Your evidence on the RFAR |
Freestylefrappe (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by Zocky (talk) to last version by Fred Bauder |
||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
==Grace Note== |
==Grace Note== |
||
Grace Note has sometimes used that ip. |
Grace Note has sometimes used that ip. |
||
== Your evidence on the RFAR == |
|||
Among other things, the top of that page says: "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." |
|||
Please, in your own interest, reduce your evidence to actual assertions and diff links with short descriptions, like that presented by others. Statements are meant to go on the main RFAR page, and lengthy discussion of other people's evidence should be directed to the evidence talk page. [[User:Zocky|Zocky]] 22:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:26, 24 December 2005
- Archive - note: this includes all comments posted so far
- DO NOT THANK ME for an RFA I voted on
- DO NOT ENGAGE IN THE FOLLOWING...
- cruel and unusual punishment
- involvement in private conversations - dont jump in if you aren't involved in the article or topic in question, start a new section
- personal attacks towards any user
- 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.
Thanks, help is appreciated
Thank you for your offer of help. Karmafist, Dmcdevit and others have been on my case over WP:0RR and conspiracy theory. Also, if you have some time please look into the race and intelligence article which I long ago interpreted to be extremely biased, racist, and even racism inducing, it's certainly completely unscientific and POV. A day ago I tried to clean up the intro (the article may actually be unsalvagable due to the presumption inducing dichotomy and the unscientific presentation methods), but that change was quickly reverted. Also note the recent case of User:Benjamin Gatti being labeled "disruptive" for pointing out what I agree is censorship, obfuscation, regurgitation of nuclear industry talking points and mischaracterization of critical views in the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act article, he and I are currently involved in arbitration with the proponents of that article here. And more recently there seems to be a highly coordinated effort by David Gerard, Carbonite and perhaps others such as Lord Voldermort, Radiant, Jbamb and Ryan Delaney to portray User:Peter McConaughey excessively negatively and unfairly apparently because they really don't like his WP:0RR guideline, go here which pretty sums up the situation in my interpretation (scroll down for my repsonses to their initial excessively negative and subtly unfair portrayal of Peter). On the Wikipedia talk:Zero-revert rule discussion page I theorize with Peter that the "cabal" must not like the fact his guideline encourages people to preserve information and viewpoints and frees people from thinking in terms of "reverting". I also just recently noticed the wikipedia definitions of "consensus" and "guideline" have strayed far from their fundamental principle meanings ("consensus" does not mean "majority" it means working collaboratively and positively for unanimity, and "guideline" is simply a rule of thumb people follow or not), and just today someone, perhaps inadvertently, removed the common definition of "conspiracy" from conspiracy. If there is a "cabal" it is increasingly obvious. zen master T 00:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thanks for your comment.
the problem is that Karma only "threatened" to RFC me if i "harrassed Phroziac again" (even though i never harrassed her, and i am confident any reasonable person reading what i have written could not conclude i had). but i have no plans to say anything more to Phroziac unless it is at RFAr or RFC or something like that. i ain't going to her talk page again (nor karma's either). if you want to, leave a note a Fred Bauder, Raul whatever, or Jimbo's talk page where i have left a note. these guys need to understand that i am not some troll as karma accuses (such immature hypocrisy, accuse the advesary of precisely the sin one is guilty of). i had some hope that reasonalbeness might prevail, but now i am not so sure. do you have other contacts whom had a bad experience with karmafist, that we could contact? r b-j 00:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know the context
Freestylefrappe, Perhaps you selected a different copy-paste when you sent me a which I know nothing about. Sorry, I don't know anything about the article. --Ancheta Wis 01:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- The plot thickens. What is going on here? I will post this sequence to Village pump to see how a history session is getting confounded. Here is the history:
- 00:15, 3 December 2005 (hist) (diff) Category talk:Philosophy (→Split category from portal - support)
- 11:09, 2 December 2005 (hist) (diff) White Sands (copied the contents to White Sands (film). This page contains the film's revision history.)
- 11:04, 2 December 2005 (hist) (diff) White Sands (film) (created a dab from the film stub formerly at White Sands, which contains the revision history)
- 17:18, 1 December 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates (→1 December 2005 - US army is running out of generals)
Well, anyway, if I indeed reverted an anon's contribution on 2 December 2005, which could well have happened, then why didn't it show up in my history? But a possible explanation is when the Siegenthaler reversions to the article edit histories occurred, then maybe it dragged down my history as well. Interesting puzzle. I don't have a good answer for you. I have heard of Guanaco, I didn't know about his bot, but that still doesn't answer anything. --Ancheta Wis 02:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- OK, Freestylefrappe -- here is an explanation. I indeed hit that anon's talk page Dec 2 2004. Obviously I was on RC Patrol that day for some reason. But the Dec 23 2005 entry which you refer to apparently shares an IP with Guanabot, which apparently can run without its userID set to Guanabot. For some reason, the bot hit the article you referenced in your message to me. --Ancheta Wis 03:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- With all of this, one tack is to simply ask User:guanabot if that is his IP address. That hopefully closes this thread. 03:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Re:
On what grounds can you claim that I "threatened" the user Striver? None.
I quote:
"9/11 part two, bigger and better" (which has since been edited)
"the assasination of George Bush to create a martyr"
Those statements indicate some level of hostility toward the United States government and its highest official, especially when no context is given to suggest otherwise.
Striver was reported to both the FBI and United States Secret Service. If Striver is subjected to any legal action, that will be the response and responsibility of the United States government, not myself; therefore my actions did not constitute a personal legal threat as described by the Wikipedia policy page on legal threats. As far I am included, I merely informed this user that the comments made were worth reporting, worth reporting by anyone responsible enough to do so; I just happened to be the first one to notice.
Keep your half-truths and empty threats off of my talk page. Got that?
Haizum 02:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
RFC
Done. --Striver 05:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
A Request For Comment
Your call, although it's likely to look as a bad faith issue considering your current situation, your temperment and that i've backed off for the most part in the hopes that you would have calmed down and stopped making things worse for yourself. What you just said on my talk page will be one of my first pieces of evidence submitted in your rfar. karmafist 05:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Angels in Islam
In response to your... I guess that was a question... I just merged in what was salvagable of Israfil (archangel), which had just been created. --W.marsh 05:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I've unprotected this page. Please do not protect your own talk page. People need to use it to communicate with you. I understand that wish to sleep. Just turn your computer off to do that. You can deal with any messages in the morning.
Actually while I'm here I'd advise you to not use any of your admin powers until the arbitration process is over. It's clear that you are not up to speed on what you are allowed and not allowed to do. I strongly suggest you use these time to read the policies that apply to admins over and take time to understand them.
I haven't unprotected your user page, but I'm requesting that you do it. Protection should only ever be used sparingly. I see that your userpage has not been vandalised so I cannot understand why you would protect it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Freestylefrappe. FYI, the protection policies Theresa is talking about can be found here, and that's part of a larger 'toolkit' of admin info here. --CBD ☎ ✉ 16:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration accepted
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe/Workshop. Fred Bauder 17:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Grace Note
Grace Note has sometimes used that ip.