Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Freestylefrappe

message: The issue i've seen here isn't the content espoused, but rather the behavior of FSF. karmafist 00:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just in case it isn't clear out there 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  (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)

text: Freestylefrappe, I think WP:OWN has been cited here (perhaps among other reasons) because of your statement  "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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nonsense? - request for clarification from Freestylefrappe 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Personal attacks against me - conveniently ignored"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Correction 

message: Addressing a point in EvilPhoenix's Outside View: I should point out that Bitola's text in this edit  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)
thread_title:  Source of Bitola's copyvios 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Accusations of sockpuppetry (Response to outside view by CBDunkerson) 

message: *Freestylefrappe endorsed my view (and other) above and left this message  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comments re Zocky's view