Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Respect Towards Other Editors
1) Freestylefrappe has the right to disagree with other editors, but he does not have the right to be hostile towards them. During this rfar, I suggest that the arbcom allow for punitive blocks of 24 hours each time is hostile to another editor. Right now, I believe he's just adding more evidence against himself when he acts, and perhaps being removed when this occurs can prevent further self-damage.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * When people are being looked into by the AC they quite naturally get a a bit stressed. We need to bear this in mind and cut as much slack as possible. I've already warned him not to use admin powers against others during this RFAr. If he does, we will take what ever action is necessary, but if he is simply hostile, then just rise above it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I wasn't sure if this was an injunction or not, so I figured i'd be safe and put it here. karmafist 15:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't like this idea. For one thing, it gets in the way of him responding to the RfAr.  For another, we're big boys and girls and can take some hostility.  Finally, it has too much potential to create more ill will, and there's more than enough already. -- SCZenz 16:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I do not know why Karmafist has dragged me my name into this RFA (see evidence page), I have nothing to do with this, I know nothing about whether Freestylefrappe has done bad or has done admirely. But if the crime that Freestylefrappe is accused of is practicing "disrespect toward other editors", then the concept that Karmafist is the pot calling the kettle "black" is not accurate.  It is more like the astronomic singularity calling the kettle "black".  For Karmafist to accuse anyone of dissing an editor is blatent hypocrisy.  In other words, Karmafist "has the right to disagree with other editors, but he does not have the right to be hostile towards them."  I dunno how this should affect anything regarding Freestylefrappe, but putting a decidedly corrupt cop on the stand to testify against any defendant is always a dubious spectre.  What would happen if Karmafist was given "punitive blocks of 24 hours each time [he] is hostile to another editor"??  What's good for the goose...  r b-j 03:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Karmafist has not "dragged you into" this RFAr. He mentioned behavior that Freestylefrappe engaged in with regards to you. You are not directly involved in this in any way, shape or form. —Locke Cole 04:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why are you editing to this page, Locke? What way, shape or form are you directly involved?  When my name is dragged onto some other page, I have the right to check it out and have the record reflect any misuse or inaccuracy and I have.  I dunno if Freestylefrappe is a good admin or not, but it is inaccurate to say that there was any collaboration between us at all.  And I must add that if "blocking an editor without warning" is a wikicrime or practicing "disrespect toward other editors", then Karmafist is also such a wikicriminal.  Both have been done to me, and Karmafist is one of the culprits.  That deserves to be on record. r b-j 07:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am "editing to this page" because I am a party to this arbitration (and unlike you, I was dragged into this). Your name was mentioned in passing, there was no "misuse" or "inaccuracy". You're right, it is inaccurate to say you two collaborated; it is not, however, inaccurate to say that Freestylefrappe attempted to collaborate with you (which is precisely what Karmafist asserted). With regard to what deserves to be on the record, well, you may submit evidence to the /Evidence page if you desire. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not a party to this particular dispute, but I have a right to respond to it when my name is brought into it. "in passing" is your subjective judgement.  Karmafist has said elsewhere (the RfC about me) that I was soliciting Freestylefrappe.  There was precisely one contact I had from Freestylefrappe and precisely one response to him.  Who was soliciting who?  I want to point out to the arbiters this auto-contradiction that is deliberate by Karmafist.  I think he was trying to get more mileage out of Freestylefrappe's initial contact to me and my polite response to him.  He was likely also hoping no one would notice, but I have.  Karmafist here claims that Freestylefrappe was trying to solicit my participation in some unspecified dirty deed, and then turns around and says that I was trying to solicit Freestylefrappe:  "Tries to gain  as an ally in his crusade of hatred towards me. "  He can't have it both ways and the fact that he tried to is evidence that Karmafist is not an honest dealer.  And your defense of this abusive and dishonest admin who happened to nominate you for admin confirms that your nose is brown (and that your judgement is suspect).  And my main point stands that, in a fair and impartial domain, the remedy meted out to Freestylefrappe for abuse of editors is the same remedy metted out to Karmafist for the same violation of editors. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. r b-j 04:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

=Proposed final decision=

Administrators
1) Administrators of Wikipedia are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies.  Their powers are to be used only for appropriate reasons, as set forth in those policies, and should never be used in disputes in which the administrator is involved.  (See Administrators.)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * OK Fred Bauder 01:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * A bit of an expansion/combination of previous precedents. -- SCZenz 23:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Could be merged with Administrators Are Responsible To The Community, but no big deal. karmafist 15:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Administrators are responsible to the community
2) Administrators use their powers as representatives of the Wikipedia community, and as such the use of those powers is subject to observation by and comment from members of the community. Administrators are expected to respond courteously and constructively to questions about, and criticisms of, their use of administrator powers.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Changed a bit Fred Bauder 01:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Wrote this one based on no precedent I know of. It may need to be tweaked or rewritten. -- SCZenz 23:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Civility
3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * OK as Modified Fred Bauder 01:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Straight out of precedent, and relevant. -- SCZenz 23:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hand and hand with the following two findings. karmafist 15:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Assume good faith
4) Wikipedia editors should assume good faith in keeping with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This one should be first on the list. The whole case can be summarised by this. If Freestylefrappe had follwed this then all other violations of policy simply wouldn't have happened. (By the way I've reworded strongly "stongly advised to" as "should") Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Modified a bit Fred Bauder 01:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Again straight out of precedent. -- SCZenz 23:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, Freestylefrappe has done fairly poorly with this. karmafist 07:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Treatment of new contributors
5) New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. Please do not bite the newcomers.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Pretty wordy Fred Bauder 01:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've cut it down to size Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Couldn't find it in precedent, so I borrowed it from the Webcomics AfD. -- SCZenz 23:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Likewise to the AGF issue. karmafist 07:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Inappropriate blocking
6) Administrators should follow the blocking policy when blocking, barring a serious threat to Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * While it is easy for a new administrator to make a mistake, that mistake could be corrected if the administrator is willing and able to communicate. Fred Bauder 15:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Figured I'd give it a shot, since the inappropriate blocking of Jeffrey Gustafson has not been discussed much here yet. Johnleemk | Talk 15:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wheel warring
7) Administrators should never engage in repeatedly doing or undoing an administrative action. (See Wheel war.)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Certainly you should stop once you realize what is going on and ask for some other opinions. Fred Bauder 16:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Respectfully, I don't think Freestylefrappe blocking Jeffery Gustafson, then reblocking &mdash; after Mr. Gustafon unblocked himself &mdash; approached "wheel warring". (Note that I do think the original block was entirely inappropriate.) If Mr. Gustafson had done the right thing and gotten someone else to unblock him the first time, then I'd agree. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Again, the wheel warring aspect of the case has not been touched on much. Johnleemk | Talk 15:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

focus of dispute
1), a city in Macedonia, is a focus of dispute with discourtesy, edit warring, point of view editing and failure to adequately communicate displayed by Freestylefrappe. An administrator, Freestylefrappe has used and threatened to use his administrative powers in relation to an article he was involved in a dispute over . An expression of Freestylefrappe's viewpoint is on his user page at.


 * Comment by arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Discourtesy and personal attacks by Freestylefrappe
2) Freestylefrappe has been discourteous to other users . Personal attacks:  and . This practice has continued during this arbitration, see Requests_for_arbitration/Freestylefrappe/Evidence.


 * Comment by arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Failure to communicate adequately
3) Freestylefrappe has failed to communicate in the professional manner expected of an administrator. For example to this communication, he responded with . There is also failure to use the talk page effectively during the dispute at Kumanovo, see Talk:Kumanovo. This inquiry requesting information regarding a block , he characterizes as "Now I have to deal with harassment by BunchofGrapes." (bottom of page). In response to this explanation and other attempts to communicate he deletes  with the comment "removing all comments-too stupid for me to archive".


 * Comment by arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Blocking of new user without communication or warning
4) Freestylefrappe blocked as the result of this edit . Stephenj, who describes himself as Director for Technology Services at NDI, editing as  had probably added a mass of unwikified material into NDI. The removal of the lists of names, combined with an unlinked redirect to the article he had edited are typical of the stumbling attempts of a new user. However no warning or other communication was made prior to a 24 hour block. Karmafist had posted a warning , but no repetition of the offense had occurred. Freestylefrappe's contemporary comments on the incident.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * An isolated incident, perhaps, but handled in a clumsy way that shows lack of insight Fred Bauder 18:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Karmafist posted the warning after the block by Freestylefrappe, not before. -- SCZenz 16:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Inappropriate blocking
5) Freestylefrappe blocked for three hours over "modify[ing] the comments of other users" &mdash; the "other users" in this case being namely Freestylefrappe himself. When Jeffrey O. Gustafson unblocked himself, Freestylefrappe reblocked for six hours. This constitutes behaviour inappropriate of an administrator, who should not block in a dispute where he himself is a party, nor wheel war.  Another case involved an anonymous editor:  Blocks  for 48 hours on 16 December; anon has had one edit since 6 December and his first, last, and only warning was on 4 December.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No diffs. I would have to start from scratch to verify this. Fred Bauder 15:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I'm not a party, but I helped put out the fire in this incident. I thought I'd give this a shot. Feel free to chop this down, as it's rather lengthy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to Fred Bauder's comment above, see the user's block log and comments on his talk page. Ral315 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good call. I've added a link to the block log and FSF's blocking notification. Johnleemk | Talk 16:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal of principle from Requests for Comment
6) Freestylefrappe removed a clearly applicable principle from his Request for Comment . Freestylefrappe's viewpoint.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The excuse that it was added after there were signatures is vitiated by its clear applicability. Fred Bauder 15:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Given that the originally stated reason for adding WP:OWN to the list of principles was a simple comment by Freestylefrappe that he had created the article, I don't think "clearly applicable" is an accurate description of the situation. That presumes it was 'ok' to add the principle after votes had been made (and thus a bad faith action to then remove it) because it was so clearly applicable that everyone would naturally agree with it... which is demonstrably not the case. Reasonable people disagree that saying he created the article, removing content he believed to be copyvio, and Freestylefrappe's other actions at that page represent a violation of WP:OWN... let alone one so blatant as to be indisputable. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 16:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of administrative status
7) Freestylefrappe has used him administrative status to threaten other users and to threaten actions regarding a dispute he was engaged in.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This may be the most egregious incident, but a theme runs through that as an administrator he had special prerogatives. Fred Bauder 16:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Combative attitude
8) Freestylefrappe has a combative attitude incompatible with administrative status, see Requests_for_arbitration/Freestylefrappe/Evidence.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Freestylefrappe Requires Mentorship
1) Freestylefrappe requires outside assistance from The Mentorship Committee to curb his often explosive and hostile behavior towards others.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not sure if mentorship will work. Admins have to be a level headed lot. Not everyone has the right temperament to be an admin. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not likely to be effective in this case Fred Bauder 18:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * It's worth a shot. I'd like to Freestylefrappe rehabilitated if possible. karmafist 22:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Freestylefrappe Under Administrative Probation
1) Freestylefrappe cannot threaten anyone he disagrees with or use his administrative powers in a content dispute that he is involved for a period of one month, or be de-sysoped. After one month, the Mentorship Committee will decide whether the probation be extended or dropped entirely.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I don't think this is workable as is. How is he supposed to know what "controversial manner" means? If he understood that his actions are controversial he wouldn't be making them! Um maybe if he had to run all his admin actions past another admin before he makes them, then he could be coached by the admin community on what actions are ok and what are not. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Administrative probation is intended for much milder situations where there is a reasonable prospect that progress would be made. Way too much alienation in this case. Fred Bauder 18:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I've changed the wording. You're right, that might have been too vague. There are way too many vague policy/guidelines on Wikipedia nowadays. karmafist 22:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If there's going to be a probation approach, I think this is too narrow as currently worded. For example, I'd like to see something about reasonable warnings before blocking, and reasonable dialog if the "vandalism" isn't clearly vandalism. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I'm not convinced this is a sufficient remedy for freestylefrappe's abuses of administrator powers. Admin status is a privilege, not a right. There are plenty of other qualified people who can adequately perform the duties required; there's no need for admins who are more inclined to use their powers for personal satisfaction than the benefit of the community. (Incidentally, I'm unsure whether to list myself as a "party" or an "other". Freestylefrappe added me as a party to the RFAr, and I was a party to the original Kumanovo dispute, but I'm not listed as a party on the main page for this RFAr.) User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 20:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Kumanovo Ban
1) Freestylefrappe is banned from editing Kumanovo for a period of one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Agree with the other comments, what would this achieve? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I will propose Probation. That will permit banning from Kumanovo if disruptive behavior continues. Fred Bauder 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Why? His actions as an ordinary editor were not grossly inappropriate; they don't even begin to justify this. -- SCZenz 20:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think he's lost perspective there, but you're right, this is probably old news by now. karmafist 21:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Singling out this one page is pointless. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I don't think this remedy is all that useful; the argument isn't really about a town in Macedonia, but about alleged abuse of admin powers. User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 20:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe desysopped
4) Freestylefrappe is desyopped. He is free to reapply for adminship at Requests for adminship after one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Good God no! I'm going to reword it right now. - Done Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll rephrase this, but on preliminary review it seems an appropriate remedy. Fred Bauder 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Grabbed and reworded a bit from a previous case. This is necessary if ArbCom doesn't think Freestylefrappe can (and will) work to improve under some kind of mentorship.  In my personal opinion, he hasn't presented any inclination in that direction yet. -- SCZenz 21:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems like a bad idea; wouldn't an RfA be a ready-made bloodbath at this point? Requiring that he go through a bloodbath sounds awful. If this is the direction to go, directly de-adminning would be less disruptive. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC) Comment struck in light of changes to proposed remedy. You want to change the heading, too? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The last time this happened (here) the voters piled on their opposition and stated that they'd rather have the ArbCom decide.--Sean|Bla ck 02:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I searched the precedents for the wording, and this is what I found; I didn't know about that history. But you guys are right.  This has the effect of desysoping, plus a big mess; if desysoping is necessary, better to just do it.  I certainly wasn't going for public humiliation. -- SCZenz 03:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know, I just noted it because I recognized the precedent. In any case, while I would personally prefer not to do it this way, this seems like a reasonable decision.--Sean|Bla ck 10:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Probabation would be preferrable, but it seems like a removal of adminship may be necessary. Having an instant rfa would result in another Stevertigo, which I think we'd all want to avoid. karmafist 17:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * To me, this may be too harsh. But I can't think of another appropriate remedy at this point.  Ral315 (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * At this point, I would support such a de-adminship, seeing no response from Freestylefrappe to even remotely acknowledge this arbitration in the last month or so, nor to make up for past bad actions. Ral315 (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * A hammer is a tool. If someone uses it as a weapon, I think it should be taken away from them.  To then turn around and let them immediately ask to have it back would be pointless.  Admin power should be used as a tool, not as a weapon.  If the AC decides that freestylefrappe has used admin power as a weapon (which is my opinion, for all that counts), and therefore takes it away from him, then why allow an argument over immediately giving it back?  That would amount to the AC not making the decision at all.  I could see allowing him to request admin power again after some time period of, say, two months, or six months, just not immediately. Aumakua 01:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is for the community to decide who is trusted to use admin powers. The AC can decide that an admin has abused powers and to remove those powers from him, but the community gets to give those powers back. Although he is free to reapply for them at any time he would be a fool to attempt to do so without first attempting to redeem himself. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense; I didn't have a clear understanding of the power structure of Wikipedia yet -- that the community has more authority than the ArbCom, rather than the reverse. (Agreed, that if his powers are removed, he could ask for them back immediately, and agreed he'd be a fool to do so.) Aumakua 01:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We all know what the outcome would be, but here's an idea: Give Freestylefrappe the option of having either the ArbCom decide his ultimate fate with adminship, or have him go through RfA. That way there can be no more silly accusations of "cabal"ness. God. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 20:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this, having seen FSF's conduct WRT Jeffrey Gustafson. It's inappropriate to block someone in a dispute where you were involved, and then wheel war over it. (See Flcelloguy's description on the Evidence page.) Taking this into account with the myriad other incidents of incivility and abuse of admin powers, I think FSF needs to be deadmined, and the sooner the better. (A huge majority of users say: Don't be afraid to deadmin, arbcom!) Johnleemk | Talk 15:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe placed on probation
5) Freestylefrappe is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article by any administrator for good cause. All bans to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Freestylefrappe


 * Comment by arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Freestylefrappe's proposal
1) It seems to me that all of you are on a witch hunt, we clearly have a difference of opinion on this, which is, IMHO, unneccesary. Instead of going through a needless procedure to decide how to get your revenge, here's what I dont mind losing, and what I'd like to retain:
 * I lose... the power to delete pages/images, block, protect, and unprotect pages
 * I keep... the power to unblock, the ability to edit protected pages, rollback, and the ability to move pages to what are already redirects
 * freestylefrappe 01:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by arbitrators:
 * Not a witch hunt. No revenge involved, at least on my part. Never noticed you before the arbitration was requested. Fred Bauder 02:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Firstly, I don't think this is currently technically possible. Beyond that, this sort of misses the point. Rollback is one of things you've been abusing the most, and, IMO, undoing another person's block requires better judgement than blocking. I don't see why you shouldn't just get your powers taken away altogether, rather than getting this sort of special treatment.--Sean Black|Talk 02:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the powers he's chosen to keep for himself are just as easy to abuse/misuse as the powers he's chosen to lose. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * How about no, this is a perfect example of why you do should not and do not deserve to have your admin powers anymore and there's no way your gonna get away with wriggling out of losing them this time. Jtkiefer T   02:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm no witch hunter, not part of any cabal, and you never voted against my RFA (I've never had one and don't plan one). I just think you're an extremely bad administrator who blatantly and repeatedly abuses the power or threatens to use it in ways that would be abusing it if carried out. You have blocked and threatened to block people who had done nothing to justify such actions or threats, during an edit war you were directly involved in (Bektashi). The sooner you lose all of your admin powers the better, in my opinion, and I don't know anyone else who has presented the same sorts of statements, I came to my own opinion about you before I ever heard any of the rest of this stuff. Until you learn what the tools are used for, Wikipedia is better off with you having none of them, so you can't use them as weapons, that's my view. Aumakua 19:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that this would set an odd precedent, that the ArbCom could pick and choose powers for admins to have (a dangerous proposal, I believe), your actions throughout this case- inappropriate rollback use, inappropriate page protection and blanking, etc. make me question giving these to you. Ral315 (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Template
1)


 * Comment by arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

'Warrants a blocking'
(These points copied from Sean Black's section of the evidence page. -- SCZenz 23:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC))
 * Freestylefrappe threatens to block SCZenz after he presents evidence in his RFC.
 * Saying something "warrants a blocking" is not the same as saying "I will block you". Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I'm not impressed with this as evidence, quite ambiguous Fred Bauder 01:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * While I think it's debatable whether the remark was a "threat," it is potentially quite intimidating. For a user not familiar with blocking policy, an admin talking about blocking someone seems to speak with tremendous authority, and the statement that Freestylefrappe made could easily dissuade someone from what was (as far as I know) a legitimate course of action.  A good-faith contribution to an RfC cannot possibly warrant a blocking, and it would be inappropriate for the target of the RfC to apply the block even if it were, but (again I emphasize) some users might not know that.  Thus the "threat," or psuedo-threat, or whatever, does constitute an inappropriate effort by Freestylefrappe to manipulate his own RfC. -- SCZenz 23:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's the way I interprated it, and upon reflection, "threat" is not the right word. I still think it's inapproprite, and it shows a misunderstanding (or, at worst, a deliberate misrepresentation) of the blocking policy.--Sean|Bla ck 00:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As an admin, when I say something "warrants a blocking", I mean it. I don't know about other admins, but if another admin were to talk to me that way, I'd immediately review my actions to see if I'd done something wrong, and probably fret about being blocked. I don't view it as ambiguous. Making a series of personal attacks, violating the 3RR, repeat vandalism -- all these "warrant a blocking". I'm not sure how "warrants a blocking" could be viewed as ambiguous. Even if FSF didn't follow through on the "threat" (or whatever it was), it's something serious to be saying to another editor. Johnleemk | Talk 15:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * While the previous diff may not have been illustrative, I think this is: . This is from after the RFAr was filed. In response to my statement, Freestylefrappe leaves me a test3, warning me "Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia" and bizarrely accuses me of harassment and lies (despite the fact that I had only encountered him twice ever). Dmcdevit·t 09:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Done playing nice



 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I don't know if this is a joke or not. Does Freestylefrappe expect the arbcom to agree with a threatening statement like this? If so, I feel sorry for him, i'm adding to the evidence. karmafist 15:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is already in the evidence, in my section. That's why Fred moved it here for further analysis. -- SCZenz 16:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Done? When did he start? PurplePlatypus 09:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * He was being nice enough to be adminned in the first place. Ashibaka tock 22:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

'Refrain from such comments in the future or you will be blocked. You are not above the law.'
From Ral315's evidence:


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The is clearly a threat. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I don't know if you want to call this a threat or not, but I do personally think it appears to be an effort at intimidation. It certainly goes beyond incivility; leaving messages telling users not to leave certain comments on your own RfC shows extremely poor judgement.  If Freestylefrappe had really thought comments being made were inappropriate, he should have sought outside help; attempting to enforce discipline at one's own RfC is clearly conduct unbecoming an administrator. -- SCZenz 20:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Disagree with SCZenz here. This comment made the situation worse considering that Ral315 is a respected editor. karmafist 08:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think we disagree at all. That comment would have made things worse regardless oh who it was addressed to. -- SCZenz 06:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Allegedly inflated accusations of RfC content removal
From CBDunkerson's evidence:
 * Inflated accusations of RfC content removal: Freestylefrappe explained that the material was removed because he believed it shouldn't have been added after votes had been cast. Even if someone does not agree with that view it was not an unreasonable position... yet no mention of it has been made when the accusation was repeated -> & .


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I honestly don't believe I'm obligated, as complaining witness, to provide information that might mitigate my own evidence, or to speculate about the motives behind inappropriate actions; I just put links to actions I thought were inappropriate, and let the arbitrators sort it out. It's Freestylefrappe's job to illustrate why his actions were appropriate, if he thinks they were, and I applaud CBDunkerson for assisting him with that.  But I think the paragraph above is barking up the wrong tree; I've made much of Freestylefrappe's removal of material from the RfC because, whether he believed it was appropriate/relevant or not, it was inappropriate for him to remove material from his RfC.  His explanation for removal also came with an assertion about RfC policy which, despite a request to do so, he has not produced any links to.  Admins should know better than to refactor their own RfC's, and they should back up their assertions about "how things work" with evidence if requested.  -- SCZenz 21:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * But the the argument goes the other way too. Was there any evidence that WP:OWN should have gone on that rfc? Saying I started blah blah article, is not ownership of the article. Also remember that whilst this is a not a court of law, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is still a good guide to how you should present your evidence. It is better (for us) if instead of thinking of yourself as the complaining witness,  you think of youself as simply a witness and provide all relavent evidence of which you are aware even if it mitigates some of the other evidence. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It never occured to me that his stated explanation was relevant, for reasons I explained above: nobody should refactor another person's part of his own RfC, period. I also don't think, at this point, that I can credibly present evidence on both sides of this case (and I am labelled the complaining witness, right on the front page of this RfC); that's why I applaud CBDunkerson for doing so.  But if I think of anything else, I'll put it up. -- SCZenz 21:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * First off, the accusation that freestylefrappe felt he owned the article was not nearly as evident from his comments as it was from his actions. Second, regardless of whether the accusation was founded or unfounded, it was totally out of line for freestylefrappe to remove it from his own RFC! The only possible support he could have for having done so (because the accusation being false is not a valid reason, not at all) would be that it was improper to add accusations to an already-signed view on the RFC. I don't believe that's true, but I'm having trouble finding support either way. However, I feel that this language "Users should only edit one summary or view" in the RFC template makes it very clear that it was inappropriate for freestylefrappe to edit someone else's statement on his RFC, regardless of circumstances. If he really felt it needed to be reverted, he should have asked a neutral third party to do it. User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 17:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Just a comment in reference to a statement by Bunchofgrapes on the Evidence page; "My reading of policy doesn't seem to indicate that reverting probable copyvio material is exempt from 3RR as "simple vandalism"." At the time of the incident Bunchofgrapes was correct about what policy actually said. However, this copyvio revert issue was actually my primary reason for paying attention to this case in the first place and since then I made a change to that policy (after seeking comments on AN/I, 3RR, and VPP) which reversed the situation. The comments I got all said copyvio reverts shouldn't result in blocks on the reverter under 3RR, but there wasn't alot of discussion on the matter. It might be worthwhile for the ArbCom to take a look at this issue and determine whether reversions of copyrighted material SHOULD be subject to 3RR or not (and consequently whether my change above should be removed or adjusted). In any case, this does not change the status of policy at the time of the incident. Just wanted to clear up any possible confusion between Bunchofgrapes' (correct) understanding of what policy said at the time and what it says now. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 01:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)