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Bitola

message: Some facts not mentioned or fully explained above.
# The material FSF removed from the RfC was a policy citation added after votes had already been made endorsing the section it was being added to. FSF stated that he believed it was improper/misleading to retroactively insert accusations which were not present when the votes were cast.
# Fred Bauder performed a sock check which determined that Bitola & Macedon5 were apparently the same user and that IPs User:62.162.226.197 & User:62.162.226.48 which took part in these events were from the same site, but did not exactly match Bitola's IP. Bitola later admitted editing from an IP while blocked, but suggested that Macedon5 was most likely a friend of his.
# The '3RR violation' mentioned several times above, for which FSF was blocked, included reversion of this text, which was clearly taken from this external site. FSF was blocked for four reverts in 24 hours, but one of those included reversion of this external site material and thus FSF believes he was following WP:CV instructions to revert and did not violate 3RR.
# FSF's block of Bitola was based on Bitola's repeated reversions to include the external site text listed above.
# Contrary to some claims above, FSF has admitted to some mistakes in these events -> "I was uncivil" & endorsement of criticisms
Personal opinions: Freestylefrappe wasn't as familiar with admin procedures and standards as he should have been. One of the more bizarre aspects of these events was Locke Cole having to explain (very politely and decently) what a 'diff' was. FSF did 'bite' a newbie, act in a hostile manner, and make several mistakes in regards to policies and community standards. However, he wasn't the only one doing things like this and some of his mistakes have been misrepresented or unduly inflated. Efforts to 'get' him have taken precedence over efforts to help him become a better contributor/administrator. If he were running for admin today I wouldn't vote for him. I also wouldn't give him alot of grief about it. Mistakes happen - his were mostly based on lack of understanding, poor communication, and a rating of about six (out of ten) on the 'surliness scale'. He has shown some efforts towards improvement and that should be encouraged. Again, IMO only. --CBD ☎ ✉ 01:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved party CBDunkerson

message: *Accept - Newbie biting  is completely unnaceptable behaviour for an admin to engage in. All admins make occasional mistakes of course. When these mistakes are pointed out by other admins they should be learned from not ignored, argued with or deleted. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0) 

message: Lest we forget the really important things, we need to do something about StephenJ. He is (or at least claimed to be) Stephen Jarret, director of information and communication technology at the National Democratic Institute . After being blocked, he naturally hasn't continued to edit Wikipedia and was probably left with a bad taste in his mouth. He  should probably be contacted and apologized to, if this hasn't been done already. Zocky 20:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  StephenJ 

message: Is everyone who listed themselves as a party when this was on the main RFAr page technically a party? I mean, should I be commenting under "comments by parties" at /Workshop? I presented evidence, so I'd say yes, but I'm not sure. Thanks.--Sean|Black 20:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: To avoid confusion, perhaps someone should adjust the numbered references under Statement by Freestylefrappe. Currently they're off by six -- dunno how that happened. 208.157.146.7 18:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor adjustment 

message: Since my talk page is part of the evidence, I believe 
I need to bring up my point of view.
I feel Freestylefrappe was justly doing his job when
I got my head chewed off by the Admin when I recently started
voting on admin selection.  I have been rediculed, harrassed,
and disrespect if not threatened by several admin for my voting
record calling it "trolling".  To effect those self interested
to discount my vote.
I believe Freestylefrappe was only trying to encourage me to keep on voting  as I see fit.  So he left a message on my talk page as a joke, to make me feel better, as to help me understand that there is an expectation of status quo which gives these admin the so called right to resort to personal attacks to discredit a voter.  As I have found myself going up against admin time and time again.  I can only blame myself for not voting in previous admin elections.  The admin I have encountered were not helpful, short tempered, mean, troublesome, if not petty.  I of course must accept responsibility for this by not setting this standards for Integrity, Manners and Courtsey, temperance and respect.  However this does not excuse admin for attempting to rig the election for the  benefit of their friends.  I call this a lack of ethics, of putting their friends ahead of the good of Wikipedia. Their severe lack of self control, and constant badgering have been a headache.
I did not place a message, nor explained my vote in order 
to avoid creating the personal attack which is a violation
of wikipeida policy.  I believe the other admin had
refused to stop their personal attacks on me, which caused
the block to happen.  Labeling me a "boothie" instead of
guiding me toward figuring out how the process works.  I find
this severe lack of critical thinking skills, and selfishness
distasteful.  I would have prefered not "feeding the trolls",
but given that I am now involved in this dispute,
I must say, I believe it is severeily unfair to punish Freestylefrappe for correctly carrying out Wikipedia policy to maintain civility in the election process,  
--Masssiveego 18:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your opinions, Masssiveego. I presume you're referring to the evidence I submitted yesterday. As I stated there, 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. If you disagree with some of my interpretations, by all means feel free to submit evidence of your own. (I'll show you how, if you are unfamiliar with doing that.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin voting 

message: Since being desysopped in his arbitration case, Freestylefrappe has had a number of different accounts, including , , , and , some of which have engaged in disruptive editing. I propose that his editing be limited to one account so that admins will have a consistent history of his activities.
* Support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freestylefrappe limited to one account