User:SCZenz/Freestylefrappe

These are notes about a conversation I had with. My purpose here is to organize them, for the conversation concerned me greatly, but I make no statement about whether or not I might use them in the future on a non-user page. -- SCZenz 20:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 04:17, 15 December 2005 - -, who may have been reviewiewing Freestylefrappe's admin actions because of an edit war / 3RR dispute at Kumanovo (now the subject of Requests for comment/Freestylefrappe), asks Freestylefrappe about a user he has blocked.  The user is .  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 imagine 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 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.

Comments 'too stupid to archive' -

"Vandalministrators" -