User:Robchurch/deeceevoice

The text that previously appeared on this page has been removed, and for good reason; the explanation of which (and the obligatory apology are below.)

The full and sordid extent of my personal...I don't know what to call it
In jumping on the bandwagon in the Deeceevoice arbitration affair, which I have since come to recognise as the witchhunt it is, I violated the very principles I swore to apply to my Wikipedia involvement; assumption of good faith, not biting the users at all, maintaining a cool head, etc.

"The social structure" and the true goal
Discussion is only the means to the end we are after; that the social structure built to create the encyclopedia we are striving for is still only the means to the end. I failed to appreciate that I'd previously maintained this all over; that regardless of who offends who, or whatever interpersonal clashes we have with each other, it's all germane in the context of our goal. This is a dangerous oversight to make, and I am guilty of it.

The contributions of User:Deeceevoice, restricted to the article namespace, are demonstrative of some of the finest editing we have; introducing what I've since re-read and agree that is, a diverse and absolutely vital take on things; she's right - we've far too much of an Americocentric bias on issues we know nothing about. The vast majority of us, I think, are not African American; and we holler blue murder when we start to find what we call "POV" in our articles. Yet the moment someone who knows a different perspective does offer it, and does strive for the true goal of all points covered, we leap on them and beat them down. This is not acceptable, and I am guilty of it.

Conversely, her contributions to the talk and other discussion namespaces aren't part of our goal, and should be largely ignored - I'm not saying we should ignore what she says when improving articles, but as she's rightly pointed out, it's all out of context with the true goal here. This is something we should all remember, and I failed to do so.

There's a difference between helping people and crushing them
Perhaps originally I believed Deeceevoice was doing something wrong, and perhaps originally I wanted to help her see it. Whether or not she was is now irrelevant, and for reasons above, I don't think she was, but...

...Arbitration is not a means to help other users see where they are going wrong. No doubt if those of us involved in the whole sordid affair had spoken to her personally; had tried to mediate with her direct, and in a manner indicative of a desire to resolve the issue, she would have responded in kind, perhaps even being able to spot any mistakes we were making. It's like a peer review process for each other's attitudes. But we didn't. We leapt on board and tried to get her punished for her failings, without recognising that we are none of us perfect. This is a grevious mistake, and I am guilty of it.

Evidence is as evidence does
What was on this page was all lies and fabrication, insofar as what I claimed she'd said, and here's why:

The email I sent her might have been polite; her response might have been less than desirable. But of course, what I'd failed to consider was her take on things - email is not at all a suitable mechanism for interpersonal communications, in fact, nothing electronic is - and so the potential for the misunderstanding was there from the moment I clicked Send in the first place.

What I did that I am appalled with is this; I lost my head and let myself type faster than I was thinking. The problem with basing part of your case on an email that's long since been deleted is that you tend not to remember the words of it, but your interpretation - and my interpretation was most certainly incorrect at the time. Shoving what was my interpretation down as gospel was not only wrong - it was downright intolerable, and I am indeed not only disgusted and ashamed with myself for doing it - I am angry. You have got to think before you type, and I didn't.

What I'm going to do about it
Since I broke all of my core principles in one fell swoop here, I am going to quit editing and involvement at large. That isn't to say I'm walking from the project; I am a benefit to the development end of things, I believe, so I shall stick to doing what I am good at - but on the whole, involvement with the community isn't one of them.

Resilience
The amount of vandalism on her userpage grows steadily; it's an unceasing tide of absolute filth, and a lesser person would have reverted viciously. Not this one; she maintains her trophy cabinet as a defiant sign of her impenetrable armoured shell, and her determination to bounce back, no matter what is thrown at her. Give her a barnstar.

She gives as good as she gets
Despite the foul behaviour (including mine) Deeceevoice has been confronted with, she never seems to lose that - on second or third glance, rather amusing - sense of casual dismissal, brushing off racism, insults and all manner of shit like dust. Even though she won't admit it, I expect every "nigger" rips a fresh scar deep down; but she doesn't let it get to her for long. Give her a barnstar.

She has kept focus throughout
Fuck the discussions; fuck the talk pages; fuck the interpersonal nonsense. We're all here to build an encyclopedia, as I reiterated above, and Deeceevoice kept that in mind above all others. Her application of IAR when it was appropriate is admirable, and her desire to keep on task throughout more so. Why can't more people remember why we're here?

Next steps
The next steps I'm going to take are:


 * 1) Retract the comments I made on the RfAr, and post a note to this page
 * 2) Leave a talk message for Deeceevoice, and email an apology

I don't know if, although I sadly suspect that it is, too late to make amends, but if I don't try, then I deserve the label of being lower than shit. Rob Church Talk 19:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)