Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by SCZenz[edit]

Stephenj, a new user, tries to improve Wikipedia

Freestylefrappe blocks Stephenj without warning

Freestylefrappe responds to questions about Stephenj with hostility

Freestylefrappe misunderstands, misrepresents, and claims he need not follow blocking policy

Freestylefrappe misuses the rollback button

Freestylefrappe indicates an intent to change his blocking procedure, in response to comments

Continued blanking of talk page

Evidence presented by Flcelloguy[edit]

Freestylefrappe unprotected a page in which he was involved and then edited it

Freestylefrappe has sometimes been blunt, if not incivil

Freestylefrappe blanked and protected his own user talk page

19:03, January 15, 2006 UTC, 19:03, January 15, 2006 UTC, 00:59, January 1, 2006 UTC, including one where with the edit summary "I just...dont care....that pretty much sums up my response to all those comments" 17:25, January 1, 2006 UTC

Freestylefrappe was incivil after the protection

Controversy surrounding blocking of Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs) and voting on WP:RfA

Yesterday and earlier today (January 15, Wikipedia Day), there was controversy surrounding Freestylefrappe involving WP:RfA, which escalated into Freestylefrappe blocking another administrator. By presenting evidence here, I make no assertion of either wrongdoing on Freestylefrappe's part or anyone else's part; in my opinion, this dispute could have been handled much better in a different manner. However, I believe that the evidence may be relevant to this Arbitration case, so I submit the evidence for Arbitrators to carefully consider. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this evidence clarifies an extremely complex situation, which is mentioned below in another user's evidence. Hopefully, this has clarified how a trivial RfA dispute escalated into blocking. Again, I make no assertion of either wrongdoing or "right"-doing for any of the involved parties; my only wish is to clarify this situation to the Arbitrators. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: As I stated above, 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. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Bunchofgrapes[edit]

Freestylefrappe does not distinguish vandalism from (possibly) good-faith errors

These were my first interactions with Freestylefrappe, as far as I can recall. After hearing on AN/I [52] about an edit war at Kumanovo involving an admin, now blocked for 3RR, I decided to look into it.

The dispute regarding blocking StephenJ is more of the same. In particular, see SCZenz's evidence above, and [62] this edit on 19:23, December 15, 2005. "Users who delete content do not need counseling. They need to not edit."

I see no sign of Freestylefrappe developing a more mainstream view of what is "vandalism" and what is not. The most recent evidence is during the request for this arbitration:

Freestylefrappe has a pattern of questionable blocks

Prior to StephenJ:

Freestylefrappe frequently blanks own User Talk page

Constantly blanking your own user talk page isn't against policy, but in addition to being against common-sense etiquette, this action may shed light on Freestylefrappe's willingness to communicate constructively. Since Jan 1 2006, Freestylefrappe has blanked his talk page 1011 times: [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]

Pgio block

Three days later:

Evidence presented by Sean Black[edit]

Freestylefrappe threatens others with admin powers

Evidence presented by Zocky[edit]

Freestylefrappe removes critical comments from his talk page with a hostile edit summary

Freestyle endorses a view on RFC in bad faith

Evidence presented by karmafist[edit]

Freestylefrappe has an abrasive, mistrusting and confrontational personality, traits that are bad enough for a regular editor, but unacceptable for an admin such as himself. He has offended a swath of editors, so please excuse me if I accidentally copy something that has been already said.

See also

Evidence presented by Freestylefrappe[edit]

Sadly, not even Flcelloguy understands very basic Wikipedia policies. There has been a deliberate attempt to cover up what this "dispute" is about. This is actually not a dispute at all, but a group effort to seek revenge for my voting against their RFAs. I'm so tired of all of your lies. I'm going to dissect your biggest lies here.

First assertion: "My voting is Boothyesque"

Any user who uses the term Boothyesque will be warned for personal attacks. This warning includes all users, no one is above the law no matter how much you lie or misportray my actions.

This of course ignores the fact that any user can vote oppose for any reason, any user can not state his reason for as many RFAs he wants, Boothy was already attacked for his/her voting style and the users who attacked Boothy were reprimanded, and Radiant and Zordrac routinely vote in oppose with far weirder rationales.

Two lies that have been repeated by Karmafist, Wikifanatic, and Ral315 are that I voted against LifeisUnfair and Wikifanatic's RFA. These are lies. Wikifanatic had a tempertantrum after his first RFA failed, similar to SWD316's tantrum, and voted against my RFA in retribution. To be cordial, after my RFA passed, much to Wikifanatic's dismay, I promised that once he had had some minimal experience I would vote in support of him. I briefly voiced my opposition to his candidacy. When I did I had BS complaints on my talkpage from WikiFanatic and Karmafist. I didnt care enough so I removed my vote. As for LifeisUnfair's RFA, I explained my reasoning to him and Matt Yeager, both of whom are quite reasonable users, and we reached a compromise. I voted in support of LifeisUnfair. So Redwolf24, Ral315, and Wikifanatic need to stop lying about that. The other two votes - one against Thelb4 and the other against SoothingR were quite reasonable. When you nominate yourself you dont accept your own selfnomination. It gives the impression that the user is either a. vain, b. incompetent, or c. vain and incompetent. Plenty of users vote in opposition using that reasoning. The only reason why Redwolf is even getting himself involved in this is because I caught him and warned him about his vandalism - specifically he blanked another user's page and then denied that he had done anything wrong. Yet another example of the harassment and abuse of powers of so many Wikipedia administrators. This is, of course, all moot because there are no Wikipedia policies that outline how one is allowed to vote. Karmafist has suggested that I no longer be allowed to vote on RFAs. I suggest Karmafist lose all blocking privileges indefinitely.

Second assertion: "I broke 3RR"

Whether or not I broke 3RR is, according to BunchofGrapes, dependent on whether or not a. Bitola was acting on good faith b. Posting copyvios is simple vandalism c. There is a difference between simple vandalism and other types of vandalism

From the administrators noticeboard, unedited, much to Karmafist's dismay:

User:Freestylefrappe

I blocked him and recieved this e-mail
Unblock me. I did not violate 3RR. Read what BunchofGrapes posted on the talkpage. I wont revert the retarded version on Kumanovo.
I'm mulling blocking him for a few more hours. karmafist 02:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't. Policy doesn't give you the authority to do with. Let him serve out his block and then deal with any future problems.Geni 02:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice Geni. I'm worried about him coming out of this block with this mindset, but i'm sure we'll be ready. karmafist 03:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I read the talk-page he refers to above and the edit history. Based on that I think his point is that he wasn't violating 3RR because the first of those four reversions was a revert of text which included copyvios. However, as I understand it, 3RR refers to removal of any portion of valid text four times within a 24 hour period... and thus his four would still count since that first version (and the subsequent three) apparently also included some text which was not copyvio. Still, that's getting far enough into technicalities that it's understandable where he might have thought he didn't violate 3RR. --CBD ☎ ✉ 09:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I should have been notified that users were talking behind my back. I came to this page to report the lies and misconduct of Karmafist who has had a grudge against me because of my vote on Wikifanatic's RFA. I intend to tell the entire story on my userpage in a day or so that the BS of Karmafist, Bitola, Bunchofgrapes, Glenn Willen, Creidieki, and Macedon5 can be brought to light. Any user who vandalizes Kumanovo again will be blocked for a week. I will not tolerate such nonsense. freestylefrappe 23:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You should not use your Administrative powers in regards to an article you are an active editor on, you should seek out the participation of an outside Administrator. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was in doubt in regards to the copyvio, so what Freestyle should have done was discussed with others in regards to this. Unless it's a clear case of vandalism, it's 3RR. Also, I don't understand what this perception of a grudge is about since Freestylefrappe didn't vote on the Wikifanatic RFA, although several people who i've worked with several times before did vote oppose there. I'm going to open a user rfc here, the above comments are very disturbing, particularly considering since freestyle is an admin. karmafist 03:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, he apparently did oppose there for a few hours. [110],[111]

.Wikifanatic's RFA was a thousand or two edits ago for me, so it's hard to remember a few hours on there. karmafist 03:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a clear case of copyvio, you have carte-blanche to revert it away unless and until there is an assertion of permission or page-protection is applied. The law outstrips any Wikipedia policy. Imo, anyway. -Splashtalk 03:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think so, but Wikipolicy doesn't seem to read that way. Copyvio policy says to revert copyrighted text to a version without it, but three revert policy excludes only vandalism and vandalism policy doesn't classify copyright violations as vandalism. So it seems like, as the policy currently stands, you should revert copyright violations on sight... but if you do so to the same text four times in 24 hours you should be blocked. I put a question about whether this should be changed/clarified on Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule. At present it is probably a good example of ignore all rules... as you say, international law should probably trump wikipolicy. :] --CBD ☎ ✉ 11:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So it's quite clear that the block was sketchy at best. There was no attempt to ask me whether or not Bitola's version was a copyvio, no attempt to actually look at Talk:Bitola where I had warned him not to paste anymore copyvios over a week before I actually blocked him. No attempt to actually look at the fact Akamad reverted his edits to Kumanovo earlier which were clearly not in good faith. No attempt to look at the fact that Bitola repeatedly deleted sections, repeatedly reverted and broke 3RR through his edits, repeatedly lied about me copy and pasting Christopher Deliso's writings on Kumanovo...'

Third assertion: "Freestylefrappe is removing policies from his RFC!"

SCZenz started this lie.

The fact of the matter is I should have removed more policies which were added after the fact. Once you start an RFC you do not edit comments that have been endorsed by other users.

After users had already started endorsing, Karmafist ignores the way RFCs work and starts modifying his tale, specifically here he adds WP:OWN after the fact. Karmafist, did you really think I was too stupid to go back through the history of the page? I guess not since you've been trying to pretend this incident never happened and distance yourself from any involvement. It's actually SCZenz who's making you look bad by lying about what took place. The next time you all decide you're gonna try and misportray events to make a user look bad I suggest you clarify what tale you're going with.

Fourth assertion: "I don’t understand or refuse to recognize WP:OWN"

I actually had to deal with a vandal who claimed he owned Qiyamah in the past so this is complete nonsense. The sole evidence used to justify adding this policy to my RFC, after many users had endorsed their BS, was a quote from the RFC talkpage. Here is the quote unedited, much to all of your dismay: " I created Kumanovo." That is the only quote they are using to justify adding WP:OWN. It's as if I'm in the twilight zone.

Fifth assertion:"I am indifferent to, misunderstand, or am ignorant of, WP:AGF/I did not assume good faith"

Twice I have been accused of this, 1 with Bitola, who we now know, though he still denies, engaged in sockpuppetry, and the second time with StephenJ. I'm accused of blocking other users, before and after I blocked StephenJ. I have not blocked a single user since StephenJ. I have been overly cordial and understanding to vandals because I no that otherwise I would have to listen to a condescending, patronizing lecture from SCZenz, Karmafist, or anyone else in their "group."

The fact is Bitola repeatedly deleted content from Kumanovo. Explain to me, Karmafist, Asbestos, or anyone else how these edits were in good faith: 1, 2, 3

Explain to me how after I warned Bitola on December 12 he was still acting in good faith when he posted a copyvio under his sockpuppet Macedon5 on December 13?

Or...maybe explain to me why Bitola should be ashamed since he was acting in good faith? If Bitola should be ashamed of knowingly pasting copyvios (which anyone could instantly see was my reasoning by going to User talk:Bitola) then I did not violate 3RR, then Karmafist should never have held the word of an new user above the word of a longstanding administrator, then I should never have been blocked in the first place. Perhaps that also means Asbestos and Karmafist should have made some effort to contact me as to why I blocked Bitola, or looked at the reason I posted when I originally blocked him. Quite a few "should haves."

Evidence presented by Dmcdevit[edit]

It is my belief that Freestylefrappe has demonstrated a consistent pattern of misjudgments regarding his administrator powers such that they should be removed.

Protection

Since becoming an admin, Freestylefrappe has used protection 4 times; each one was inappropriate.

Freestylefrappe's protection log

Evidence presented by Locke Cole[edit]

Freestylefrappe incivil to other Wikipedians

Evidence presented by CBDunkerson[edit]

Links for evidence presented by Freestylefrappe

Freestylefrappe, feel free to remove these to your own section above if you wish.

Evidence presented by Ral315[edit]

That's pretty much it. I'd like to say I have some damning evidence against freestylefrappe other than civility problems, but it seems other users can speak toward that better than I can. Ral315 (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Bitola[edit]

I believe that my constant intention during the Kumanovo dispute was to improve the quality of the article. Those attempts resulted in an edit war with Freestylefrappe. During the edit warring, the following things are worth to be mentioned:

[143],[144],[145], and after he violated 3RR rule on undisputedly non-copyvios material: [146],[147],[148] (surplisingly, he continued to delete my adds to the page even after his blocking expiration)

I provide the following links that describe, by my opinion, what an administrator certainly shouldn't do during a dispute:

See also

My view on the dispute presented at the RfC page. --Bitola 11:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Aumakua[edit]

freestylefrappe was involved in an edit war with Aldirma Gonul (AG) over the page Bektashi. Here is how I see the events in this war:

  1. AG tried to improve Wikipedia by adding relevant and accurate information about his own faith to the page about it on Wikipedia. [158]
  2. freestylefrappe edited it, essentially gutting AG's contribution because he considered it "racist" [159]
  3. AG tried to discuss it with FSF on his talk page, explaining why it was not racist. [160]
  4. AG re-inserted the gist of his original contribution. [161]
  5. freestylefrappe created a separate page (which amounts to little more than a stub-sized snippet) and moved AG's content there, removing it from the main article [162] (for a reason which I think ignores the fifth pillar of Wikipedia just because there was "no precedent" for it).
  6. AG, with support on the talk page, re-inserted his original contribution. [163]
  7. FSF reverted it [164]
  8. AG reverted it, requesting an explanation why the article had to be split [165]
  9. FSF reverted it without giving any more reason than the reason which had already been rejected by AG before. [166]
  10. AG reverted it, restoring his original contribution, stating that he had asked for a third opinion. [167]
  11. (The request for a third opinion [168] was still sitting there, 20 days later, ignored by the Wikipedia community.)
  12. freestylefrappe failed to assume good faith, and mislabeled AG's continued attempts to restore his original edit, as "vandalism" in a series of reverts (including one that actually did revert some vandalism as a side-effect). [169] [170] [171] [172] [173]
  13. Wilgamesh supported AG on the Bektashi talk page [174], ending "I would like to hear an argument against these lines of evidence from freestylefrappe."
  14. FSF responded with no arguments against those lines of evidence, but instead with an accusation of being a sock puppet on no evidence other than him agreeing with AG, and "If you vandalize this page by reverting you will be blocked. It's just that simple." [175] (As I see it, this threat to block another user as a tactic in an edit war is a mis-use of his admin powers to force the other users to surrender in the edit war, rather than seeking consensus with them, incidentally being uncivil in the threat.)
  15. In anger and frustration, AG left Wikipedia permanently and hasn't been back, and is therefore no longer contributing anything. [176]
  16. I, also a new user, saw the request for a third opinion, and not realizing that AG had already given up in frustration, I decided to help resolve the dispute. After considerable research into the main page, the talk page, the edit histories of those pages, and several off-site pages about the topic of the dispute, I came to a conclusion and made my decision, entering it on the talk page. [177] However, I too had been intimidated by the threats FSF had made against AG, so I didn't actually edit the page myself to make the changes to it that I felt were both justified and necessary -- I left it up to them.
  17. freestylefrappe slammed me on my talk page for not 'consulting' with him, and again mentioned that he had the ability to ban users "permanently" if he felt like it or considered their contributions to be "vandalism". [178] (Knowing that he considered things to be vandalism which clearly were not, and not caring to be banned permanently myself, I suggested taking the dispute to the next level of dispute resolution, mediation, hopefully leaving me out of it. My comment about freestylefrappe's reputation as a fair-minded admin was spoken in irony, since I strongly doubted he had such a reputation.
  18. In looking in on the Bektashi dispute weeks later to see whether my effort in the case had made any difference, I saw that absolutely nothing had been done, because AG had left in frustration, and FSF had completely ignored the 'third opinion' in the dispute (thus wasting the time I had spent on it). In trying to determine whether I was allowed, expected, required, or prohibited to take any action such as editing the page myself, I followed links and did some searches and came across a discussion about revoking freestylefrappe's admin power. I strongly support such an action.

As a new user, if I have failed to present this evidence in the correct manner, I ask that you AGF and please don't bite me for it, just let me know what I need to fix up. Aumakua 09:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC) (I have hopefully supplied all the necessary diffs in the proper manner; updated 23:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Comments on freestylefrappe's evidence

He says "This is actually not a dispute at all, but a group effort to seek revenge for my voting against their RFAs." Without speaking for anyone else, I'd like to point out that there is no cabal that I am aware of, and I am certainly no part of one. I have never had an RFA (I am assuming it's a request for administrator powers?) for him to vote against, nor did I even know that anyone shared my opinion of Freestylefrappe's abuse of admin powers until I went looking to see if he had complied with my 3rd opinion ruling in the Bektashi dispute. Aumakua 20:06, 28 December 2005

Evidence presented by Moe Epsilon[edit]

I would like to add on to what Locke Cole said above. Freestylefrappe does tend to violate the WP:CIVIL policy a lot. I tried several times to honestly just talk to him on his talk page, to him to mass delete every comment on his talk page saying removing all comments-too stupid for me to archive. Then posting the following message which he called the warning to morons, it said:

stupid/moronic comments
If you violate the above stipulations I shall mock you/dishonor your familial dynasty with the test1 template. Further violations shall result in the posting of the test2, test3, and test4 templates. This is sooo not a joke.

He also mentions above in Freestylefrappe's evidence that I had a temper tantrum over my RFA. True as it may seem, it wasn't a tantrum, Im bipolar. Even though I have apologized many times for this he still seems to hold something against me and brings the incident up every chance he gets. See:Freestylefrappe's evidence to hear him bring it up again.

He says being bipolar is no excuse to my reactions. I seem to disagree on that point considering he probably doesn't know what being bipolar is. He says on my RFA that: one thing that we should learn on my RFA is that we shouldn't blindly vote in support of everyone. He goes on to say I should retire my user name and restart from scratch and said if I apply for adminship again, no one would vote for me.

Another point of his uncivility is the message he posted earlier on this page:
Any user who vandalizes Kumanovo again will be blocked for a week.

He seems to have a high temper around certain situations, like that one. Also this one:
Any user who uses the term Boothyesque will be warned for personal attacks. This warning includes all users, no one is above the law no matter how much you lie or misportray my actions.

It worries me that someone with such a high temper tends to write messages as such.

This evidence is just from the view point from me. This was the only real evidence I had to show but it does show he lacks in the area of being civil on Wikipedia and make personal attacks in his edit summaries. But, I also went threw the contributions of Freestylefrappe to discover he has done this a lot on his time on Wikipedia, I am strongly disappointed in Freestylefrappe in the decision's he's made as admin. — Moe ε 09:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by BorgHunter[edit]

—BorgHunter alt (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by LawAndOrder[edit]

Freestylefrappe unjustly blocks a user under libellous pretenses

Evidence presented by Mackensen[edit]

Incivility and unsubstantiated accusations


More