Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe/Proposed decision

Kumanovo as source of problems

I disagree strongly with SimonP's assertion that the Kumanovo article was the source of the problems. It was the start of some of the problems, but the issue here is really that Freestylefrappe responded to several issues--one of which was the Kumanovo edit wars--very poorly. Can I politely request a bit more explanation of your reading of the evidence page, SimonP? -- SCZenz 06:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. I was not the one who listed the proposal that the Kumanovo article was the "focus of dispute," and I actually voted against that finding of fact (but for reasons more of wording). The behaviour at Kumanovo was unquestionably poor, but the evidence as I see it does not show any particular pattern of the user warring over a series of articles. Unless presented with evidence to the contrary, I am going to assume that this was a single case that grew out of control. Since a single article was the focus, then I don't think there is any call for him to be able to be "banned from any article by any administrator". I would have suggested a long term ban from that article, which was a problem, but Freestylefrappe hasn't edited it in over a month and according to the talk page it seems like the dispute was resolved. This is separate from the concern over abuse of admin powers, which you are quite correct went beyond this single article. However bans from certain articles are not a good response to abusing the blocking or protection policy. - SimonP 14:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. I guess I got the sense from what you wrote that you were also underemphasizing the abuse of admin powers, but looking again I think that might have been a misreading. Thanks for your answer. -- SCZenz 21:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor error in finding of fact

I hate to bring this up again at such a late date—I brought it up before, but then didn't check if it had been fixed—and I don't think it changes anything, but... Karmafist warned Stephenj after Freestylefrappe's block, as again be seen from looking at the times of the appropriate links in finding of fact #4; this contradicts the text of that finding of fact. -- SCZenz 09:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)