Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Freestylefrappe - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Glenn Willen (talk | contribs) at 06:08, 16 December 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:08, 16 December 2005 by Glenn Willen (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:39, December 14, 2005), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Freestylefrappe has been incivil and attempted to game the system in his role as an administrator.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

I was asked to step in by Creidieki (talk · contribs) at Kumanovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) during a content dispute between Freestylefreappe and a few other editors. Many of Freestylefrappe's edits were in good faith at first,, and his intentions in the edits seemed to be good faith, but how he approached other editors went down from there.

He also blocked a new user for a single page-blanking, without warning or discussion. In the course of being asked about this, he made accusations of other users, made false statements and misquoted policy to suit his views, then eventually asserted that he did not see the point in following blocking policy.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. This content here went back and forth between Freestylefrappe and Bitola (talk · contribs) a few times, although there isn't any real reason to show it over and over because ultimately, all that concerns me with this here is that it becomes the basis for his confrontational behavior later.
  2. Content conflict continues. FSF calls other edit "nonsense" in edit summary. This is the first in his 3RR vio seen here.
  3. He insults Bitola on the talk page
  4. He calls asbestos (talk · contribs) lazy, and says he will start an rfc on me because he believes I have a grudge against him.
  5. 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"
  6. Threatens me while blocked from his IP Address.
    incorrectly insults me here.
    Anon edits again changing his mind over what the problem is. At the page, it was copyvios, not it's the poor editing skills of those who disagree with him.
  7. Loses temper on his talk page apparently(edit summary is in all caps) about something as small as section naming.
  8. FSF turns his user page into an attack page against all those he has a grudge with apparently, which he copies below here on this rfc.
  9. ,Talk Page Section On The Issue FSF blocks a newcomer, Stephenj (talk · contribs) without warning for a large blanking.
  10. Assumes bad faith in regards to Stephenj (talk · contribs) to SCZenz (talk · contribs)
  11. FSF attempts to intimidate SCZenz into withdrawing his findings at this rfc.

Detail on Stephenj

Since it's been raised, I will thrown in a detailed description of my conversation with Freestylefrappe with regard to the Stephenj. I think it indicates a serious misunderstanding on the part of Freestylefrappe of a number of Misplaced Pages policies and the role of administrators, which I think must be corrected, hopefully voluntarily. -- SCZenz 21:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • 04:17, 15 December 2005 - - Bunchofgrapes asks Freestylefrappe about a user he has blocked. The user is Stephenj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It should be noted that Stephenj is a new user, who appears to have made some legitimate contributions in addition to an incident of page blanking, such as uploading an image, placing it in the relevant article, and fixing an error he'd made in the image name. Freestylefrappe did not give any warnings or information on Stephenj's talk page, either before or after the block.
  • 8:27, 15 December 2005 - - Freestylefrappe replies with the statement that Stephenj's edits were "all vandalism", and accuses Bunchesofgrapes of "following him" because of the previous dispute.
  • 18:49, 15 December 2005 - - I reply to this statement, asserting that Freestylefrappe is incorrect about Stephenj's edits, and further noting that it's appropriate for admins to have their actions reviewed.
  • 18:56, 15 December 2005 - - Freestylefrappe replies, saying he'll look into Stephenj's contributions. He also makes some accusations regarding Bunchofgrapes
  • 19:10, 15 December 2005 - - I reply with a clarification of Stephenj's edits, and concerns about his accusations. I say I'll look into the dispute if he provides info
  • 19:19, 15 December 2005 - - I note that he's commented at his RFC, promise to look into it, and express concern about his attitudes toward a user's fitness to edit because of alleged grammatical errors.
  • 19:23, 15 December 2005 - - He replies, asserting that vandals do not need to be warned.
  • 19:33, 15 December 2005 - - I reply, noting that they do according to Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy
  • 19:38, 15 December 2005 - - he replies, with a partial quote from blocking policy that is misleading. He also states, "StephenJ is a stepup from an anon. He has no talkpage and no userpage."
  • 19:44, 15 December 2005 - - I reply, giving the full quote and noting that it says he should have warned Stephenj. I also suggest he review WP:BITE in regard to the comment quoted above.
  • 19:52, 15 December 2005 - - he replies, saying he doesn't see the need to warn vandals and saying "I doubt he'll ever edit under that account again."
  • 20:02, 15 December 2005 - - I state I am concerned about his views of administrator discretion over policies, and ask him to read WP:AGF as well as WP:BITE.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:CIVIL
  2. WP:3RR
  3. WP:NPA
  4. Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy
  5. WP:OWN

Applicable guidelines

  1. WP:BITE
  2. WP:AGF

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. karmafist 04:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. SCZenz 21:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (with regard to banning of Stephenj and appropriate response to questions, not with regard to original edit war)
  4. User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 06:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC) (with the caveat that I feel freestylefrappe has acted reasonably since the block expired, so I'm not entirely convinced that rehashing the original issue is productive.)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. --Sean|Black 22:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Over the past few days several users, 2 of whom are administrators on Misplaced Pages, engaged in deceit and arbitrary blocking. They lied in order to create an atmosphere of mistrust and tried desperately to hide the truth. Here are the indisputable facts:

January 8
November 23
  • Bitola deleted content with the edit summary: "Don't put things like narcotics and violence!!!". I reverted his edits.
November 24
  • Bitola reverted back to his version under the anonymous IP address 62.162.226.197 with the edit summary: "Please don't put things like drugs, narcotics and violence in the page for this beautiful macedonian city."
  • Akamad reverted Bitola's vandalism to my last version.
  • Bitola, under the anonymous IP 62.162.226.48, then copy and pasted a copyvio with the edit summary: "OK FreestyleFrappe, I will leave your "violence" texts, yet I'm not sure why it is so important to you to have only bombs, blood and killing in an article for a normal town like Kumanovo"
December 8
  • I reverted Bitola's vandalism with the edit summary: "rv to last version at 22:53, I previously reverted yet my reversion seems to have inexplicably disappeared....anon c & p'd a copyvio"
December 12
  • Bitola reverted to his version with the edit summary: "Reverting to the previous version, the FreestyleFrappe version is unacceptable"
  • I reverted back to my version.
  • He reverted back to his version.
  • I reverted back to my version AGAIN.
December 13
  • Glenn Willen reverted to Bitola's version insisting in his edit summary: "Revert good faith edits removed without consensus by freestylefrappe -- please see talk page. If they are removed, I don't intend to revert again.)"
  • I rolled back Glenn Willen's reversion.
  • Credieki reverted.
  • I rolled back AGAIN.
  • Karmafist blocked me for 24 hours.
  • Macedon5 (A.K.A. Bitola) reverted to his version with the edit summary: "Reverting to the Bitola's version, FreestyleFrappe is vandalizing the article"
At some point after Asbestos decided to lengthen my block.

Throughout this entire ordeal I was accused of breaking the 3RR. Originally I thought the arguing over my actions was over once Bunchofgrapes explained my actions (emphasis added):

"Attempted summary of the history I'm just trying to understand. I've dug a little into the history. Bitola's original changes on Nov 23 here (with the edit summary of "Don't put things like narcotics and violence!!!") were clearly a copyright-violating dump of this page. His later changes, at least until Dec 12, also largely dumped text from that same page. Freestylefrappe's reversions seem to make sense up to here. The Dec 12 change by 62.162.225.230 (with summary "Bitola:Now there are no copyvios by my side") appears to add "History" and "Cultural Monuments" sections to the existing contents, leaving the others (including "Violence" and "Narcotics" alone.) For reasons unclear to me, Freestylefrappe then reverted these additions with the comment "rv. posting nonsense is not a substitute for copyvio.". I'm not sure why the new content was "nonsense", though I very much want to believe I am missing something. At that point, Glenn Willen and Creidieki started reverting the article back to the state before Freestylefrappe's revert. Freestylefrappe has the last edit right now, edit summary "rv self-explanatory." Freestylefrappe, it isn't. Please fill us in. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)"

The later reverts removed the nonsense Bitola added. Bitola's edits were sloppy and ungrammatical. If Bitola does not speak English he should not edit English Misplaced Pages.

Later on, when questioned, BunchofGrapes seems to change his stance:

"That's simply not true. Vandalism must be manifestly bad-faith. See Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. Slapping in some copied text from a web page is not manifestly bad-faith: some people don't know it isn't permitted. Even if you, from a past history, believe Bitola knew and understood copyright rules, that still does not make it "simple vandalism", removable without regard to 3RR. Simple vandalism is obvious on its face and does not require further research, neither into the origins of the text added during the edit nor into the motivations of the editor adding it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)"

As the earlier evidence shows, anyone can see that Bitola's edits were bad-faith. He deleted content he disagreed with. As for the erroneos claim that he was unaware that what he was doing was wrong, I would suggest looking at User talk:Bitola where he repeatedly accused me of adding copyvios. Unfortunately it was conveniently, mysteriously deleted, most likely by Karmafist. Fortunately, Bitola's edit summaries on Kumanovo can still be seen, and Criedieki's comment about not adding copyvios on Talk:Kumanovo remains.

Throughout this entire time, the word of an administrator was considered less reliable than the word of three anonymous users, and three registered users with no userpage. Now I have to deal with harassment by BunchofGrapes.

I am requesting that Karmafist have his blocking privileges temporarily revoked until he can demonstrate good-faith.

Recently, another user stated in another (not sure how related to this) incident- "In particular, the notion that contributions should be thrown out simply because they're not well-written is entirely contrary to how Misplaced Pages works" This statement is not at all true. If users only engage in sloppiness then their edits are incorrect. There's a difference between starting an article to the best of one's ability and messing up existing articles by dumping text.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. freestylefrappe 19:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.