Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice

Original request
Please do not edit.

Involved parties

 * deeceevoice Deeceevoice is charged with regularly and repeatedly violating wikipedia policies.
 * User:justforasecond Author of this request
 * Alabamaboy I wish to become an involved party in this. 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 half of User:justforasecond's total edits on Wikipedia (and nearly 80-90% in recent weeks) are against or about deeceevoice. Since User:justforasecond appears to have no standing to bring this new RfA, I am also taking part in this.--Alabamaboy 16:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 *  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  00:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC),I hereby confirm my involvement as Party Four, but I will add the exact same thing I did on the RfC becuase this is repetitive crap from racists in my opinion.  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *    (talk)  00:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll take part, seems like harassment to me. FrancisTyers 19:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * i want to go along for the ride Zen Destiny 08:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

on deeceevoice's talk page (she has now removed this)

Request for comment: Requests_for_comment/Deeceevoice
 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
 * Actually, the RfC failed due to personal attacks. As has been stated before User:justforasecond is a new user with half of User:justforasecond's total edits on Wikipedia (and nearly 80-90% in recent weeks) being either against or about deeceevoice. Since the RfC did not achieve consensus or compromise and was ended prematurely due to personal attacks, this RfA is not valid. --Alabamaboy 16:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * deeceevoice refused to take part in the RfC. She also deleted comments on her talk page regarding civility policies, labeling them vandalism.  Given this behavior, it would likely be fruitless to pursue any other steps. -Justforasecond 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

statement by zen destiny
i take the libertarian view that no one should ever be banned for any reason and no speech should ever be sanctioned regardless of content. its all just regurgitation from our collective subconscious. what's the juice? self righteous indignation is a powerful drug. peace out.

Statement by Justforasecond
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
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.

At any rate, she's already announced (prior to the posting of this RfAr) that she'll not be around much, if at all, for the remainder of the holiday season, so I propose that this RfAr be postponed until she return so that she can participate should she choose to. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 07:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

But, he-e-ey. One minor point here I feel compelled to mention. Nowhere do I actually spell out the f-word. My momma taught me better. :p deeceevoice 17:46, 18 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)

About RobChurch's statement
'''Note: RobChurch just deleted this section, which I am herewith restoring. His edit note stated: "Edit conflict; am withdrawing - this is no longer (as I had hoped) a question of resolution - it's become a brawl from which there is no escape)" Why am I restoring it? Because whatever damage he has done is done. Lies cannot be retracted. I believe it is useful to keep his comments here, because they are instructive of precisely the kind of, IMO, racism and antagonism that strangles this website. I also have added a response, which did not register because of an edit conflict. deeceevoice 17:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC) I see this [expletive withheld] has also completely deleted his slanderous statement at User:Robchurch/deeceevoice, and I can't recover it. If anyone can, please do so and post it here. For those of you who are curious about it, he falsely accused me of calling editors "whities" and "crackers" and of sending a vitriolic, "screaming" retaliatory e-mail after he blocked me for violating a 3RR. Which I, of course, NEVER did.''' He also said, "I couldn't give a SHIT what she writes in response to this" -- or something very close to it (profanity included). Is this [(creature) expletive withheld] at all credible? I think not! deeceevoice 17:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) One more thing. SURELY there must be some sort of rule against deleting material entered as evidence in an RfA -- including material on a separate page submitted as an addendum! And this is the kind of person entrusted with administrative (or whatever) authority on this website? And how do I pursue an action against him? Despicable and utterly indefensible. deeceevoice 17:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: This just from my talk page: I've undeleted Rob Church's user subpage, as I believe it should stick around as long as the Arbitration case is filed. It certainly looks suspect to me, and I imagine to the ArbComm too. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

'''NOTE: RobChurch has removed it again after an admin restored it. Someone should restore it -- regardless of what he's written since. It was submitted as part of the RfA, and as such, it should be preserved as an important part of the record. People have a right to know and to understand what is being discussed here.''' deeceevoice 21:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

'''NOTE: Because this time, rather than deleting the document, RobChurch merely edited it the relevant passages, I -- a lowly peon with no admin or sysop capabilities :p -- was able to retrieve it. Because Church likely simply will delete it again if I restore it, I've decided to reproduce it below.'''deeceevoice 10:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

RobChurch's statement In order to avoid clutter, and while I appreciate ArbCom prefer it on the same page, I've slapped this bit as a subpage of my userspace. All my comments pertaining to the matter will appear on User:Robchurch/deeceevoice over the next week or so. It's a shame it's come to this. Rob Church Talk 21:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What follows below, bounded by the two horizontal lines, is Church's initial statement which he repeatedly has deleted, as explained above. -- Deeceevoice is from apparently African-American descent. I'll state that now, because you'd better not ever forget it; she doesn't ever let it drop. I'm afraid what I have a problem with is her unrelentingly inappropriate style of putting people down. If I started guessing at people's ethnicities, then making rather snide remarks based on them, I think I'd be disposed of quite quickly. She seems to believe that demeaning people as "whities" is acceptable, and will make her comments seem more casual and less irritating. Wrong. I'm without doubt that some put-down or brush-off to this particular view is coming; I'd stake a hefty sum on it. I'd stake a similarly hefty sum on that it will be offensive, and that it will attempt to nullify my opinions and views as "unsuitable" or "ill-informed." I blocked User:Deeceevoice about a month ago for violating the three-revert rule. Now, people know I'm quite lenient on that one; I'll block pretty heavily for it, but if people email and explain themselves, I'm quite often inclined to unblock; provided they're trying to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, I don't mind too much. User:Deeceevoice sent me an email which "screeched" that I was obviously blocking her with pure bias in mind; that I was a vicious sadistic character who despised her, etc. etc. - I'd not even heard of her prior to that event. I'm afraid it is not acceptable
 * For Deeceevoice to make clearly derogatory remarks about people all over the place


 * To remove people's polite comments from her talk page while leaving appallingly bad-faith edit summaries

I really couldn't give a shit about what she's going to write under this. I simply urge ArbCom to accept this case, to consider that we have always disposed ourselves of people who have hindered more than helped us, and I hope they will give her the dressing down she actually deserves. She can't go on thinking that she's helping us - even if she is - while leaving a trail of social destruction in her wake. That is not how wikis work, and if ArbCom begin imposing one rule for one, one for another, then I for one will consider all hope at recovering Wikipedia to its core goals lost.
 * To brush off all complaints by us "whities" as being of no merit, as we can't possibly understand what "her kind" have been through, and can't possibly be anything but biased and racist

Another apparently biased whitey, Rob Church Note: Since these things always end up being about evidence, here's mine. Visit. View the edit history.

(end of initial statement by RobChurch)


 * The shame is that you would stoop to such utter fabrication. Just abysmal. deeceevoice 22:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have never, ever failed to own up to my own words and actions. I stand by them. The words at the above link are complete and utter lies. I don't know who this guy is, what his beef is/issues are -- and I don't give a damn. But this outrageous lie is the last straw. I'm done here. Wikipedia can go to hell. deeceevoice 06:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My response to Robchurch's comments on the above page after he deleted it with a snide edit note saying he didn't want my comments on his page, because I delete the comments of others when they are "trying to help" or some nonsense


 * A response


 * Your post is pure fabrication.


 * I've never called anyone on this website "whitey" or referred to anyone as "whitey." It's not a word I've ever used -- not even in the '70s, when it was the fashion. And reject your characterization of my remarks and opinons as complete fiction.


 * Again, I challenge you: provide the diffs. I dare you.


 * Further, I sent you no such e-mail in response to your block. You're simply hallucinating -- our knowingly flatout lying. A "vicious, sadistic character who despised [me]"? WHAT? Playing the victim? Making something personal? That's hardly my style. If you're going to fabricate your comments, at least come up with something credible. The fact that you would stoop to writing such lies is sleazy, despicable and contemptible beyond words. Don't ever, ever, ever contact me again -- about anything. As far as I'm concerned, from this point on, you're lower than low. You don't exist. *x*


 * Further, if there is any way to trace e-mails through the system, I strongly encourage that this be done. And when the truth comes out, I urge that the author of this despicable lie be dealt with in the harshest possible terms.deeceevoice 22:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Observe, ladies and gentlemen. When anybody posts anything on one of DCV's pages, she used to (and still will, no doubt) delete it, but the moment I give her a little taste of her own, she rants, raves and downright screams. Ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous. Rob Church Talk 16:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Observe the hyperbole, the lie. This was written (obviously) before Robchurch deleted it (duh). And my response is to the bald-faced lie perpetrated on his page -- to which he has not responded. (Am I the only one who finds that at least a little strange?) Again, if there is any way to trace e-mails through the system, please, someone do it. Now. And expose this despicable entity for what it is. deeceevoice 16:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The evidence is plastered all over the place. This page, and the history of your talk page, and the talk pages of everyone you've ever dealt with. Rob Church Talk 16:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "...the talk pages of everyone you've ever dealt with." More shrill hyperbole. Well, now. Then it shouldn't be too difficult to provide a single, solitary diff to bolster your (bogus) claims about me calling editors "whities" and "crackers" -- yes? It's a simple request. We're waiting. Put up or shut up. deeceevoice 17:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And still no reaction to being called a liar. Dang. If someone did that to someone else and it was a false accusation, I'd expect the accused to be fightin' mad -- especially someone with your, uh ... temperament. You've just outted yourself. Really sleazy. deeceevoice 17:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Sam Spade
see User:Deeceevoice. Sam Spade 16:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

and User_talk:Deeceevoice

Sam Spade 02:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: Statement by Sam Spade
[I thought only arbitrators were allowed to delete comments). Original question read:  stands for what the fuck, right? El_C 12:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC) -- SS has just now (following two deletions of my comment above) has deleted his earlier comment. In the interests of coherence, I am reproducing it here:   El_C 02:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Zora
I once made some effort to participate in the Afrocentrism article and gave up; dealing with Deeceevoice's high-handedness would have been just too wearing. She holds strong views which I would regard as both racist and unscientific. I have two anthropology degrees; I've taken physical anthropology courses; I know that categories such as "dolichocephalic" and the like are antiquated labels from the 19th century. Yet she uses them with abandon. Deeceevoice has no scientific training and no qualms about labelling anyone who disagrees with her a racist. She is not improving Wikipedia; she is filling it with pseudo-scientific nonsense. I have no objection to the Afrocentric POV being represented, but it should not be allowed to crowd out or intimidate other POVs by playing the "racist" card. Zora 23:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Coyep
I had similar experiences with DeeCeeVoice. She frequently vandalized the dreadlocks article by removing valid informations about non-blacks, or, as she calls it: "Caucasoid wannabes".

The very few things DeeCeeVoice added to the article were either unverifiable or plain incorrect, for instance a reference to Tuts wig, which has braids, not dreads; that dreadlocks are connected to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which is simply incorrect, the assertion that only "black" hair is able to grow into dreadlocks naturally, which is incorrect, the assertion that dreadlocks in Indian Hindu culture have Egyptian origins, which is a totally unverified and unsourced POV edit. (When I asked her to verify her edits, she refused, telling me that: "good writing is more than a regurgitation of facts.")

Instead of adding valid material, she constantly removed valid and sourced informations, for instance the Celtic/Vedic connection, the fact that Rastafari sects welcome all ethnicities, a reference to dreadlocked priests of the Aztec, the Hindu references and quotes, that dreadlocks are a cross cultural hairstyle. She even removed a cybergoth picture asking me to replace it by a cybergoth, totally ignorant to the fact that it IS a cybergoth, she removed the Shiva picture because she disliked that it was "curiously fair-skinned and weirdly blond", totally ignorant of the Hindu color symbolic.

Her biased edits reached a high when she repeatedly removed a picture (Dreadlocked Gabriele.jpg) showing an european dreadlocked man from the dreadlocks article because the picture was allegedly of "poor quality"    , but then insisted to include the very same picture into the Cultural appropriation article to illustrate the pejorative term "Trustafari". CoYep 10:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Xed
Mostly harmless. Her contributions are largely ridiculous and over-the-top Afrocentric gibberish - ranting about "slave trading crackers", the size of asians testicles , her distaste at pink flesh , and ignorant-by-default white folks. Since I believe in free speech, I'm happy for racists of whatever hue to participate, whether they be Nordicists, Zionists or, as in DC's case, Afrocentrics. Some might say that allowing these types to contribute is the only way to expose their moribund arguments. To make it clear, I don't support this arbitration attempt. - Xed 12:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by The Crow
I'll sign in because I offered a comment on the RfC and my participation was solicited here. This has evolved into something different and broader than the RfC. The RfC was regarding lapses in civility by the editor in question. The reason I commented on the RfC is that I have noticed she does have over-the-top lapses in civility and there is no reasonable excuse for this. However, both that RfC and this RfA has turned into something of a witch hunt prosecuted mainly by the stalk handle User:Justforasecond for the purpose of talking about race-related POV issues, and others have jumped on the same bandwagon. You've taken what was originally a reasonable intervention of a reasonable scope and derailed it by turning it into a broad POV lynching, and I do not appreciate your soliciting my support to participate in it. The Crow 15:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Pharlap
An encyclopedia has to be a neutral source of informations. A bias is a bias, no matter if it's a black bias or a white bias. A racist is a racist and a supremacist is a supremacist, no matter if s/he is black or white. There is no "Black" NPOV and there is no "White" NPOV, there is only a NPOV. Replacing a "white POV" with a "black POV" and white racism/supremacism with black racism/supremacism, is counterproductive, especially if it's accompanied by insults and uncivil behavior.

Deeceevoice is not very pleasant to deal with. She justifies her personal attacks against other editors as perfectly legitimate and likes to portrait herself as a mere victim. In a former case she even managed to claim that a comment, which was posted more than two years before she even joined Wikipedia, was a "personal attack" against her and therefore entitled her to insult the editors. Whenever you comment on her lousy behavior she calls you a liar, asking you to provide diffs. When you provide the diffs, she calls you a racist and/or a socketpuppy and accuses you of harrassing and stalking her. Deeceevoice is known for pushing her particular viewpoints at the expense of accuracy, and, as soon as her contributions are challenged, she

refuses to provide sources or to get up evidence


 * 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 that is perfectly obvious to just about every black person on the street. I have neither the time nor the patience. But that's just me. After a while, this kind of stuff gets really old really fast; it's just wearisome. I've already spent too much time discussing this. What some white folks stubbornly want to believe is what they want to believe. deeceevoice 10:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * you're not only ignorant, arrogant and presumptuous, you're lazy! I'm not here to be your personal tutor on African or African-American culture. Your computer has a search engine. Use it. deeceevoice 06:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about being "conversational" or "kind"? lol You're kidding -- right? Do some research, and then maybe I'll have something to say to you. Of course, rather than take some initiative toward and responsibility for your own education -- or, you can continue to sit around and wait for someone else to enlighten you. deeceevoice 03:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * What I've written is fact. You rudely, arrogantly and ignorantly challenged it -- without asking questions first. You simply ASS-umed I had fabricated my entry. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't have a problem pullin' your coat, but given your belligerence, I'm not so disposed. I don't have time for such obnoxious bull from the intentionally obtuse. Like I said, the information is readly available on the Internet .deeceevoice 23:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 claims to be a target of racism


 * Glad that crap is gone. They were totally unnecessary from the git-go. But some white folks just have to have their freakin' say on every goddamned thing black folks do. deeceevoice 15:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 *  What is with you folks, anyway? If melanin were ketchup (or any other organic substance) and not associated with black folks, and if I were not black, would you have been so quick to assume "vandalism"? Very telling. Ya better take a couple of steps back and check yourselves.deeceevoice 03:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems, though, that everyone wants to put in their (usually ill-informed, but still highly opinionated -- and often bigoted) two cents when it comes to black folks. The article is fine without all that crap.deeceevoice 01:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I almost hate reading anything on Wikipedia that deals with black folks. The abysmal ignorance, arrogance and sometimes outright racism are ridiculous. Virtually every article I've visited on this site dealing with black folks is just terribly written, with all kinds of idiotic, erroneous notions or just mind-numbing naivete. deeceevoice 18:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's that seemingly omnipresent sense of white entitlement, or some misplaced sense of egalitarianism or what, but I'm certainly not gonna waste any more time trying to tell them otherwise. deeceevoice 10:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I just don't trust Wiki to be able to produce something that isn't riddled with incredibly naive or outright racist bullcrap. But, then, that's just me. :-p deeceevoice 15:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the racism crap and assume you're trying to be funny. deeceevoice 01:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Wrong again. If/when I think you're being racist, I'll let you know. And since when did "giving someone the benefit of the doubt" become a threat? Get a grip. Understand that your assumption that I (or any black person, for that matter) am so hypersensitive in matters of race that I am incapable of distinguishing what is and what is not racism is in itself an insult. Quite the contrary. If, in your opinion, you're not being racist, then fine an' dandy. There's no need to tell me when you stopped beating your wife. (Damn.) We're cool. deeceevoice 11:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh. Like not being racist and actually saying you're not being racist? LOL *slappin' sides* :-D deeceevoice 00:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * There is an ugly tendency on Wikipedia in articles dealing with African-Americans for people to pick and pick and pick and pick anything and everything ad nauseam. Often ill-informed and/or ridiculously pretentious criticisms, which, IMO, are a particularly perverse/rampant form of white arrogance, anti-black antipathy -- or of just hopelessly old-line knee-grow mind-sets. The first set of objections will have to suffice. This other stuff is more of the same -pure bull (only even more extraneous) -- and it is disappeared. deeceevoice 10:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

attacks the editors


 * What are you doing? (Other than being an arrogant ass.) deeceevoice 03:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You're simply mentally and spiritually crippled. But I gotta give you one thing. You're good for at least one thing: comic relief. BWA-HA-HAAA! (slappin' sides -- still) :-p deeceevoice 00:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Aw, man. You're so full of it, your eyes are brown! lol. deeceevoice 07:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * So, what's all this crap? A "boatload of stupidity," indeed! :-p deeceevoice 06:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Damn. Another freakin' Wikipedian with selective comprehension. *x* deeceevoice 01:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't waste your time. I don't give a shyt what you think. You're nothing but a weasel. You don't even have the guts to sign your posts. *x* deeceevoice 00:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not like we're asking for a white stamp of approval about what to call ourselves -- or that we recognize others' (especially white folks') reaction to it is of any importance or merit. It doesn't matter to us in the least. So, what's all this crap? A "boatload of stupidity," indeed! :-p deeceevoice 06:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The intellectual dishonesty, hostility and and outright ignorance with which these "contributors" have approached the subject under discussion do Wikipedia a disservice. I'll simply explain it myself employing the wording I've already used to explain the phenomenon in this "discussion." That should clear up any confusion on the part of non-Americans -- and shut up some of the obviously mentally challenged "contributors" to and commentators on this article. deeceevoice 16:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * What do I care if, in your ignorance, you disagree? Things are no different today from what they were yesterday, or what they will be tomorrow. I'm out. deeceevoice 03:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * chuckling* Like I care what it sounds like to you. :-p The statement isn't misleading at all. deeceevoice 21:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Now, about that "brilliant" thing (how embarrassing). Gee, I'm sure the vast preponderance of those fortunate enough know you are simply blinded by your "brilliance" -- as are we all here on Wikipedia (bowing low); we're all duly impressed by your huge "Mars Attacks"-like brain: ) not to mention such a self-serving observation. (Crackin' up, still. Dang. And whose ego is showin' here?) But as a "brilliant" white man, when it comes to gauging how widely black folks speak AAVE -- when it is virtually universally acknowledged that we generally don't do so ("code switching") in the presence of white folks dumb as dirt or otherwise; you're outsiders in this regard -- I repeat: you got no clue. Now, writing "You got no clue" is different from calling you "clueless." (Far be it from me to do so! I certainly wouldn't want to be among the lowly, benighted "few" who don't recognize the awesomeness of your magnificent brain power!) The simple fact is you are in absolutely no position to have any kind of credible opinion on the matter -- unless, of course you have some sort of empirical evidence. Which you don't. Otherwise, you would have presented it. So, again, my "brilliant," white brutha, when it comes to the numbers of blacks who speak AAVE and the numbers who don't, you got no clue. It should be a simple concept for someone of your dazzling intellectual capacities. Your obtuseness is baffling. Perhaps you'd like to explain it to Wikipedians of lesser intellect. (I'd like to know, too. :-p) So, I gotta ask again: just what part of that don't you get? Inquiring minds want to know. :-p deeceevoice  10:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Aw, Quill, baby. Just havin' a little fun. :-p (chuckling) No, you didn't say you were brilliant -- did you? Just that everyone who knows you -- except "a few" -- does. Oh, yeah, and you also mentioned that you're "quite clued in" -- whatever the hell that means. lol Maybe it's just me, but I find the sheer smugness of that really hilarious. Ah, well, humor: diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.... :-p deeceevoice 05:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

and demands that other contributers stop editing because they are "arrogant and ill-informed"


 * You probably don't know jack about the complexities of America's internal problems, so I'll overlook your ignorance about "diminishing returns" -- but not your presumptuous arrogance. Don't speak on what you don't know. deeceevoice 14:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Please don't speak/write on matters about which you know nothing. Use your computer's search engine and investigate before making groundless charges. deeceevoice 03:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Why are you so adamant about something (to the point of belligerence) about which you apparently know so little? Do you think you know everything? What's that about? deeceevoice 20:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Being quarrelsome for the hell of it -- when you know you don't know much about a subject (and anyone who could question/challenge "cool's" origins, doesn't know squat about it) -- is simply counterproductive. deeceevoice 04:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Considering the kind of ill-informed, naive, silly or just plain racist crap one has to wade through on Wikipedia when dealing with issues pertaining to black people and the aparently relatively few contributors with real knowledge and sensitivity on the subject, I think you'd better leave well enough alone. deeceevoice 18:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Do what you will. For someone from Japan to try to tell me who and what my people are is presumptuous at best. And that African Americans aren't an ethnic group within the U.S.? ROFLMBAO. Ignorant presumptuousness -- and with an attitude. So, hey, I reciprocated. (Always more than happy to return a gesture. :-p) deeceevoice 22:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Now, there's a statement redolent with white arrogance and condescension! Your statements throughout this discussion show YOU to be the one who is abysmally ignorant of African American heritage and culture. You should just shut the hell up, because you obviously haven't a clue and clearly aren't qualified to make pronouncements on who knows what on this subject.deeceevoice 18:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I see the correct decision was reached in this matter, but to me it's amazing that it even needed to be discussed. Talk about clueless and insensitive. deeceevoice 06:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Pgd, keep in mind you didn't "stomped on" for honestly trying to address a subject. You were "stomped on" for a completely useless and extraneous rant about black youth, immigrants and education in an article on African Americans. Leave it be. deeceevoice 12:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The detailed diffs and the timeline in context of some more particular incidents are to find here

PS: Some of you wondered why she left the Swastika on her talk page. She explained it:



Statement by Rob Church
I am withdrawing what I will freely admit to being absolutely disgusting and unacceptable comments from this RfAr. Please read the full reasoning at User:Robchurch/deeceevoice.

I'm guilty of everything I blamed Deeceevoice of, and I recognise that, community-wise, I'm not much use here. Wikipedia has no place for my like, and so I'm retiring to develop.

Apologies, profuse and unceasing, to all...Rob Church Talk 19:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Zoe
My one and only dealing with deeceevoice was not pleasant, as documented above. I will not be working with her in the future unless I have to. I have never been involved with her in any edits, so I cannot comment on her editing behavior. However, I am offended that an article in my Talk space and my discussions with her were added as evidence without anyone letting me know they were here that I might discuss them myself. Zoe (216.234.130.130 19:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

Statement by Zaphnthpaaneah
It's amazing that when people make condescending remarks to DeeCeeVoice and then she responds bluntly to it, we find ourselves here, having perhaps the LONGEST RFA page in the entire history of Wikipedia RFA. How much vandalism has she endured and how much of her responses have been to nip in the bud sneaky attempts to maintain or establish a anti-black POV. For example, she mentions how "Kike" is not given the same lengthy detail and association to Jews as Nigger is given to black people. Therefore those that argue for maintaining a literary or social/cultural link between a racial slur and an ethnic group should not be surprised if a memeber of that group becomes irate. Can you imagine DeeCeeVoice going to a Jewish page and trying to push the same "logic" and meeting resistance from Jewish contributors? Can you then imagine her insisting on her ignorant position that "Kike" should have the same treatment as "nigger" has done? No, I do not think the angry protests from Jewish contributors would be seriously taken as RFCs. These experiences she endurs are obvious. I am starting to get some of the same foolishness. Don't tell me that "nigger" is a real legitimate racial description of a black person. Don't tell me that an IQ test should be put into the black people article. Otherwise you will get some of the same responses that DeeCeeVoice has given some of the "victims" here. So hopefully these examples illustrate the obvious bias. There is a credibility and quality problem in Wikipedia in dealing with articles related to black people. It is something that is extremely frustrating for her I imagine. Who knows how many times she overreacted. She hasn't posted unilaterally and she certainly doesn't seem to be the type that uses circular reasoning as justification for her posts. --Zaphnathpaaneah 23:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Another thing that has my attention is the seemingly objective point that DeeCeeVoice is unnecessarily offensive in her responses. Ok. Why is then there is also this issue with people deleting part of her comments, and then presenting an abridged and edited version of events, where she then has to come in here and correct. In otherwords she has to restore omissions that would otherwise vindicate her??? --Zaphnathpaaneah 00:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

 * 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)

Motion for Holiday Hiatus
I'm going away for the holidays, as I expect many others are. I'd like to put this into suspended animation until mid-to-late January.

-Justforasecond 17:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

End original request.

Further comments
What's this crap with terms like "nominal defendant"? Is this a new thing? It sucks mightily. --Tony Sidaway|Talk


 * Just a way of saying something Fred Bauder 05:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

My 2 cents
Hi, I've been interested in this RfA and RFC as an example of how Wikipedia works -- just lurking and watching everybody's comments. Now, I love the lively debate and intellectual curiosity that DeeCee's presence provides. But I've never appreciated personal attacks. I have tried very hard never to do that here on Wikipedia. There really is no need for any of that in Wikipedia edit disputes, or in life for that matter. But looking at Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence. I am outraged. This sort of behavior should not be tolerated anywhere. It should not be perpetuated on Wikipedia.

As a mechanism for her defense, Deecee has put up past vandalism and commentary on her user page here:User:Deeceevoice. Her tacit point is this: that the members of this RfA are targeting her, when they should be targeting the vandals who put the swastikas on her page. Her second tacit point is that we should take her side, and allow her the latitude to deliver insults on Wikipedia, because she has undergone this abuse. Her third tacit point is that these RFA's and RFCs are caused by racism.

The Arbitration committee cannot approach the issue in this way. It must be concerned with upholding ideas and ideals, not people. In this case, the ideals Wikipedians should uphold is civility and decorum. In this case, the Arbitration Committee should condemn the uncivil actions of Deecee voice as much as it condemns the uncivil actions of the vandals. Doing otherwise would be a double standard.

I would also like to note that her points are all tacit because this is the pattern of arguing she seems to favor: throwing a fuss, shouting, and then walking away - unfettered with the burden of defending her argument in prolonged debate. This is childish and unacceptable.

To DeeCeevoice, I hope you draw inspiration from Gandhi, MLK Jr., and the SNCC. Like you, they were faced with adversities - those that involved a swift kick in the stomach or a bullet to the head. They reacted by upholding the ideals of civility and peace - never using the methods of their attackers to respond, but instead, revolting in a peaceful manner that did not conflict with their position against violence or incivility. Had they responded with violence or incivility, they would have breached the very morals they advocated. Perhaps you can learn to find enough peace and strength in your heart to simply ignore vandals, and to respond to those who disagree with your views with loving, but resolute opposition.--Muchosucko 15:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The decisions I will propose have nothing to do with ideals, only with the practical reality that being courteous is necessary and expected. I stand ready to welcome Deeceevoice into our community or to boot her off depending on her compliance or noncompliance with basic Wikipedia policy. Fred Bauder 21:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * To me there is a far bigger issue - how do we protect our editors from the sort of harassment that deeceevoice has experienced? I see it all the time where good, well meaning, even tempered editors are harassed to the point where they lash out.  I don't want to make excuses for incivility, but you have to acknowledge that people's attitudes are shaped by their experiences.  A small number of short-lived racists (like Wareware), coupled with a large number of abusive anons can make your life hell.  As it stands we are only able to look at these incidents in isolation and say "she should be able to deal with these people without losing her cool".  We have no way of dealing with the cumulative effects.  When someone like JFAS takes all these little incidents and presents them, sans context, deeceevoice looks like a horrible person.  But how many of us would still be here had we dealt with this level of crap?
 * I don't think we have the mechanisms to protect our editors from harassment. Looking at this Far, where deeceevoice's behaviour is analysed without context, without even the simple context of the harassment by the person who brought this Far, I do not feel very hopeful.  Guettarda 23:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A small number of short-lived racists (like Wareware), coupled with a large number of abusive anons can make your life hell. The problem isn't Deeceevoice's response to the former (which I admit is understandable) but to the latter. When you disregard all the mindless vandals, how many of the other people that Deeceevoice has conflicts with are really "abusive", and how many simply object to what seems to be POV edits by an agenda-driven user? Are these people really "abusive" or "racist", as DCV's supporters claim, or are they only labelled as such for disagreeing with someone who's clever enough to use the actions of the real abusers to her political advantage? The community has to uphold Wikipedia policies regardless of ideology and who (or what) people are, and has to treat DCV the same way it would treat anyone else. Yid613 00:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with this statement more than anything else on this page--Urthogie 10:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was harassed just as much as she was, even spent my own money to start a fork I was so mad, but I'm still here. I think administrators could respond more forcefully to harassment, but that depends on them noticing it or having it brought to their attention. No one looks good if they are always whining, either, so no sensible person is going to complain about every thing that happens. I had never noticed this stuff although we did have an earlier case that Deeceevoice brought herself. We all just need to do better. And one of the all that needs to do better is Deeceevoice. I have dealt with people who think a long rant accomplishes something, my mother, in fact, but in some situations that tactic is counterproductive and Wikipedia is such a situation. Fred Bauder 00:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * RE:User:Guettarda -- Yes, I've lost my temper a few times at Wikipedia, as my edit history and talk page show. But I have never excused my poor behavior; I hold myself accountable for what I do; and I accept the punishments that my behavior incurs. No one takes abuse well; No one here is a saint - least of all me - but I have learned how to control my temper and act civilly as I do in the real world. I think the Internet somehow decreases the perceived consequences of acting maliciously. Both DCV and her vandals are under this misconception and thus act more violently and with more temerity than they would in the real world. Applying consequences to malevolence via actions such as this RFA is a good way of improving the decorum at Wikipedia. I hold DCVs incivility in the same light as the incivility of her vandals. Both instances of abuse should be punished and prevented to the greatest extent Wikipedia allows. --Muchosucko 00:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it's wrong to hold them in the same light - for one, posting a swastika, or a lynching on someone's talk page is far worse than being rude. Things like that cause a chill that I you couldn't understand if you have never been a disempowered minority - it's that simple.  More importantly, I would hope that we treat established and dedicated contributors a little differently from vandals.  In addition, you can't say that you are treating both sides equally - have you responded in any way to User:151.205.176.217 for posting "SUCKAmy DICK DEECEEVOICE!." to deeceevoice's user page yesterday, or to any of the other dozens of vandals?
 * My point is that certain editors experience a "hostile environment". If we do nothing to address the hostile environment, we are simply blaming the victims.  I don't know anything about your history here - I have never encountered you before now - but did you lose you temper in response to constant harassment, repeated racist attacks and insults from a host of attackers (who for the most part, as anons, got off Scot free)?  If not, you can't compare the two.  The problem that needs to be addressed is the hostile environment.  To censure deeceevoice for the response and not do anything about the cause is to add insult to injury.  Guettarda 03:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 151.205.176.217 is a verizon address that made three edits, we could semi-protect Deeceevoice's talk and user pages, if she asks, but practically we can't stop some fool with a cell phone from posting a few lines of crap. Fred Bauder 13:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * RE: for one, posting a swastika, or a lynching on someone's talk page is far worse than being rude -- Actually, I think they're the same. RE:disempowered minority-- I have no idea what that means, verging on ad hominem. RE:I would hope that we treat established and dedicated contributors a little differently from vandals -- Clever, you've just mischaracterized DCV. This RFA debates DCV's contributions and their value to Wikipedia, you present DCV in a prejudged and biased light. RE:you can't say that you are treating both sides equally That's what I'm trying to do now. RE:SUCKAmy DICK DEECEEVOICE!. Good sympathy points. But changes no part of my argument. RE:have you responded in any way to... I consider ignoring them a powerful response. Moreover, these vandals do not have a consistent account, this is not one individual who has a constant presence and cannot be held up to an RFA - as DCV can. If they could, I assure you, I would do the same to them. To my limited technical knowledge, the most powerful thing we can do is ignore the vandals or protect DCV's user page. And the most powerful thing we can do regarding DCV is this RFA etc.
 * RE:hostile environment and can't compare the two Irrelevant to DCV's civility. If I got fired from work and found my wife cheating on me, then scratched the car of the man she was cheating with - would I get away with the crime because of the hostile environment I was in? If that were the case, our jails would be empty. If DCV has been uncivil, the she has broken the rules, and a rule is a rule. RE:The problem that needs to be addressed is the hostile environment -- That's like my defense lawyer saying that we should establish laws that prevent employees from getting fired and wives from cheating on their husbands: during the car vandalism trial. These points you raise are valid, but irrelevant to the task at hand: whether DCV has been civil or uncivil. I think she has. Respectfully, Muchosucko 03:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. After further thought, I see a subtext behind DCV's defense. It is to draw attention (or divert it) to the plight of blacks on Wikipedia - that they are subject to racism and unfair treatment from Wiki admins, editors, etc.. DCV, being a vocal black voice, is met with racist harassment or opposition to her Afrocentric views - therefore we should divert the RFA here towards anti-racist / anti-vandal / pro-Afrocentric tactics. Trust me when I say this: I am sympathetic to your position, and these things concern me deeply but: this is an issue far beyond the scope of this RFA, and my commentary on this page. --Muchosucko 03:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Muchosucko, please consider refactoring your reply, it is quite difficult to read.


 * If I got fired from work and found my wife cheating on me, then killed the man she was cheating with, do I get away with murder because of the hostile environment I was in? If that were the case, our jails would be empty. If DCV has been uncivil, the she has broken the rules, and a rule is a rule.


 * This is not a particularly good analogy. Firstly, I don't know how the law works in the country that you hail from, but iirc (ianal) in the UK all factors are taken into account when judging a trial for murder. The mental state of the defendant is taken into account, this includes their living environment, what pressure they are under. Secondly, this is Wikipedia (on the Internet) and not some court room (real life). Comparing the legal proceedings for number of rude comments and general incivility to the legal proceedings for murder is of dubious value. Damn and I was actually trying not to comment. :) I'd written this before your PS, I'd like to say that I find your subsequent comments in poor taste. - FrancisTyers 04:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have considered the problem with this analogy before posting it, and changing it to another crime or misdemeanor. I hoped people would read my analogy limited by scope, but I should have known better. That's the problem with analogies - try the new one. Also, I am from the USA, I do not believe the surrounding environment mitigates culpability. Thanks for the heads up on the UK stuff, all the better to change the analogy. Fortunately, these changes do not affect my argument. And they stand. My analogy is limited to showing how these factors are irrelevant in discovering whether DCV breached civility or not. I do not wish to draw in the standards of evidence or the standards of conviction associated with a court trial. I cannot find another analogy to make my point. I think the overall benefit of this analogy outweighs its drawbacks. Also, I am concerned that you find my PS in poor taste, please tell me why. Here or on my talk page. Respectfully, Muchosucko 04:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The chicken or the egg?
In light of Guettarda's notion that Deeceevoice abuses other editors because of the repeated harrassment she has suffered here, I went back and looked at the very first contribution she ever made to Wikipedia, to Talk:Motherfucker on May 30, 2004:


 * ==Since the term is indisputedly African-American in origin, did Wikipedia ask any of us?==


 * It's too bad "scholarly" folk have a tendency to pontificate on a subject, presuming a certain level of knowledge on the matter, without having once bothered to consult the source. My experience has been that white folks are especially good at this when the subject of discussion is black folks and black culture.


 * They know it all.


 * Wikipedia: "In spite of overuse, the term is widely considered highly insulting when used in earnest. In recent years, 'motherfucker' is increasingly being used to describe inanimate objects, dating back to early hip hop culture."


 * Amusing. Any black person would have told Wikipedia’s etymological experts the use of “motherfucker” in this fashion predates hip-hop by several decades.


 * Giving credit where credit is due, however, Wikipedia's tracing of the term back to slavery appears entirely plausible/probable. It is clear motherfucker is African-American in origin. It is merely another fine example of blacks crafting, bending the language to make it our own. Highly conscious of the fact that the commission of physical violence against a white man or his property could result in the most draconian punishment, bondsmen often used language as a weapon of choice. Verbal aggression, "woofin'," playing "the dozens" (a reference to the fact that slaves past their prime, who were aged or plain worn out from back-breaking labor, were sold by the dozen) became a means of survival, of safely venting hostility, as well as a sometimes raucous pastime.


 * "Motherfucker" -- a word accusatory of, perhaps, the most heinous of universal taboos -- is elegant in its simplicity; exquisitely cutting; elegantly, powerfully destructive. Wikipedia’s explanation grounded in the sexual abuse and exploitation of African bondswomen seems plausible, but is far too facile. The venom of it, its viciousness and obvious contempt tells me the target of such vitriol was even closer to home. White folks were white folks. They were godless and brutal and regarded us as subhuman. We EXPECTED them to behave as they did. Did we despise them? Certainly.


 * But the worst of black fury was directed inward, at “race traitors” and those who disgraced members of the group – people of whom we expected better. One must understand the communal consciousness of African bondsmen and women. This awareness was in some respects a product of their shared oppression. But it was also an element central to the traditions from whence they came. In traditional African societies, the dignity and honor of the family, tribe/nation was essential to the health, survival and spiritual well-being of the individual as well as the collective.


 * Because the institution of slavery so muddled bloodlines and tore apart family groupings, filial bonds often were in question or completely unpresumed/unknown. While likely relatively infrequent, closely related blacks unknowingly engaging in incestuous relationships would not have been unheard of. Family members often were sold to neighboring plantations, their last names changed to reflect their new owners. Depending on the age of the slave, kinship knowledge easily could be lost within even a generation.


 * In today's society, many of us have been desensitized to its power through the pervasiveness of its use today. But back in the day it WAS a fightin`, cuttin`, shootin`, bleedin` word.


 * To my way of thinking, without a doubt, “motherfucker” was reserved for those unfortunate black men who, unaware of their lineage, had slept with their mothers or other close relation.


 * It was the ultimate condemnation, the Oedipal curse as curse word.

I'm not qualified to judge the merits of the argument being made here, but this was long before the swastikas, the vandals, the racist trolls, and already Deeceevoice is coming out swinging: The disparaging remarks about white folks. The vaguely expressed notion of "Wikipedia" as some sort of anthropomorphized embodiment of the Man, monolithic and clueless. The contemptuous assumption of ignorance on the part of the editors who had contributed to the article in the past, whom she was certain&mdash;without asking&mdash;had never "bothered to consult the source." (For what it's worth, I first encountered the etymology she ridicules about 15 years ago, not from "white folks" but from... Bobby Seale, in Seize the Time: "Motherfucker actually comes from the old slave system and was a reference to the slave master who raped our mothers which society today doesn't want to face as a fact." So maybe she was wrong about white folks making assumptions.)

It seems clear to me that this is not a case of a reasonable editor being driven to lash out by racist vandals: Deeceevoice was contentious and discourteous from day one. And while it is certainly true that she attracts far more than her share of vermin, I think it's less likely that her hostility stems from being attacked by vermin than that the vermin are attracted to her precisely because of her repeated willingness to rise the bait. In my experience, bullies the world over know that the most "fun" can be had at the expense of the people who give them the biggest reaction. Now, because I know someone's going to say I'm suggesting Deeceevoice deserves to have swastikas posted to her talk page by anonymous vandals... no, that's not what I'm saying at all. Of course not. Use your head. My point is that it's simply wrong to say that Deeceevoice "[lost her] temper in response to constant harassment"&mdash;clearly, it was already lost by the time she got here. --phh 07:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I wish I could write nearly half as well as her first contribution. - FrancisTyers 13:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I was pretty impressed too. Little bit of attitude should not set folks off. Fred Bauder 13:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Be careful with commenting on Deeceevoice's well-spokenness and her ability to articulate herself, she might take offense.  CoYep 15:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it borders on racist, is uncited, and includes original research. It is just on the talk page, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of it carried over to the article.  Note early in the passage DCV's disdain at scholars who don't consult sources -- "presuming a certain level of knowledge on the matter, without having once bothered to consult the source"  -Justforasecond 16:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A more constructive approach would be to avoid throwing around pejorative terms, using the word racist time after time after time only dilutes the meaning and force of the original word or phrase (in linguistics I believe this is referred to as semantic bleaching). Think of these talk page comments as an opportunity to develop your skills at accomodating other points of view and working towards consensus in difficult circumstances. Deeceevoice is clearly an articulate opponent and a challenging one. I for one have found the process of developing a consensus with her very rewarding. - FrancisTyers 17:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The statement "White folks are especially good at this when the subject of discussion is black folks and black culture. They know it all." is borderline racist.  As phh showed, her assumption that "white folks" had come up with information without consulting "the source" (black people) is flat-out wrong.  "White folks were white folks. They were godless and brutal and regarded us as subhuman." displays an us vs. them attitude, lumping all white people into one group; a godless, brutal, racist group.  I also get the feeling that DCV blames present day white folks, as if they're somehow guilty of slaving.  Sure, it could slide if it were just one instance, but it isn't.  She's made many similar comments, such as her later statements about "the enemy".  In any case, phh's point is that DCV was discourteous from day one, which seems to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.  -Justforasecond 17:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia boycott?
It is interesting to note that her user page now displays a "Boycott Wikipedia" graphic. The logic behind expressing such a message while continuing to participate actively in this site is left as an exercise to the reader. Skill at Orwellian doublethink might be helpful. *Dan T.* 17:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by NoahB
I'm a bit late to the party here, but I did want to register my opinion. I can't speak to other's experiences, but I have had several arguments with deeceevoice (on blackface, on jazz and, I think, on white supremacy) and at no time was she uncivil. Certainly she said nothing that could have been construed as a personal attack. I also think that her work on blackface is exemplary, and I have trouble believing that some users have actually questioned the worth of her contributions to this site. I disagree with deeceevoice about lots of things, but I have no hesitation in saying that I think Wikipedia is a better place with her than it is without her.

And by the by -- I admit I'm not familiar with the arbitration process, so I have to ask...are these things usually such a mess? This is just a disaster from start to finish -- admissions of lying, various bizarre conflicts of interest -- I can't even follow all the accusation and counter accusations. It seems a shame to me that a committed editor has been driven away, as near as I can tell, by the bumbling and undignified nature of this process. Perhaps that's inevitable in an all-volunteer organization -- but explaining the reason for an inadequacy doesn't make it adequate. 69.217.206.113 06:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh fiddle. I wasn't signed in apparently. Anyway, the comment above is by me. NoahB 06:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your statement that your experience with Deeceevoice was positive. I like her work too, but then I generally like anyone's original research. As to personal attacks and discourtesy, we have the diffs, the evidence. "I don't do nice" is ridiculous. So is, "Don't talk to me". Even when things turn messy I try to keep my eye on the ball, bottom line, reasonable courtesy and writing which is reasonably well sourced is required. Fred Bauder 19:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Fred. I'm not sure what original research has to do with my comments, unless you're claiming that the blackface article is original research?  If so, I disagree with you strongly; it seems extremely well-documented to me, and (since it's a featured article) that seems to be the consensus in the Wikipedia community as well.  In any case, would you care to respond to my second paragraph?  I am actually curious about whether the arbitration process is usually this...fraught. NoahB 14:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't look at Blackface, but original research and other's reaction to it is a central issue. Deeceevoice is unusual because she has significant community support, folks who think her behavior is excused due to racial consideration. Fred Bauder 23:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Noah, a good place to start on this case are the evidence and workshop pages. You may have had less-than-negative experiences with deeceevoice in your "argument" with her, but it seems that others were nto so lucky. If you wonder how things work in other arbitrations, they are all available online.  I don't suspect that deeeceevoice has been driven away "by the bumbling and undignified nature of this process".  She's never said anything like "I wanted to hang around wikipedia, but there's just way too much bumbling going on", and she continues to edit daily, though she has been blocked for personal attacks recently.  But, its impossible to know her intentions.  Ask her a question and she responds with incivility (e.g. "F*** OFF", "ARE YOU A RETARD?")   23:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't find it without spending way more time on this than I have available, I fear, but the point where deeceevoice said that she was going to seriously curtail her involvement was in response to the arbitrator who (by his own later admission) lied about her. It's not that hard to figure out what she's doing; she still participates in talk pages occasionally, but has mightily curtailed her involvement in the project.  So I guess it seemed to me that she was reacting to this process.  I have looked at some of the evidence page stuff already, but thank you for the link.  By the by, I don't know that I was "lucky" with deeceevoice; she has had civil interactions with many editors.  NoahB 23:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Noah, I'm surprised you don't recall deeceevoice's incivility; you were in the midst of a flame war with her on White Supremacy (though not the primary party) where she used "head-crakkka-in-charge", "cracker", "low minded mental cretin", etc, claiming that in the South this is perfectly polite language to use. She also came to your talk page and implied your opinions were incorrect because of your presumed ethnicity "Damn! White people".   What you might not have been aware of was that she continued and continues to use these terms after being informed they were offensive, and that, in addition to her minor edit-war with you over whether Malcolm X was a black supremacist (which I am unaware of), she also insisted the Nation of Islam is not black supremacist (which is well documented).  Take a look at the evidence page.  Justforasecond 00:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and thank you for responding Fred; missed your comments the first time through. I think Deeceevoice has support because she's been a valuable and intelligent editor, not because of her race.     And if original research is really part of the issue, then you and the other arbitrators certainly need to check out blackface.  You should look at jazz as well. NoahB 23:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Justforasecond, your characterization of my interactions with deeceevoice is exactly the sort of thing that makes me view this proceeding with some suspicion. A casual reader of your summary would assume that deeceevoice called another user "head-crakka-in-charge."  In fact, she was referring to President Andrew Johnson, a virulent racist whose actions and beliefs were devastating for black Americans -- in my view, it's rather like taking someone to task for calling Hitler a shithead (not in an article, mind you -- on a talk page.)  You also seem to assume, as apparently many in Wikipedia do, that reverse racism and racism are somehow equivalent, and that the epithet "white people!" is somehow a deadly insult along the lines of "nigger".  I don't hold this view myself, and think it's pretty pernicious.  (In the argument you refer to on White Supremacy, I found Sam Spade's dismissive tone and general demeanor more offensive than anything deeceevoice said -- though I think Sam, too, is a valuable editor; I believe he was acting in good faith, and I certainly bear him no ill will.)  As for the argument about whether the NOI is black supremacist; I believe it is; however, your assumption that no reasonable person could argue the contrary seems a little suspect.  Sam has argued, for example, that David Duke should not be called a white supremacist because he does not so self-identify; this view has, I think, prevailed on Wikipedia, more or less, and therefore it seems that the standards of proof for calling someone a black supremacist should be just as high.  As I noted earlier, I have looked at the evidence for this arb-case.  If deeceevoice was merely being censured for civility, I think I would be willing to go along with it.  But the additional charges of POV pushing, original research, etc., which do not seem to me to be very convincing, make me suspicious.  I feel like she is being censured as much for holding unpopular views as she is for the manner in which she presents them.  And that strikes me as problematic.  NoahB 19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Noah, the first thing you said here was "at no time was she uncivil" and now you are supporting censuring her for incivility. I don't get it, but its not worth arguing over.    Justforasecond 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for barging in, Noah, but allow me to share my point of view. DCV comes across as having no POV on any topic where racism is obvious-- racist presidents, blackface, etc.  However, when DCV is convinced that there is racism or a black cultural tradition where there isn't, she aims to portray it in a POV way.  Thats just how I've perceived it.--Urthogie 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Justforasecond, I said (pretty clearly I think) that in my interactions with her she was at no time uncivil.  It does seem that she has been uncivil on other occasions -- I doubt I'd support censoring her for those, (largely for the reasons Jmabel listed in his statement above), but I wouldn't feel the need to weigh in as I do with the other charges added.   Again, your use of quotes out of context here just confirms me in my belief that this process should never have been started.  I'm not doubting your good intentions, but road to hell, paved with, etc.NoahB 19:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Noah, you can register your approcal of censure on the incivility matters on the workshop page. Check out the stuff on "Cool" in the evidence, workshop, and proposed decision pages for original research examples.  Justforasecond 20:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks...but I don't approve of censuring her on civility matters. I said I might under other circumstances, specifically if this process didn't seem so corrupted.  But it does and I don't.  Sorry if I've been unclear.  NoahB 19:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No biggie. Maybe less time they'll be less bumbling ;)  Justforasecond 21:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Block during arbitration

 * This case is, of course, not yet concluded. Nonetheless, I think that Deeceevoice's recent attack on her talk page ("some ignorant, intellectually arrogant/obtuse adolescent") is a continuation of a pattern of disruptive personal attacks and so I've blocked her for 24 hours. I thought it appropriate to log this here. &mdash; Matt Crypto 15:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it acceptable under the policy for somebody to demand that a particular other user not post to her user talk page, as she did in this case? It seems like a pretty rude thing to do. *Dan T.* 22:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, it is somewhat rude, particularly when combined with abusive edit summaries ("What the F*** don't you get? Do NOT post here -- or I'll open up an RfA. GET LOST."). It's considered the prerogative of editors to have the ultimate say over what comments to keep on their user talk page, so they can delete unwanted messages, and they can request that other users do not post there. Thereafter to keep pushing messages at a user who doesn't want to hear them is normally considered inappropriate. However, in Deeceevoice's case, it seems to be taken too far, in that she uses it as weapon to ignore any criticism about her behaviour. &mdash; Matt Crypto  08:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have posted on her talk page if she wasn't making personal attacks and false statements about me on it.--Urthogie 11:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Continuing problem

 * I don't see much indication that her behavior is improving since this case was closed. I was thinking of trying to get her to leave specific pages alone, but I see from the above blocks that she's been causing trouble elsewhere also.  I tried to get her to see that she was disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point (see User_talk:Deeceevoice), but she just continued edit warring.  I don't think her issues with article ownership are going to go away anytime soon, so at this point, I would support a ban under remedy 7.  Friday (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the WP:POINT, and she certainly does little to disguise her hostility when she's not happy about something (e.g. this recent rant). What sort of ban would you propose, exactly? &mdash; Matt Crypto 18:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess the question is how long? I don't know.. I'd suggest at least a month.  Something longer than previous blocks seems appropriate, since the problems have continued after them.   Friday (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is totally inappropriate. In case you haven't noticed, WP:V is policy.  It's ridiculous to propose a block for something like that.  Are we here to write an encyclopaedia, or to fetishise process?  Guettarda 18:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Completely and unequivocably opposed. Process was completely violated for African aesthetic and it turned into a right clown parade. I'm not going to take it any further, but please consider leaving this for a couple of days to cool down (no pun intended) :) - FrancisTyers 18:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with FrancisTyers - going slow and talking it over is good. That's why I made the suggestion instead of just going ahead with a block.  However I have to disagree with Guettarda- WP:V is a straw man here.  Notice that DCV removed some stuff I merged from the African cool article.  It was properly sourced, hell, she wrote it herself, yet she removed it from another article in an apparent fit of temper.  It wasn't just me that objected; a couple other editors expressed disapproval also.  I'm not saying I agree with the deletions here, they were out of process and probably unhelpful.  Notice I did not delete anything myself.  But the issue here is the conduct of this particular editor- it seems clear to me that she's a net loss to the project.  The chip on her shoulder is simply too large for her to be a productive editor.  See the rant above that Matt Crypto linked to.  Friday (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess thats what it comes down to, one camp who think that she does more good than harm and another who thinks she does more harm than good. I'm fairly sure I've made my position known before, but Jmabel put it better, 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—which deeceevoice has made—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.. I would add, she rants, it is unproductive, but hell, she's been pretty provoked over the past couple of days. I'm not going to draw any analogies &mdash; although there are many to choose from, but take a moment to think &mdash; seriously, a group of editors seemingly following you everywhere you edit constantly hassling you. This is not the way to get someone to change their behaviour. Anyway, to conclude, consider taking a break from interacting with DC for a couple of days, ponder the situation with a receptive mind, consider your own biases. Then if you still feel the same I guess we can take it from there. - FrancisTyers 19:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your latter comments are good advice. Deeceevoice's "harm"-to-"good" ratio is much worse now than it used to be when she was writing articles like Blackface. I think we should demand a basic level of civility from editors regardless of how much they contribute to the project. I also utterly reject on principle Jmabel's argument that racially charged remarks against white people are something we need to be less concerned about than those for Blacks, Jews etc. We should have a zero-tolerance policy for racial incivility of any kind. &mdash; Matt Crypto 20:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think part of the problem for the harm-to-good ratio being worse is the (seemingly) constant attack she is under. I know you guys don't approve of "but look at what else is out there" stuff, but another guy User:Wetman does some pretty nice prose, check out some of his articles, "The theme of weaving in mythology is ancient, and its lost mythic lore probably accompanied the early spread of this mysterious art." (from Weaving (mythology)) &mdash; do you really think we'd be better off without that sort of article? I think DCV attracts a lot of bad noise because the articles she edits are probably more contentious. I mean, "weaving is lost mythic lore and a mysterious art" is not particularly contentious, not like "cool is an African philosophy" (or whatever). Anyway, give yourselves a break, find some other articles to work on... and don't you even slightly see how it might seem racist or double standards to (seemingly) allow so many unsourced articles as demonstrated, while trashing her every move, demanding a citation for every little thing. Yes, thats policy &mdash; and needless to say I agree with it &mdash; but unequally applied, and that's discrimination. Seriously consider if you'd AfD or litter that guys articles with fact tags or the original research tag. Consider also how personal this is, how much you just "don't want to let her get away with it". Final note about the style that I made on the African aesthetic talk page... this is art history and anthropology guys, not civil engineering. :) Regarding racial incivility, I agree totally, although personally I don't object to being called "cracker" or "English bastard" or "rosbif" or "pousti malaka", in fact, it makes me laugh &mdash; probably because I've never been threatened because of my race. - FrancisTyers 20:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your analysis. I think DCV attracts bad noise because she's hostile to pretty much anybody who disagrees with her, and she constantly assumes racist motives in others without basis (e.g., recently some utterly uninvolved admin steps in to stop an edit war and protects a page to what DCV considered the "wrong version". She immediately raged against this, saying it was "emblamatic of the racism of this site", rather than what it blantantly was: an uninterested page protection). It's the stimulus, not those who respond to it, that's the problem. If she was civil, she'd certainly get no attention from me. Moreover, ArbCom have placed her under probation and, I recall, requested that admins enforce it. &mdash; Matt Crypto 21:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, she assumed bad faith. So block her. You didn't answer my other questions though... - FrancisTyers
 * I haven't blocked her for that, not least because I'm not out to persecute her. To answer your question, I think we should improve unreferenced articles by digging up sources and removing original research. But I don't interact with Deeceevoice in article space. &mdash; Matt Crypto 22:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, just seems a lot of people are reluctant to actually bother to look for sources and would rather just gut articles on subjects about which they have little experience or knowledge &mdash; almost reminiscent of the mineriads. Case in point, Skull (symbolism). - FrancisTyers 23:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jmabel's remarks are inconsequential at this point -- the RfAr already stated deeceevoice must "play nice" and placed her on probation.  Where I come from, probation means you need to behave -- dcv isn't.
 * The latest flurry was pure WP:POINT (deletes citation she has been claiming is high quality for months as with "Who is Thompson? What makes his sources worthwhile? What is the context of this information in the article?") and it is just part of a pattern.   Several blocks appear in this log and a lot of behavior has gone unreported.   Just in the past few daysthere has benn "You want a book report?  then write one"   "Duh."   "Like a dog with a bone..."  "abysmally uniformed POV/bias" "GodotGodotGodotGodotGodotGodotGodotGodotGodot"  the frequent claims of ignorance of others "You're merely making facile assumptions, based on ignorance", "largely grounded in ignorance", "ignorance, supposition and inchoate supsicions", "Perhaps you should help Urthogie hunt up some sources. Make yourself useful", all caps claims of "BAD FAITH, PRECIPITOUS DELETION"  etc.
 * A one week block made no difference.  Extending it considerably wouldn't be unreasonable.  Justforasecond 20:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey JFAS, you should check out Weaving (mythology). - FrancisTyers 21:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I see you like it... just one thing though, you seem to have forgotten to mark which bits were unreferenced. The fact tags are there, use them for what they're for (sorry, Pantera reference)! - FrancisTyers 21:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Pretty much the whole thing is unreferenced.  I don't think the article is as ludicrous as Cool (African philosophy) was in its heyday (a google search returns many hits for weaving mythology, etc.) but it needs citations.  Feel free to put facts wherever you feel its necessary.   If the editor who began that article is attacking people right and left, begin the arbitration process.   I won't stand in your way.   Justforasecond 21:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the ban under remedy 7, I doubt my mind will change in the next few days, but one never knows. FWIW, I remember concluding that she was a net loss to the project several months ago, and I haven't changed my mind on that issue yet.  Her recent rudeness and ranting aren't helping.  It's very surprising to me that she still has supporters here, so I can only conclude that she's doing (or has done in the past) good work here also.   If the issue was me being "uncool" about the situation, I'd probably have blocked her for the blatant WP:POINT violation on Cool (aesthetic).  Instead, I just left her a note trying to get her to stop it.  Her response has not convinved me that she's capable of being rehabilitated.  Friday (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure changing ones tune is necessarily a violation of WP:POINT. Was the action she took warranted, as explained in the edit summaries? - FrancisTyers 22:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No. She has praised Thompson one day, and the next "Who is Thompson?  What makes his sources worthwhile?  What is the context of this information in the article?"  Justforasecond 23:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent block

 * I have blocked Deeceevoice for a week for personal attacks and incivility e.g. . &mdash; Matt Crypto 08:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense, but I don't see how she's making a personal attack there. She's assuming bad faith, yes, but shes not making a personal attack.--Urthogie 09:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * She's being uncivil, but then so was Zoe, and no I don't think that it excuses it, but 1 week is a bit harsh. - FrancisTyers 09:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah. She just has an in your face personality, and I don't think we should give her a week block on this, at most a day or two.--Urthogie 10:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A week would normally be seen as harsh -- but it's hardly the first time for Deeceevoice. Or the second. Or the third. (Etc.) Certainly at least one other admin thought it was a personal attack: . "Perhaps you should have considered the consequences of your actions before jumping the gun in such an oficious, high-handed manner. And then don't continue to abuse your admin privileges in the future. Speaking frankly, IMO, you're just another example of admin who shouldn't be one..." &mdash; I would view this as a personal attack, but I'm willing to accept the possibility that I'm wrong. I've reduced it to 24 hours. &mdash; Matt Crypto 13:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable to me. I agree that the above post was somewhat mild- if done by a user in good standing, it wouldn't be a blocking offense IMO.  However, since she's a frequently disruptive editor who doesn't seem to be getting the message, I don't think it's out of line at all.  Heck, I'd probably advocate blocks of increasing length from now on.  Friday (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Speaking frankly, IMO, you're just another example of admin who shouldn't be one..." is borderline, but not really a personal attack... discussing whether someone is doing a good job as an admin isn't really personal so much as a Wikipedia related comment. A day seems fair to me.--Urthogie 14:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Given Zoe's recent actions (out-of-process deletion, protecting pages upon which she was edit warring, reverting pages to her prefered version before protecting them, refusing to explain use of rollback when asked) I'd say the phrase U. quoted is pretty much spot-on accurate. Guettarda 14:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Deeceevoice wrote, addressing Zoe, "Guettarda may be the only admin who's actually called you on your unprincipled behavior. Precisely why Wiki needs a working sanctions process for incompetent and/or malicious admins -- which it currently lacks." (Zoe is supposedly "racist"). Here is the situation, we do have a "working sanctions process for incompetent and/or malicious admins", the dispute resolution process and we have desyopped administrators. We also have a process which deal with ordinary users who are habitually rude. Using that process we have created a remedy which applies to Deeceevoice and we expect it to be enforced. If being banned for a day won't work, maybe 48 hours will work, if 48 hours won't work, maybe a week will work, but as long as Deeceevoice persists in being rude, the so will the blocks. Fred Bauder 14:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

For those who oppose a ban under remedy 7
Many users who've been blocked this many times for the same problems have already been banned. Some of her supporters ceased their support after the RFAr. I wouldn't mind some clarification- for those who still support her, why? Is it because she did useful work here in the past? Is it because she's still doing useful work here? Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I see more trouble than I can justify putting up with. I'm surprised that people would oppose a longer ban under the terms of the Arbcom decision. I realize the decision says "any 3 admins", but even if there were 3, I still wouldn't neccessarily feel right about doing that if there was serious opposition. Guettarda's reasons for opposing the ban above doesn't make sense to me at all. FrancisTyer's opposition seems to be about something unrelated, the out-of-process deletion. That may well be a reason to take things up with Zoe, but how is it a reason to not deal with DCV's disruption? Reviewing the case, it sure looks to me like the ArbCom passed that remedy for a reason. Why do people want to disregard it? If someone can help me see where she's benefiting the project, please do. However, I can let you know right now there's one argument I simply will not buy: the notion that she's entitled to disregard community norms due to past wrongs she has endured.  Anyone who's been around the 'pedia for any length of time has probably endured trolls and personal attacks. Heck, I got a fairly explicit and gory death threat on my talk page just today - these things happen. Editors are expected to take the high ground, and not respond in kind to trolls. Editors are also expected to deal with other editors in a civil and adult manner, without edit warring. I'll say it again: her attitude (which doesn't appear to be improving) is simply not compatible with being a Wikipedia editor. It's nothing personal. I'm sure she's a good person who's doing what she thinks is right. Wikipedia is simply not the place for folks with such a huge axe to grind. Friday (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The OPD was the cause of the problem, had Zoe not deleted the page (out of process) and then made sarcastic comments, then there would be no need of a ban, because she wouldn't have responded. The problem isn't with past wrongs, its with current wrongs. If people give her half a chance, she writes good articles. It's kind of difficult to write good articles when you are constantly being harassed. People know how she responds to their badgering, which is why they do it, they want to get her to react in this way. I'm not going to ask her to cool her jets &mdash; that isn't my place &mdash; I'm sure you're probably thinking "but why doesn't she learn" &mdash; because people aren't mindless animals and behaviourism is so fucking passé. Blah, I'm aching to use an analogy, but I'll leave it to you guys to imagine. Excuse the language, but this lawyering gets me frustrated. Insert another analogy here. - FrancisTyers 14:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Both sides are ignoring community norms here. Page protection policy has been pretty much thrown out the window.  Friday's harrassment of dcv is unacceptable; given his/her admitted goal of driving dcv out of the project, s/heshould be the last one to speak about "acceptable behaviour".  Guettarda 14:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's all been hashed and rehashed. Read the case.  I believe I've been very polite to DCV, despite enduring her insults.  And, once again- you're not talking about the issue at hand, you're just dragging around red herrings.  IMO, even current wrongs (whichever ones may exist- I'm not trying to pass judgment on that) do not excuse her from meeting the basic behavioral expectations we have.  That's pretty much the whole issue, as far as I'm concerned.  I've "harassed" editors who write vanity articles, too- I delete their articles and tell them to stop it.  This doesn't mean I'm a big meanie, this means I'm doing what editors do- trying to keep the encyclopedia in good shape.  Friday (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that you've harassed other editors is irrelevant to this discussion. I don't think we're getting anywhere, so I'll leave it at the fact that I believe when applying policy I believe context should be taken into account, and I certainly don't believe in applying the rule nomatter what. I take a strong position against Lawyering &mdash; technically right, technically wrong &mdash; its the spirit that counts. If she had opened up on a new user then sure a block would probably be in order &mdash; but that there is already animosity between DC and Zoe and you don't take this into account is absurd. Throw "Basic behavioural expectations" to the dogs, it doesn't even begin to cover this. As a final note: If you make out like she never plays nicely, do some more searching. - FrancisTyers 16:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I oppose a ban at this time under general probation. Deeceevoice sometimes does excellent work. She also gets on her high horse and thinks that a good rant will accomplish something, a characteristic she shares with Zoe who I recall some good rants from in the past. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Fred Bauder 14:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Has she admitted that her conduct pre-probation was unacceptable?  No.
 * What is her percentage of good edits since probation (as compared to rants, uncited pov, nor, etc)? My guess is its in the low single digits.
 * Has her behavior improved since being placed on probation?  Judging by the block log and personal experience...no.
 * The rants are disruptive and in the process she insults numerous people. She seems to think wikipedia is just teeming with ignorant adolescent racists and displays an us-vs-them attitude which will never work here.
 * How about this -- ban deeceevoice, but let the person behind the name return and reinvent herself under a new identity (she seems to use AOL anyway so her IP couldn't be banned).  If we don't notice any rants, original research, incivility, or personal attacks this issue will never be raised again.  Justforasecond 15:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If she reinvents herself, I don't see much reason to care whether it's under an old or new username. It's the conduct that's the issue.  Friday (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I was looking to see why the user deeceevoice is allowed to disrupt Wikipedia in the way she does, then discovered this page. It's hard for me to believe that this user is on Probation when she's still continuing to do exactly all the things listed here!! One thing not mentioned here (or maybe I missed it, it's very long) is that this user has been on a mission to disrupt every Egypt-related article/talk page. She's constantly looking to instigate conflict, constantly injects her racial agenda into the articles, and constantly harasses and targets anyone who stands up to her abusive and disruptive behavior. She frequently tries to contribute original research ideas into articles like Egypt and Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians (eg, she invented the new term "Afro-Semitic person" and wants to force it into the articles). Lately, she's been edit warring to insert a picture of a "black person" in the Egypt article (whatever that means!), even though racially motivated edits are not compatible with NPOV and concerns have been raised about delibrate misrepresentation of the population. When she gets reverted, which she nearly always does in various articles, she calls on the help of other users by instigating them into action, throwing empty charges of racism (actually, she frequently makes very bigoted statements about Egyptians and Arabs which makes it hard to keep one's cool. See the Egypt talk page archive for yourself). Her most recent instigation led user Yungmike513 to vandalize the user page of Zerida several times. I noticed that on another discussion page, it was mentioned that she even emails users for help when she's engaged in one of her usual edit battles. Anyway, a lot has been said already, so I would like to re-open this case and register a formal complaint. Egyegy 18:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Last time it was brought up there was opposition, as you can see here. However, under her arbcom remedy, not everyone has to agree- all it takes is 3 admins to agree to ban her, for up to a year.  As far as I know, the original remedy still applies, so there's no re-opening of the case neccessary.  While, to me, a year seems pretty unreasonable, I still believe she needs to understand that her conduct here is inacceptable.  I, for one, would support a block of a few weeks.  She gives no indication of agreeing with, or wanting to follow, key policies like WP:NOR and NPOV.  She's here to fight a race war, not work on an encyclopedia.  While I would not tend to advocate blocking editors based on their personal opinions, her racial insults and self-admitted status as a black seperatist makes it difficult for me to believe that she'll ever try to be neutral on race issues.  Friday (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Her behavior now is somewhat more civil. She hasn't called anyone a crakkka lately, though she does say things like "White men have always had jungle fever" and "booyah" from time to time.  However, I haven't seen more than 1-2 meaningful contributions this year -- it's all race battles.  She appears to have an obsession with proving the Ancient Egyptians were "black".   Some of the citations are absolutely laughable -- such as proving the Sphynx depicts a black man via a letter to the editor from an American dentist.   She also seems paranoid that others are all bent on covering up any history of "black" presence in Egypt, this includes the supposed conspiracy to portray Anwar Sadat by a man that was less black than he was, and the machinations of the head of Egyptian antiquities bureah Zahi Hawass.   Her POV is that Hawass won't let DNA tests be performed on mummies, because he's afraid it will prove the mummies are "black".   Never mind there is no DNA test for "blackness" and that tissue extraction from mummies irreperably damages them.   It's been compared to slicing off chunks of the Mona Lisa.  Anyway, it goes on and on.  I guess I'd have a little more patience if this didn't seem to be her sole purpose.   She did put together a good article on Blackface way, way back. Justforasecond 16:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)