Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice

Case Opened on 21:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 23:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Third parties in support of Deeceevoice


The lengthy original request is at Talk page. Please made new brief statements if you are not satisfied with the following:

Statement by Justforasecond
Please limit your statement to 500 words

Deeceevoice has regularly and repeatedly violated wikipedia policies. On Dec 6, 2005, a request for comment was filed, which deeceevoice refused to address, stating:

it amazes me that people have nothing better to do on this website than play Miss Manners with other adults like prissy, pedantic, insufferable, niggling, mealy-mouthed, self-righteous, tattletale brats.

Most editors in the RfC agreed that deeceevoice had broken wikipedia policy, though a significant fraction thought her actions were reasonable. Several editors also mentioned deeceevoice NPOV and NOR violations, but those were not documented extensively in the RfC.

While many of deeceevoice's uncivil comments are directed towards vandals of one sort or another, she has, on numerous occassions, attacked cordial editors. In at least one cases she has described a legitimate request as "vandalism" in an edit summary while removing it from her talk page, though she insists on leaving truly offensive vandalism such as swastikas and photographs of lynchings for all to see.

What follows is from deeceevoice's RfC and is only a portion of her incivil behavior, but I believe it is enough to show a convincing pattern. -Justforasecond 06:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

From conversation with User:Zoe:


 * What? U want me 2 hold your little, white hand and sing "Kumbaya"? What the hell kinda comment is that? Don't insult my intelligence...


 * ...I can only conclude you wanted to read some reassuring warm-and-fuzzy expression of brotherhood/sisterhood....I got no time, no patience to stroke your psyche. Get a teddy bear.

From conversation with User:Matt Crypto:


 * When I need a lesson on playing nicey-nice to someone's irksome, naive bullcrap, I'll be sure to look you up. I don't do nice. In the meantime, kindly go to hell.


 * Do you really think some little twit instructing me in "civility" is going to change me? I find that mildly amusing. Thanks for the comic relief. Okay, I'm done w/you. Now go home. (yawn) 

From conversation with User:Matt Crypto:


 * Do you really think I give a flying ****?.

(With edit comments of "pathetic" and "Deleted annoying clutter from MY talk page" )

To get beneath the 500-word limit, I'll leave out the other quotes that can be found on the RfC page.        .  

Statement by Deeceevoice
Please limit your statement to 500 words

I won't dignify this apparent retread of the RfC with a response. I would, however, like to say something to those who have weighed in in support of me. First, sincerely, thank you. But more importantly, this: just ignore JFAS. He seems to have a rather unhealthful fixation with me (and perhaps may be a recycled antagonist with a new user name and ulterior motives -- perhaps not). He seems to crave attention of even the most negative sort. Whatever the case, it is extremely difficult at this point to believe his actions are well-intentioned. Not only do I believe his antics are divisive and counterproductive, I am concerned about the degree to which responding to him has diverted the time and energies of positive contributors to the project away from the business of improving Wikipedia. I truly appreciate the support, but, please, go back to your editing. It's what I intend to do -- when I have the time and the tolerance for it.

I have nothing else to say. Period. deeceevoice 10:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Alabamaboy
As stated before, even though User:justforasecond is the author of this RfA, User:justforasecond is bringing this RfA against deeceevoice despite having NO interactions with deeceevoice since the failed RfC against her. This RfA appears to be part of a pattern of harrassment by User:justforasecond against deeceevoice, as evidenced by the fact that nearly 2/3 of User:justforasecond's total edits on Wikipedia (see corrected stats below) are against deeceevoice.

Yes, Deeceevoice can be abrupt to users who make racist and other attacking comments to her. However, many of the examples cited above are from her talk page and, by Wikipedia standards, users are given more freedom to do what they want with regards to their talk page. Deeceevoice is also an excellent editor of articles, as indicated by a long track record of edits. Finally, this RfA is not valid because the previous RfC failed to achieve consensus and was stopped early due to excessive personal attacks.--Alabamaboy 16:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As a final note on how I believe that Justforasecond is harassing Deeceevoice, I refer to this instance  where Justforasecond removed a comment in support of Deeceevoice from Deeceevoice's personal talk page. This comment was shortly thereafter restored by another editor.--Alabamaboy 02:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Jpgordon
I just feel the need to reiterate what my comment on that RfC:

It must be said that there are many places in discussions on Wikipedia where saying "Fuck off" in so many words would save an awful lot of time and energy currently consumed by coming up with long-winded euphemisms and policy discussions that mean exactly "fuck off". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It amazes me too that you have nothing better to do with this website then hassle DC; at this point it appears that well over 3/4 of your Wikipedia activity has been furthering your assault upon her. You think any of this is going to make her tell Nazi vandals on her talk page to fuck off more politely? The only outcome that will include that will include her leaving, and her contributions to Wikipedia have been extremely valuable. There's an easy solution for you, the filer of this arbitration request: don't read her talk page. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 07:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Encyclopedist
Since this is an extended version of the same bullcrap, I will add exactly what I did here

I am a strong friend of Deeceevoice on this site, so I don't know if anyone is going to object to my views as being arbitrary. However, I do know that Deeceevoice, above all arguments, has done much to improve this site, and should be considered one of the valued colloborators here. This has not been the case, one need only look at her talk page to see hate filled vitriol and rascist comments that she has decided to post there (and I am not just talking about obvious vandalism, I am talking about some contributors) as "gratitude" for her hard work here. I am not going to condone any NPA or POV actions that Deeceevoice may have; but I do think that it is important to see firstly that as an African American and as an avid intellectual; she may and does have more to offer in terms of contributions to Afrocentrism articles, and this may seem to be POV to others, as on the talk page I have seen several preconceived, biased and rascists notions against her and her edits. No, it is not right to insult another Wikipedian, however, this argument is inherentently excluding the fault that Deeceevoice's opponents here and outside this RfA have, especially in regards to questionable civility. In Deeceevoice I see a very very strong person; who has convinced me to stay on a site where I am bombarded by hateful racism, along with arrogant and abrasive editors. As a contributor on Wikipedia, she has stayed through several cases of attacks against her and insults, but only to contribute more to this site. Her attitudes in my opinion do shed light on the fact that she is trying to give attention to several themes that are ignored and often of poor quality on Wikipedia. Black topics here are often ignored, so Deecee's efforts to try to improve such have been criticized as POV. THEY ARE NOT. They are from a different, and interestingly enough, an AFRICAN AMERICAN perspective. Does being African American give here the right to add POV in articles? No. But does being a scholarly intellectual with African descent give her the right to contribute to sites that are often ignored by the monotone community of Wikipedia? Yes. Sure, I know that people will probably not endorse or agree with what I am saying; I have been in a number of debates here (i.e. VfDs, RfAs etc.), and frankly, every one has been like pulling teeth. I predict dissent and naysayers leaving nasty comments under this message; but I do not have time for any arguments. I could sit here and type all day about the excellent contributions Deecee has created for this site; and similarly, write about the rascists and hate filled words directed towards her. Concerning NPA, it is comprehensible that Deecee voice will get angry. The problem here is that the complainants are focusing on bad points when Deeceevoice finally did insult malactors for their insults; but never look into the times when she has brushed off such foolishness. Bottom line, I have no qualms against anyone here (at least not anymore); and I do consider Deeceevoice to be a true friend. My argument stands as it is. I know that no one will agree with it, and I will hear people complaining with little subcaps below, as if I am going to give them the time of day to respond to them. I have a life, I suggest others get the same. And concerning Deeceevoice not resppnding, I wouldn't either: nothing ever comes of it, people here are ready to crucify her since she has been here. It will just be a long argument, but the outcome is the same. Deeceevoice, stay strong.  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  19:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Above all, I see just as much, if not more, fault in her opponents. There will never be an equal voice in Wikipedia as the majority of the contributors here are white; and a person decides to focus in an Afrocentric perspective. Deeceevoice has been shown little respect for her contributions, and I believe that instead of putting this RfC (which is not to the standard of what it should be, neither in format or whatever "evidence" you can find against her) we should commend her.  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  19:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe this, you lose the RfC, so you pull a stunt like this?? That is so sad.  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  00:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by DreamGuy
deeceevoice has a long history of extremely harassing statements and extreme POV-pushing on this site. She regularly inserts highly Afrocentric opinions into articles related to Ancient Egypt and calls people racists and other major violations of WP:NPA when the edits are removed, while using racially abusive language herself in response, calling editors "Whitey" for example without knowing anything about their actual race. The RFC was not a "failed" RFC, as a large number of posters agreed that she was extremely abusive - nothing further happened solely because RFCs have no teeth, and deeceevoice was ignoring the entire process, instead having editors with questionable histories show up to try to portray her as an angel and her detractors as racist and etc. etc. I don't know [[User:Justforasecond from Adam, other than he tried to get me to make more active role in the RFC, but regardless of whether the attacks on him above by the questionable editors are accurate in their claims or not, the fact remains that deeceevoice's only goal here seems to be rather drastic POV pushing and major, major examples of not just uncivil behavior but outright abuse. Those looking whether to take on this case should ignore the back and forth of the editors above and simply browse the RFC against her and her contribution history. It won't take much time, and you can see for yourselves which (if indeed any) of the views posted above are accurate, or, more importantly, whether there is enough there to open this up to the evidence stage. Much of the content of the statements above are highly irrelevant to the question of whether arbitration is necessary and I think could all too easily act as a smokescreen to the real issues here. DreamGuy 11:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Jmabel (not a party to the arbitration)
I suggest that people abide by the rule that this page is not the place for conversation. People are interjecting their comments into each other's statements.

I urge the arbitrators to take into account how active and useful a contributor deeceevoice has been (and continues to be) and how little Justforasecond has participated in Wikipedia other than to complain about deeceevoice; that the two other people who have identified themselves as parties to the arbitration have come in to support deeceevoice; and to reject this request for arbitration as a distraction from the work of building an encyclopedia. If a serious participant in Wikipedia like Matt Crypto wanted an arbitration with deeceevoice, I'd urge her to consider it, and I'd urge the arbitrators to take it, but that is not what we have here. We have an almost brand new contributor taking more of his/her own time on a grievance about an established contributor than on contributing to articles, and eating up a lot of other people's time in the process.

Full disclosure: for the record, if anyone doesn't know, I am not a neutral party. While I have suggested to deeceevoice that some of her remarks to people are excessive and I think a few have even been somewhat uncivil, it seems pretty obvious to me that with her we get the whole package or we get nothing, and between the two, I'll take the package without hesitation. And I know people will chew me out for this and that I hold a minority view, but I feel that the main issue with racially charged remarks&mdash;which deeceevoice has made&mdash;is that they can create a generally hostile atmosphere for the people in the group against whom they are directed. I see no prospect of Wikipedia becoming a generally hostile environment for white people, so her remarks simply do not distress me to the point that similar remarks about (for example) Blacks, Jews, or Roma would distress me. She has been occasionally uncivil, but most of us are occasionally uncivil. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Urthogie
Deeceevoice is a skilled wikipedia writer. Her problem is her inclusion of her afrocentrist POV in articles. I wouldn't even mind her POV if it weren't for the two following facts: --Urthogie 08:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * She often reverts twice in a row.
 * She doesn't make compromises, in fact in my aims at compromise on the talk pages for cool (african philosophy), she stomped on the olive branch i handed and called me a eurocentrist. now that article is unfortunately gonna be sent towards deletion.

Statement by Andries (not a party to the arbitration)
Deeceevoice is a good writer and I had constructive (though somewhat aggressive) discussions and disputes with her on talk:blackface. The article that was mainly written by her became a featured article. This is the only interaction that I have had with Deeceevoice and I have not looked at the complaints made on other articles. Andries 12:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias (not a party to the arbitration)
Nobody on this site really needs to know (or care) what race, sex, religion, nationality, etc. another editor is... unless, of course, that editor decides for some reason to make it an issue. In the case of Deeceevoice, the reason she makes her race an issue is apparently for the purpose of POV-pushing. Her POV seems to be one of the leftist/PC/"afrocentric", "it's a black thing; you wouldn't understand" nature. That's fine; like everybody else, she's got the right to her opinions and viewpoints, and we need a broad variety of them here to try to produce an overall NPOV encyclopedia. However, she seems sometimes to go beyond merely attempting to correct bias against her position, and go in the direction of introducing bias for her side, getting riled up if anybody opposes her and letting this get her into a heated, unproductive argument. Actually, when I looked through her edit history to see how her actual article edits were, I ran into the problem that she didn't seem to have very many of them; her participation has been predominantly in user, talk, and project pages. It's fine to talk out issues there, but it's nice if you get some actual editing done once in a while too. And her discussions unfortunately devolved all too often into nasty bickering; given that it takes two to argue, she doesn't have all of the blame, but certainly some of it. Calling people "racist" who disagree with her is the sort of left/PC tactic I despise. Anyway, if her thesis is true that non-blacks can't possibly truly understand where she's coming from, then I guess it's not any of her opponents' fault after all... they can't help being non-black (if in fact they are). Is it really fair for her to castigate people for their lack of appreciation of her position, after claiming that their race makes them incapable of it in the first place?

Anyway, she can be an eloquent writer at times... and also a rude, divisive, disruptive force. It's fully understandable that she has garnered both friends and enemies here. It would be nice if she'd dial down her rhetoric a few notches, and make some effort to participate in a collegial manner, which does not require any compromise of her principles. It would not be good, either for Wikipedia or her own cause, if she proceeds to dismiss the site as beyond all help, and encourages fellow African-Americans to abandon it and create some sort of segregated encyclopedia elsewhere, as it seems she's saying on her user page now. *Dan T.* 03:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It actually is racist of her to assume that white people are limited in their capability of non-racist thoughts. Incredibly ironic.--Urthogie 09:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Friday
I'm surprised to see this described as harassment. It wasn't intended as such; it seemed to me unneccessarily legalistic to persue arbitration on an editor who (I thought) had already said she intended to leave. I figured we could save time and avoid conflict by calling the whole thing off. I'm confused why a user who doesn't intend to edit articles would WANT to hang around, but that's up to her. I didn't think I was being pushy with the idea. Friday (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If this is the only thing Friday has done, then I'd say he shouldnt be put on parole(let's assume good faith on his part). If he has done other things, then yes I would consider it harassment.  But this seems to be the only thing, right?--Urthogie 17:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a few other comments on her talk page, still there for anyone to see. The first I remember talking to her was to advise her to be civil.  At one point, I did tell her that I may block her if I saw her being needlessly rude (I saw what I judged to be a pattern of ill behavior.)  However a few other people said this was harsh and inappropriate, so I backed off and resolved to drop the civility matter.  Given my previous involvement, there's no way I personally would ever block her, no matter what she did.  I had no intention of getting involved in the arbitration because I see it as conflict that probably won't produce a useful result.  It's possible my comments to her were foolish and/or unhelpful, but I meant no offense.  Friday (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be satisfied with an apology on Friday's part, and nothing more. Shouldn't overdo his punishment.--Urthogie 18:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Some related things are on my talk page. See User talk:Friday and User talk:Friday.  Friday (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0)

 * Accept. Fred Bauder 21:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. ➥the Epopt 14:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. James F. (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. Jayjg (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. Charles Matthews 10:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision =

Discourtesy and personal attacks
1) Users are expected to be courteous to others and avoid personal attacks, even in the face of provocation, see Civility and No personal attacks.


 * Passed 8-0

Reliable sources
2) Information added should have a reliable source, be verifiable and not be original research, or simply based on personal knowledge and experience.


 * Passed 8-0

Harassment
3) Harassment prohibits harassment of other users.


 * Passed 8-0

Jurisdiction over users who inject themselves into the conflict
4) The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction over users who inject themselves into and become participants in a dispute which is in Arbitration. From the time any Arbitrator feels action under this principle may be appropriate any such user shall be notified on their user talk page.


 * Passed 8-0

Don't bite the newbies
5) Please do not bite the newcomers provides that aggressively reacting to the mistakes of newcomers to Wikipedia is inappropriate.


 * Passed 8-0

We're allowed to talk to you
6) During Arbitration, members of the Arbitration Committee may attempt to engage in communication with those who are parties to the Arbitration. These communications may be inquiries as to intent, efforts to explain policy to the parties, or attempts to resolve disputes. They may be ineffective or unwelcome, but have the purpose of facilitating the user's effective contribution as a member of the community.


 * Passed 8-0

Consensus requires communication
7) Wikipedia's method of making decisions by Consensus requires communication in good faith between Wikipedia users.


 * Passed 8-0

Original research
8) No original research prohibits even interesting and valuable writing which is not based on information published in a reliable source.


 * Passed 8-0

Deeceevoice has been discourteous and made personal attacks
1) has frequently been discourteous and has made personal attacks Miss Manners, Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Workshop, Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence, Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence and Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence. This behavior continues,  and.


 * Passed 8-0

Questions regarding sourcing and point of view editing
2) Legitimate questions have been raised regarding Deeceevoice's point of view editing and reliance on personal knowledge in her editing, "I'm not going to spend my time searching the Internet for sources -- particularly for stuff that isn't germane to the article in question and perfectly obvious to just about every black person on the street.", Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence and Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence.


 * Passed 8-0

Offensive user page
3.2) maintained a user page containing a unacceptable rant calculated to offend.  Jimbo Wales stated that if it were not altered, he would be "happy to simply delete the page and block the user if necessary."


 * Passed 8-0

Harassment of Deeceevoice
4) During this arbitration certain other users have harassed Deeceevoice. posting a suggestion that she leave the project  and  first commenting on her user page  then creating a page User_talk:Jim_Apple/deeceevoice_departure (now deleted and viewable only by administrators)  also posting inquiries on her talk page . Jim Apple then posted links to his page on other users' pages  and, see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. See also this by an anonymous user inviting her to dialog on Stormfront


 * Passed 8-0

Deeceevoice an experienced user
5) Deeceevoice created her user page on 10 July 2004 and has actively and continously edited Wikipedia for over 18 months. She has had ample opportunity to learn all Wikipedia policies, and cannot be excused for unfamiliarity or inexperience.


 * Passed 8-0

Deeceevoice unwilling to communicate
6) Deeceevoice has in number of instances expressed her unwillingness to communicate with other users regarding her behavior or the content of Wikipedia articles. This behavior has continued in aggravated form during this arbitration, , commenting "Removed without reading. User has been advised NOT to post to my talk page.", and , commenting "PLAIN ENGLISH: DO NOT POST HERE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. GOT IT? (DONT REPLY - Duh)".


 * Passed 7-0

Original research by Deeceevoice
7) Deeceevoice has employed original research in the composition of articles, see Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice/Workshop. While her writing is interesting, even profound, it violates fundamental Wikipedia policy.


 * Passed 7-0

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.

Non-escalating personal attack parole
1.1) Deeceevoice is placed on personal attack parole. She may be briefly blocked if she engages in personal attacks or racially-related incivility, up to a week in the case of repeat violations.


 * Passed 7-1

Reminder regarding core Wikipedia policies
2) Deeceevoice is reminded of the need to follow Neutral point of view, No original research, Verifiability. and Reliable sources. In addition, her attention is directed to What_Wikipedia_is_not


 * Passed 8-0

Counseling regarding offense
3) Deeceevoice is counseled to assume good faith and avoid offense, see Assume good faith.


 * Passed 8-0

Offensive user page prohibition
4) Deeceevoice is prohibited from using her user page to publish offensive rants. Any administrator may delete any offensive material from her user page at any time. If she attempts to restore the offensive material, she may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.


 * Passed 7-1

Friday cautioned
5) Friday is cautioned to avoid suggesting to users who are the subject of Arbitration proceedings that they abandon Wikipedia.


 * Passed 5-2

Jim Apple cautioned
6) Jim Apple is cautioned to avoid suggesting to users who are the subject of Arbitration proceedings that they abandon Wikipedia.


 * Passed 6-1

Deeceevoice placed on probation
7) Deeceevoice is placed on Probation. She may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article or talk page which she disrupts. She may be banned from Wikipedia for up to one year by any three administrators for good cause. All bans and blocks together with the basis for them shall be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice


 * Passed 8-0

Record of blocks or bans
1) All blocks or bans of Deeceevoice should be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice.


 * Passed 8-0

Documentation of blocks or bans
Place here the basis of any action taken under the provisions of any remedy imposed in this matter especially blocks for personal attacks or incivility signed by the blocking administrator. (See also Block Log)


 * I have blocked Deeceevoice for 48 hours for personal attacks: "Don't bore me with your simplistic/idiotic assumptions", "Jayjg [is] an abrasive, notorious POV warrior". It's not encouraging that she has simply deleted the notice of ArbCom's decision "unread". &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Deeceevoice for 4 days for republishing her old offensive user page at User:Deeceevoice/Archive 1. (This had been previously deleted by  after being reposted to User:Deeceevoice/Archive1 on 12 February). &mdash; Matt Crypto  06:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Deeceevoice for 24 hours for being incivil to other users, here. Ashibaka tock 19:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Deeceevoice for 48 hours for incivility and personal attacks in relation to a dispute about Great Sphinx of Giza: for example, "ThatGuy has finally lost it. What's with these people? You can't tell me something sick isn't going on with regard to racial animosity. This is truly pathetic. People seem to have lost (or to lack completely) the capacity for rational discourse. Perhaps Jimbo should require people to take a course in basic logic before being allowed to edit here. Wikipedia is starting to really disgust me again. " (from User talk:Deeceevoice) and "...Stop cluttering this space with your incessant whining and complaining." (from Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza). &mdash; Matt Crypto  08:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Deeceevoice for a week for disparaging comments about me merely being a "white adolescent" (I am white and 26), and related incivility. Wikipedia must not tolerate racist (or ageist) personal attacks. &mdash; Matt Crypto  09:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Silly. Nowhere near a racist or ageist remark. Read my remarks.  Any reasonable person would disagree with Crypto here.  And for that he blocked me for a week.  Yeah.  Right. deeceevoice 08:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * At this point I think her behavior has become trolling/disruption.   Justforasecond 15:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Deeceevoice for a week for personal attacks and incivility e.g. . &mdash; Matt Crypto 08:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Reduced to 24 hours after discussion on the talk page. &mdash; Matt Crypto 13:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Deeceevoice for 24 hours for incivility: . &mdash; Matt Crypto 11:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm banning Deeceevoice indefinitely from both Afrocentrism and its talk page - we know her POV, there's no reason to allow her to continue to push it, especially when combined with tendentious filibustering, edit-warring and incivility. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is absolute nonsense. I challenge you to point out where I've been "POV pushing" at Afrocentrism.  Provide the diffs.  Let's have it.  deeceevoice 20:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have logged this here in error, since a year has passed since the last restriction here, hence the probation period is over. "Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/(Name of case). Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed XXX's probation shall automatically end." 86.44.4.103 (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you're quoting from, but any limits on probation are described in the particular case decision, not on some generic policy page. In this case, probation is indefinite as a duration was not specified. Thatcher131 17:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. The quote is from Probation, it's explicitly cited in remedy 7...86.42.83.73 (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked for one year per remedy seven after discussion on WP:ANI (perm link). Viridae Talk  00:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I unblocked Deeceevoice and have provided an explanation at AN/I. In short, six or seven edits were provided of evidence that Deeceevoice had violated the ArbCom parole.  In my opinion most of these edits show Deeceevoice to be acting like the average well-intentioned editor: explaining his/her views, and making clear points of contention.  I do not see evidence of soap-boxing, disruptive edits, or tendentiousness.  Based on discussion at AN/I as well as on the Afrocentrism talk page it seems clear to me that a few editors simply do not want Deeceevoice's views expressed in the discussions of this topic.  That is not a good reason to ban someone - it violates the spirit of NPOV and is an abuse of authority. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto -- as evidenced by the fact that such flimsy pretenses were used to ban me from editing Afrocentrism. Totally trumped-up.  deeceevoice (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently my un-blocking was incomplete. I will try to remedy that.  I hope that all parties can restrain themselves when they have the urge to nit-pick, play the blame game, or even just be sarcastic, regardless of the perceived provocation.  I know the editors involved are capable of making reasonable edits and also limiting their contributions to the talk page to reasonable questions, answers, and explanations of edits ... I hope they are all able to continue in just this spirit. To be clear: it was my intention to rescind the topic ban.  I hope this is sufficiently clear.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. deeceevoice (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)