Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice/Workshop

I'd like to see this arbitration case examine the actions of User:Justforasecond. A very strong case can be made that these have constituted harassment. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to endorse the request. JFAS appears to have pursued a vendetta against deeceevoice and has also harrassed users who supported deeceevoice in her RFC.  Guettarda 16:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would also endorse this request. JFAS should get on with writing an encyclopaedia. - FrancisTyers 17:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If someone started a RfC on JFAS, I'd support it. The issue of this harrassment was raised on JFAS's talk page by several users (see the Please stop harassing Deeceevoice section). It appeared for a few days that he might stop it but I'd say it is continuing. According to procedure, since this issue was raised by at least two editors and the issue now continues, it can go to an RfC and then, if needed, to arbitration.--Alabamaboy 17:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the comment you put on my page was supported by a small group of editors that work closely with deeceevoice -- some or all of them listed above this comment.  As I've said before, if there is some part of the wikipedia harrassment policy I've violated, please tell me so I can address it.   This RfAr is the standard wikipedia dispute resolution mechanism and is not harrassment.   Please stop trying to intimidate me.  Maybe if any of you had asked DCV to tone down when she first began things wouldn't have developed this way.  -Justforasecond 17:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Your first interaction with deeceevoice was an attack, out of the blue, on her talk page, in reference to weeks-old edits. You then spammed dozens of pages to drum up support for your attack on her.  You then harrassed editors who endorsed the other side of the RFC.  Over a substantial period of time, most of your time on Wikipedia was dedicated to drumming up support for your vendetta, or harrassing those who disagreed with you.  How you can, in good faith, claim that your actions were anything other than harrassment is beyond me.
 * As for "trying to intimidate you" - that's hilarious. You did your best to browbeat the editors who disagreed with you on the RFC.  You tried (and failed at) intimidation.  Your pretense of being an injured party here is a joke.  Guettarda 02:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Justforasecond's first interaction with Deeceevoice on her talk page consisted, in its entirety, of the following:


 * "I notice that you've made many changes to Afrocentrism, few of them with citations. As you know, this article is currently flagged for numerous reasons, lack of citations being one. Please try to include citations with your edits, they'll improve the article quality and hasten the removal of the flags. -Justforasecond 05:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)"


 * In what way do you believe that this qualifies, even remotely, as an "attack"? Please be specific. --phh 16:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Look at it in context, where JFAS came from, what s/he did next...and I can't see it as anything other than an attack. Guettarda 16:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

&darr;&larr;&larr;&larr; (escaping from indent hell) &larr;&larr;&larr;&crarr;

Well, I see that Deeceevoice responded on Justforasecond's talk page with:

"Please don't visit my talk page w/inane messages. Afrocentrism has been flagged for a very long time -- mostly because people object to the subject matter itself. My contributions to this piece have been NPOV and factual. I haven't had anything to do with the piece for a very long time. And don't bother to respond. I won't read it. *x* deeceevoice 14:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)"

Justforasecond then responded with:

"You actually edited the article yesterday, without citations. Just to pick one reason other than 'people objecting to the subject matter', the flags seem to be there because there are few citations. Please act and assume good faith, and as always, be civil. -Justforasecond 18:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)"

Deeceevoice then responded with:

"I'll assume good faith when the blatant ignorance and racism stop. Further, the edit record shows I did NOT edit yesterday. The last edits I made on this article were done 11/27 -- and it was clean-up stuff at that, aimed at toning down some of the POV and general fix-up. Get your story straight -- and don't post to my talk page in the future.*x* deeceevoice 23:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)"

Deeceevoice is correct; no edits were made to Afrocentrism between November 27 and December 4. (Whether six days qualifies as "a very long time" is, I suppose, up to the individual to decide.) On the 27th Deeceevoice made a series of edits that appear to back up her characterization of them as "clean-up stuff"; she improved the writing significantly and smoothed out a fair amount of bias (in fact, if anything she eliminated more pro-Afrocentrism bias than anti-Afrocentrism bias). To my eyes, at least, the article is better for the changes she made on the 27th. It is true that a lot of the material Deeceevoice rewrote lacks citations, a fact that did not escape her notice--in an edit summary she wrote "I hope I've maintained the integrity of the points made, though some citations would help." I suppose there's room to criticize Deeceevoice for not simply removing the unsourced material rather than rewriting it, but that doesn't really seem fair; I'm sure I've done the same sort of thing myself. So Justforasecond was simply wrong, but probably not maliciously so--either he simply got the date wrong and didn't look closely enough at the substance of Deeceevoice's edits, or he intentionally lied about something that Deeceevoice knew was false and that was really, really easy for anyone to check up on regardless. The latter possibility, I hope you'll agree, seems pretty unlikely.

Anyway, Justforasecond responded with:

"I'm not sure what blatant racism you are talking about; the Afrocentrism page has a real lack of citations. Assuming these flags are there due to racism is assuming BAD faith, and to accuse folks of racism is uncivl. Your edits in particular usually have zero citations. I can see from this talk page that other users have complained about your edits lacking citations. Maybe you should take that into consideration. -Justforasecond 00:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)"

Deeceevoice turfed this comment with the edit summary "Deleted without reading," and replied:

"One more thing. DO NOT tamper with my talk page. What I choose to keep or delete is strictly my prerogative. Per my earlier warning, I've deleted your changes -- your last contribution without reading it. (Poof!) Don't waste your time. deeceevoice 06:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)"

And things continued to degenerate from there.

So I dunno what Justforasecond's motives are here, and I doubt you do either. You may, if you wish, assume that Justforasecond is intentionally provoking someone who has a history of hotheadedness, and that his civil tone is just a passive-aggressive attempt to evade blame for it, and that he has the darkest and most reprehensible motives imaginable for doing all of it. But given what's brought us to this point I don't see how his motives matter even a little bit. We are all, presumably, responsible for our own actions here, and the heart of the matter here is that Justforasecond posted a reasonable, civil request on her talk page and she responded with hostility and an ostentatious declaration that she wasn't interested in reading anything he had to say. Where you get the idea that Justforasecond was the one making "an attack" in this initial exchange is beyond my comprehension entirely. In fact, as I look back at it now there isn't a single thing in "Your first interaction with deeceevoice was an attack, out of the blue, on her talk page, in reference to weeks-old edits" that appears to be true (okay, I'll concede that "on her talk page" is pretty much spot-on.) So, again, what did you mean by this? I certainly don't agree with everything Justforasecond's done in this matter, but I can't blame him for feeling unfairly picked on. --phh 21:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Inflammatory language about lynching a black woman
I am shocked by the inflammatory language about "lynching" a black woman that we see here. Deeceevoice is a black supremacist who promotes policies which teach violent hatred against "white" people (a poorly defined category.) She has spurned cooperation and repeatedly violated Wikipedia NPOV policy. Yet in response to a reasonable attempt to follow the arbitration process, someone is now defending Deeceevoice by accusing everyone else of lynching a black woman? Let's not play games. That language is racist hatespeech, with the intention of creating pity for Deeceevoice based solely on the color of her skin, and is a racist slander of anyone who disagrees with Deeceevoice, because such people have a skin color that (perhaps) differs from hers. Such statements in of themselves are bannable offenses. We cannot maintain a peaceful community working on encyclopedia articles while a handful of black supremacists attempt to use slander based on racist, anti-white stereotypes. None of us here can attempt to drive away black contributors by calling them "niggers" and using racist anti-black stereotypes. Such behaviour would be recognized as an instantly bannable offense. The same, obviously, should be true for people who attempt to discredit and shame non-black contributors by using racist anti-white stereotypes, such as accusing white people of "lynching" Deeceevoice for the mere "sin" of using our arbitration process. RK 00:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear that you are shocked. A number of us in the Wikipedia community are also shocked by the actions against Deeceevoice. While "lynch" may be a strong work, it is how I feel about the events that led up to this arbitration (and how others feel too, as indicated by responses to my choice of words). That said, the use of the word is not hate speech. I should also note that you are under an arbitration ruling which says you are not to make personal attacks or accuse others of anti-Semitism or Nazi sympathy. Obviously this means you have felt the need to say that there is anti-Semitism at times here at Wikipedia. By using the word "lynch" I am trying to make a similar point that there is also strong racism here at times (although this doesn't mean that everyone against Deeceevoice is racist or that the arbitrators are racist for doing their job). Anyway, I assume this means we will just disagree about the use of the word. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just thought of it as a reference to a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves. If it's good enough for a Supreme Court Justice, it's good enough for me. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that too. --Alabamaboy 02:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with your analogy is that you picked the wrong perceived 'victim' to champion, because no one is trying to punish Deeceevoice for thinking for herself. On the contrary, people are only trying to stop her from forcing her thoughts on an encyclopedia trying to remain NPOV, in part by playing the "race card" in situations when it is completely unrelated. Surely you must be able to tell the difference. Furthermore I don't think that the fact that the Senate Judiciary Committee tried to investigate a claim of sexual harrassment when it was made has anything to do with "lynching" either, because race had nothing to do with except in the minds of those who want it to. Yid613 06:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Healing Wikipedia
I wonder if there is a way to heal the issues and differences that DCV's arbitration has brought to the foreground? In some ways, this entire affair has been bad for racial relations here at Wikipedia. Those who don't like how DCV acts have said that their actions are solely in response to DCV not being "nice" (so to speak). Those who don't like what has happened to DCV (like me) see the affair as being driven by racism and bigotry. The funny thing is that there is overlap between the two sides. A number of those pushing to sanction DCV admit that some of actions against her have been wrong and haven't helped racial issues here (and that some of the users pushing the issue against her are doing so for possibly racist reasons). Almost all of us opposed to the actions against DCV admit that she is abrasive and has violated Wikipedia guidelines and should be more civil in her discussions here. What we see, though, is a double-standard at work, with users appearing to gang up against non-minority editors like DCV for being less than civil but not doing the same to white editors. I would encourage people to post their thoughts here on a special talk page I created. --Alabamaboy 21:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)