Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Deeceevoice

 Unfortunately, this RfC has turned into a rather emotive and poisonous mess, rather than the civil and sober discussion I was hoping for. Therefore, and at the suggestion of JCarriker, I am delisting and closing this RfC, and moving it to my User space. While I still believe there are issues that need addressing, this current RfC is generating much more heat than light. JCarriker has suggested an alternative approach which I would seem to me to be more profitable. &mdash; Matt Crypto 03:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd encourage past participants in this RfC to comment on the User RFC process here: User RFC reform. &mdash; Matt Crypto 00:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Should this continue
It looks like user:deeceevoice is not willing to take part in this process, and, I hope I'm not reading too much into her recent talk page comments, but it appears she does not see any problem with her behavior and intends to continue to engage in it. I'm not sure whether she doesn't buy into the Civility and No Personal Attacks policies, or just doesn't think she's violated them. How does this usually work? Should this RfC continue? -Justforasecond 00:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Two possible ways this could go if it does continue:
 * Everyone DCV has ever crossed could come here and provide squillions of diffs of her being mean. Not desirable.
 * Those involved could contruct, in her absence, a more complete picture of how her behavior has influenced those around her. This could then lead to:
 * Someone acting as her advocate and demonstrating that there is no problem. Unlikely.
 * Someone acting as her advocate and helping to craft a solution that can ease tensions and moderate behavior all around. Then DVC could choose to:
 * Ignore it, or
 * Engage in some dialog.


 * Really though, 2.2.2 is de facto mediation, so perhaps wait a week then open an RfM. brenneman (t) (c)  01:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I do think it should continue. The way I see it, a widely-supported RfC on this matter sends a clear message to Deeceevoice that her actions are not just of concern to, er, a few "prissy, pedantic, insufferable, niggling, mealy-mouthed, self-righteous, tattletale brats", but of concern to the wider community. She could just ignore that, too, I suppose, but few reasonable people are willing to ignore both Wikipedia policy and community opinion.
 * From her response on her talk page, it seems Deeceevoice believes that her behaviour is so mild that nobody will bother doing anything about it; if that's true, then I suppose ignoring it is an understandable response. Perhaps it needs to be explained to Deeceevoice that she could, in fact, face real sanctions for her behaviour. For example, it has recently been clarified that admins can block for personal attacks if it's an ongoing problem. &mdash; Matt Crypto 08:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The balance is important, though. To much of a "crush the evil DCV" and she'll just ignore it, to much "oh, please stop that little thing" and she'll just continue.  Calm, rational, disspasionate and moderated is what needs to be aimed for. -  brenneman (t) (c)  12:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree (although one could point out the difficulty in staying calm and dispassionate when Deeceevoice is directing vitriol at you). For balance, I pointed out that Deeceevoice is a valued contributor, and that she does get her fair share of trolls and vandals. Moreover, I selected comments only from her Talk page, rather than digging up every bit of dirt from her contributions. I don't want this RfC to be used as a way of "getting at" Deeceevoice (as it seems that a couple of people want it to be), but I do want this problem to be solved. &mdash; Matt Crypto 14:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what kind of balance could be struck -- but I'll inform a few other users that seem to get along with DCV about this RfC.  As for mediation, users often refuse to participate in that process too.  -Justforasecond 16:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would also suspect that mediation would be refused by DCV. The problem is, DCV's refusal to take part in dispute resolution leaves complainants with few choices: namely, 1) ignore DCV's consistent flouting of policy, 2) start an ArbCom case, or 3) get an admin to start imposing blocks for personal attacks. For me, none of those options are very appealing. The obvious solution is for DCV to start respecting the policies here. Why won't she? &mdash; Matt Crypto 12:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not holding my breath for her to show up.  The number of users that have signed on already seem to indicate that these are not a few isolated incidents and her response on her talk page seems to indicate she just doesn't care about the policies.  Her supporters don't seem to accept the wiki policies either.  Let's give a few more editors a chance to comment, but if there's still no dcv response I think this should go to arbitration.  -Justforasecond 15:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm
All I can say is that I will support Deeceevoice in all that she does, I have nothing but love!  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  19:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment.  I hope you don't support EVERYTHING deecee does, but to each his own.  -155.91.28.231 02:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

expand to include npov and nor/verifiability violations
Three users, including me, have now mentioned DCs frequent NPOV violations. In my experience many of her other edits are either original research or unverifiable (its hard to distinguish these cases). Is there any way to tack these on to the RfC, or would those be better left off, as many users have already certified the civility summary? -Justforasecond 15:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Depends on the point of this RfC. If it's "lets build a fire to roast DVC" then pile it on.  If it's an attempt to guide a contributor towards being a happy an integrated part of a community in order that she may contribute more effectivly to our common goals, let it go.
 * In short, she's unlikely to change the second issue until you fix this one. brenneman (t) (c)  15:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that a fourth editor, Edward Wakelin has also requested addressing NPOV violations, we should add it to the RfC. Let's take care of all the violations at once -- it would be a shame if deeceevoice lessened her personal attacks but continued engaging in NPOV and NOR violations. Where would it be best to put this commentary and related diffs? Here? On the main project page? -Justforasecond 00:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

When asked for a citation for "maryland farmer":
 * I'm certainly not going to spend my time trying to "prove" something like this to you to your satisfaction. *x*

On accuracy in Wikipedia:
 * I didn't realize then that Wikipedia makes no pretensions of accuracy, that it's a kind of free-for-all. 

Personal attacks
Isn't the fact that there are personal attacks on the request for comment be regarded as in some way objectionable?
 * Yes. One would hope that both sides would be willing to argue their cases rationally and with civility. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
I've just realised that extended discussion should be on the Talk: page, so I'm moving conversations here. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Again, I don't believe there's any dispute about Deeceevoice's article contributions. It's her lack of civility in certain situations that is an issue. There may be many reasons why she responded in the manner that she did, but there aren't any excuses. No personal attacks and civility exist to make a better editing environment for all editors. Carbonite | Talk 20:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL exists to protect the community spirit and keep editors from getting driven out. If we don't stand up for people when they are harrassed, we should not criticise them when they react. The spirit of the law should matter as much as the letter of the law.  Guettarda 20:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why has no one stood up for her? Has Deeceevoice reported the harassment? If so, what was done about it? How would Deeceevoice like the harassment to be handled? I think it would be very helpful for Deeceevoice to provide some sort of response so that such questions can be answered. In any case, a harassed user gets my sympathy, but not a free pass to be uncivil to other users. That simply perpetuates the problem. Carbonite | Talk 20:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you even look at her history before you endorsed this RFC? How about the top of her Talk page?  Kinda hard to miss the big swastika that someone posted there.  As for reporting harrassment - there's this arbcomm case against a nasty little racist, for starters.  But for a thousand other little insults?  She's been getting crap for the year and a half she's been here - some of it blatant, some of it subtle.  Look at the crap she's gotten, and tell me, if it were you, would there be so few diffs on the RFC?  To only present her replies, without context, is deceptive and misleading.  Guettarda 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course I looked at her talk page first. I do wonder why she keeps a number of attacks on the page when she deletes other comments. If she were to harass the attackers, I'd probably consider her to be fully justified in doing so. But she's taking it out on good editors, not the ones who put racist remarks or swastikas on her talk page. That may make her feel better, but it doesn't solve anything. I do agree that this RfC does need context, preferably in the form of a response from Deeceevoice. Even a promise that she'll try her best to be more civil would suffice. Carbonite | Talk 22:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It would suffice for me too. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I tried to emphasise that Deeceevoice is "a competent and valuable editor", indeed, that's the first thing I wrote in this RfC. I'm certainly not here to crucify anyone. However, I believe there is a legitimate problem with her completely ignoring the personal attacks and civility policies, and not just with trolls and vandals, but with editors in good standing. As I also said in the introduction to this RfC, I'm sure that Deeceevoice gets "a lot of nasty racist troll attention", which is unfortunate, but that does not excuse her behaviour, and she has never backed down an inch or apologised for her remarks. Also, I would conjecture she might get more support from the community if she didn't spit in people's faces (metaphorically) when they make friendly guestures (as is the case with Zoe, documented above) &mdash; Matt Crypto  20:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to emphasise again that the diffs presented in this RfC were only those insults and incivility directed at editors in good standing, not at trolls or vandals. &mdash; Matt Crypto 20:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I like Sam, but given that he offered to help Wareware in the Arbcomm case, it's reasonable for deecee not to consider him a good faith critic. That isn't to say that he didn't mean well, but you can only interpret someone's response in the overall context of the whole conversation.  In addition, you can't separate someone's response to one critic from the context of their other interactions.  If five people insult you, and the sixth comes with constructive criticism, how many people can honestly say that they will respond fairly to the sixth?  Guettarda 21:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1)  deeceevoice violated Civility policies, as seen above.   There is no lack of context.  Users with no history with dcv have come to her talk page and asked for citations or for civility and been treated with complete incivility.   The civility violations needs to be acknowledged in *any* honest summary, so I cannot endorse this.   Beyond on her user-talk page, deeceevoice has attacked people on article-talk pages, and regularly chooses to escalate, rather than to defuse situations chooses to escelate verbal confrontations.   In the "Wareware" confrontation encylopedist cites, she makes fun of an asian editors genital size; perhaps he instigated the conflict, but this is completely unacceptable behavior nontheless. I would also like to dispute the claim that deeceevoice's is a "good" editor and do not agree that she deserves credit for her "viewpoint".  We all are supposed to have the same viewpoint here -- the NEUTRAL viewpoint.    Most of her edits lack any citations.  In fact, she considers it vandalism to request citations.  -Justforasecond 01:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I would support the comments of Justforasecond; deeceevoice's contributions to the Afrocentrism article have been largely NPOV and he/she has posted attacks on others and accused them of vandalism in response to their edits. A number of his/her contributions to the article have been of questionable neutrality and factual accuracy. He/she is neither civil nor a good editor. 62.25.106.209 13:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, if you were a good editor yourself, you would not have  templates on your talk page.  This is so cute (how people don't have better things to do with their time), like I said, I am not going to give the time of day to argue moot points with you all all day;  I thank you, Justforasecond and everyone else who seems concerned with Wikipedia, but I am unconvinced that Deeceevoice should be "chastised" for hurting you all's feelings.  No punt intended but "boo hoo."  Constantly bombarding people with silly messages eventually provokes people; and concerning NPA - we do not live in a Walgreen's commercial life is not perfect and people aren't either.
 * So at anyrate, Deeceevoices wonderful contributions FAR outweigh any type of insults that you and your friends think she has done. It is a little hard to be civil if you have pictures of swastikas on your talk page and people calling you (and I quote) "nigger bitch."  So if you want to talk about poor editors, please note that the nearly 10,000 contributions (and pretty damn good ones) FAR outweigh those of IPs with minimal edits, and vandal notes on their talk pages. Put that in you cornpipe and smoke it!  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  16:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, after looking at 62.25.106.209's nearly 1,000 contribs. I rescind my last statement; however, that was very rude to even think that "she is ... [not] a good editor" as that is entirely false. But the fact is that her excellent contributions outweigh most of the complainants here in quantity, and in some respects, quality. They are mostly NOT POV, they are from a Black perspective - something entirely new on Wikipedia.   ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  16:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. still put that in your cornpipe and smoke it!  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  16:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to advance the suggestion that, yes, while Deeceevoice is a good editor, she could be a better one if she left out the insults and incivility. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and race is a touchy subject. An inflammatory approach is only going to hinder the goal of writing a less biased encyclopedia. &mdash; Matt Crypto 16:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, Matt. I'd like to add that I think it is a sad case for the complainants when one of them removes arguments here . ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  16:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Really? I don't see what the actions of an anonymous editor really have to do with the question of Deeceevoice following the Civility and No Personal Attacks policies. &mdash; Matt Crypto 16:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes really, is it crazy to infer that deletion implies a need to hide something, Matt?  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  19:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What's the objective here?
I'm not at all clear what this is intended to accomplish. Deecee's a smart editor who is often and unapologetically unvicil; I think we all knew this going in, and I think she would be likely to agree with that summary herself. Though I can see that this was started with the best of intentions (and kudos to Matt for keeping a balanced head about it), it's already turning into a gratuitous pile-on (see in particular Chameleon's attack at the bottom of the page). Complicating things further, Justforasecond has carried the fight over onto article talk pages where he disagrees with Deecee's edits in a egregious (if probably unknowing) violation of Personal remarks.

I just don't see what anyone expects to come out of this but more anger and the potential alienation of a dedicated editor. For all that I agree with WP:CIVIL (and I've even spoken to Deecee about it myself before), sometimes it really is better just to let these things go. Are we really going to block Deecee for telling Zoe to sing Kumbayah? --Dvyost 17:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is not just one "Kumbayah" comment, but a pattern of hostility, some of which is outlined in the evidence given in the RfC. My ideal outcome would be if she would avoid personal attacks and incivility. Is that asking too much? You mention the "potential alienation" of Deeceevoice. OK, that's certainly a risk we want to minimise (although she's hardly going out of her way to be integrated...) Moreover, it's a two-way street: incivility and personal attacks are also likely to alienate other editors. Indeed, that's part of the purpose of these policies is to make Wikipedia a better collaborative environment. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd also be happy to see Deecee tone down the anger a notch and give well-meaning editors a break. Given her response at her talk page, though, and the personal attacks already made on her related to this RfC, do you still consider that a likely result here?  I can't help but feel we're only exacerbating the problem.  --Dvyost 17:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I would agree, though, that spamming this to various Talk: pages is not a very productive approach. I've moderated Chamelon's commented with respect to Remove personal attacks. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If there was only one or two incidents of uncivil behavior, I'd be highly critical of this RfC. However, there are diffs from over a dozen incidents of incivility on her talk page alone. This whole matter could be solved with just slightly more attention to her choice of words when dealing with other users. You said you've spoken to Deecee about civility before. What was her response? Carbonite | Talk 17:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope its not spam to put those messages on the article talk pages.  They were very targeted towards articles deeceevoice is heavily involved in.  I'm not sure how else to reach the users, since most will not be watching the boards for new RfCs.  I contacted a few on talk pages but those were users that seemed to have strong (positive or negative) interactions with deeceevoice.  Unfortunately some of those users didn't seem to understand wiki policies.  Posting on the article talk pages casts a net to less biased users.  Anyway, if you guys *still* think it is unreasonable I'll go clean them off.  -Justforasecond 00:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Per our discussion here, I think that'd be a nice thing for you to do. --Amcaja 03:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not against wikipedia policy by any means, at least no policy you have cited.
 * There's no policy against "campaigning" and I don't consider it "spam" to go to an extremely small fraction of wiki articles that deeceevoice has been very active on and post a message about her RfC. I don't see how else editors find out about these things otherwise and you guys haven't provided any assistance.
 * These are not personal remarks -- not by the definition at wikipedia. "If you have opinions about other contributors as people, they don't belong there".   I haven't gone and said "deeceevoice is an evil woman, come see the RfC!"
 * They are not personal attacks either
 * I wish that editors would stop acting as if I've committed some violation, especially given the gross civility violations occuring here. Now that I've reaad the policies I don't think it is called for, but in the interest of AGF, I'll go remove them.   -Justforasecond 20:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We can argue all day about whether or not those posts were justified, but thanks for removing them all the same. —Amcaja 21:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Why's the focus on the talk page?
I mean, what DCV does on her talk page doesn't matter as much as PoV or civility issues in articles, does it? I'd think that'd be the real issue. --Edward Wakelin 19:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC) PS: I thought I'd posted this earlier... If I did, then either I screwed up, or it has to do with the fact that wireless internet connection is like Satan, only less reliable.
 * Well, the focus of the RfC is on civility issues, not POV, and the civility policies are applicable everywhere. I thought there was enough on her talk page to make the point, and I didn't think there was a need to further. &mdash; Matt Crypto 22:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Affirming NPA and Civility
I find it regrettable that there seem to be quite a few editors who are willing to overlook quite substantial violations of Wikipedia policies on personal attacks and civility, on the grounds that A) the user is a good editor; and B) the user is herself often a target of hostility. To quote, including formatting, Wikipedia's "No Personal Attacks" policy: '''There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.''' &mdash; Matt Crypto 03:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, I expected to be endorsing the complaint.  I instead found enough ill-will here that I found myself agreeing with User:Guettarda.  If I had instead seen concern by editors who had stood in solidarity with User:Deeceevoice against harassment and then still could not work with that editor, I would find that much more persuasive.  I am further troubled by the discussion of adding WP:NPOV to the complaints, as I do not see the user RFC list full of those editors pushing an Eurocentric point-of-view.  I'd like to invite those editors who are concerned about the atmosphere of Wikipedia, to commit to providing an harassment-free working environment for User:Deeceevoice, encourage and support that user in indenitfying bias and, after a period of doing so, then evaluate whether or not User:Deeceevoice is a problematic editor.  I am not suggesting that User:Deeceevoice gets a free pass on following WP:CIVIL.  I instead suggest that the rest of us do not get a free pass on the fact that User:Deeceevoice has been experiencing an uncivil environment without any obvious support from the community.  Jkelly 03:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Matt, I think we're all with you on not permitting personal attacks; I certainly am. I just don't see how this RfC is going to stop them.  Rather, as JKelly says, it's only attracting much more illwill from anyone who has a grudge against Deecee's edits.  Chameleon insists on maintaining his personal attack of Deecee as a "vulgar racist," and Justforasecond has still failed to take down his personal remarks about Deecee on article talk pages despite an explanation of Wikipedia policy and requests from three editors, including yourself, to do so.  I wholeheartedly agree that WP:CIVIL is a key policy of Wikipedia, but I think this page displays the difficulties in enforcing it; are we going to file RfCs next against everyone who's made an uncivil comment here?  I won't interfere beyond this point, but I do think our time would be much better spent getting back to work on articles and editing; despite your admirably good intentions, this only seems likely to create more hostility than it solves.  --Dvyost 03:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm having a very hard time taking any of these protests seriously. Deeceevoice dishes out vile obscenities and overt racist comments to people who have done nothing but disagree with her and does so on a very regular basis. She constantly hurls obscenities and makes vulgar and irrelevant generalizations about "white people" to taunt her fellow Wikipedians and to justify her own often quite narrow view on race issues and articles on blacks and African-Americans. I don't see how "vulgar racist" is anything but a very accurate and neutral description of comments like Stop buggin', bwoi., Did I fwyten duh widdow newbie? and U want me 2 hold your little, white hand and sing "Kumbaya"? To illustrate just how prejudiced and insulting these comments really are, imagine that "white" was replaced with "black" and that the comments were aimed at DCV herself.
 * That DCV has received little or no support from the community is plain nonsense. Check her user and talk page for two barnstars and plenty verbal support that ranges from the politely encouraging to the downright fanatic. The same goes for various talkpages and, of course, this RfC.
 * Peter Isotalo 04:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Quite. And given DCVs' response to User:Zoe, it might not be surprising that some editors are hesitant to provide encouragement or support. It's difficult to express solidarity with a user who throws insults at you. I'm afraid I have to wonder how much of the harrassment received by Deeceevoice is actually a result of her abrasive style. &mdash; Matt Crypto 11:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Dvyost &mdash; I agree that the actions of some contributors to this RfC, from both sides, have behaved unhelpfully. However, that hardly means that the RfC was an incorrect approach. An RfC is just asking the community, "do you agree with this"? And the assertion was, "I would hope that this RfC would signal to Deeceevoice that, while she does some great work, she still needs to treat other editors with courtesy and respect". I'm surprised that some people didn't think that was something they could endorse. &mdash; Matt Crypto 11:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:
'''There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.''' &mdash; Matt Crypto 03:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!! And?  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  06:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hell, people that have been making attacks on her don't seem to get this negative publicity, maybe blocked for a while, but they come back without this kind of crap. So, Deeceevoice stays here and reprimands and goes through crap like this, so trolls, in this instance, are treated better than she is.  Personal attacks come when someone uses their personal ignorance, and wait for a response (like vandals do with DCV), there aren't excuses for it, but human nature evidently is dominant an any case, including Wikipedia and its authoratative rules.  And some of the things I see aren't always personal attacks...sometimes she is telling the truth.  Any criticism should be responded by more, I have to admit that Deeceevoice is good at that. If you want a world without insults, go to ... wait, there isn't a place you can go without insults: : o, hah, LIVE WITH IT!!!! All I can say is, that she should try to respect the statement, as a rule; but at the same time I say  GET REAL!   ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  06:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I also say "boo hoo" she told me to sing Kumbayah. LOL, if you want to talk about NPA, she could have said much worse...not to say that that is a good thing, or that she awarded by what she didn't do ;), but still, boo hoo  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  06:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I find the mocking style of your comments to be particularly unhelpful. &mdash; Matt Crypto 11:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedist, as long as the overwhelming community consensus is that civility is more or less mandatory, both you and DCV should abide by these rules or find some other outlet for your hostility. Wikipedia is intended to be a place to make constructive edits and engage in enlightened discussion, not a battleground.
 * Peter Isotalo 13:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You consider this RfC enlightened?  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  15:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that this was not your intent Peter, but the above comment implthat Encyclopedist has a history of violating the Civility policy, which is inaccurate. No one is perfect, and we all make uncivil remarks occasionally. Could you please clarify your stament? Thanks. -JCarriker 14:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think some of the comments Encyclopedist has made on this RfC come pretty close to violating WP:CIVIL. At the very least, they're more confrontational and agressive than necessary. Carbonite | Talk 14:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the above comments by Encyclopedist violate WP:CIVIL. &mdash; Matt Crypto 15:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh boy. Well I am sorry for whatever policy you felt that I was breaking, but I have not attacked anyone here, I am attacking the content, the unfairness and an incivil RfC in the first place.  I guess common sense has taken a vacation from Wikipedia, and it looks like Deeceevoice has done the same. I haven't called anyone out their names, I haven't violated any civility policy, I am only taking your words and spitting them back at you; and it hurts you, so you want kick me off of the debate.  I find the same thing going on with Deeceevoice; the best way I can sum this up is that one editor against her is like a tiny insect, but the more insects gather up and swarm up on her.  I don't even understand this!  What are you all going to do with her (and now, me)?  Create another RfC, and an RfAr; oppose her on an RfA?  Oppose any featured article she comes with?  Revert changes and....shall I say it?...block her and me.  Oooooooooooh, I am scared!!  Listen, you people can do nothing to hurt me.  Concerning any policies, I feel like you all are trying to reach through the screen and slap me!  I am abiding by whatever civility laws being stated here, as this stupid RfC was incivil to Deeceevoice in the first place.  Like it or not, the truth hurts, and furthermore, Common Sense seems like it is on a WikiVacation already!  I guess you all will put and indefinite block on Common Sense too, huh?  I guess it is too much!  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  15:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, common sense is missing here, such as following the golden rule of "Treat others the way you want to be treated". This is the simple, real-world rule that Wikipedia's civility policy is based upon. As the policy states "We cannot always expect people to love, honor, obey, or even respect another. But we have every right to demand civility." Carbonite | Talk 15:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, "Treat others the way you want to be treated." So are you telling me that you want to give several thousands of good contributions only to be stabbed in the back and have a complaint forum created against you?  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  16:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying that incivility never leads to good things. Incivility can only act as a hinderance to whatever a person may be trying to achieve. Carbonite | Talk 16:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well this RfC sure as hell is leading to any positive either. I find this RfC to be incivil. Maybe my words are aggressive, but they need to be in the face of such confrontational editors.    ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  16:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sad you view it that way. On this RfC, I've gone out of my way to point out that Deeceevoice is a competent and valuable editor, that she does great work here, and that she is, unfortunately, the target of trolls and vandals &mdash; despite the insults I've received from Deeceevoice, I'm happy to assert this. I don't mean her ill-will. Rather, I've only asked that she respect the policies of this site. I'm bewildered as to how you could find this to be incivil, aggressive or confrontational. &mdash; Matt Crypto  16:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Matt, I never pointed out just at you, dude. I never said that people you thought she was a bad contributor...the only editor I argued with directly was an IP that said so...I even thanked you and Justforasecond for being concerned about Wikipedia, but I just don't agree with you all.  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  16:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And I do find this RFC confrontational,  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  16:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As a further note that I was trying to write before an edit conflict note popped up, but still should be addressed. Note also that in my first comment, I said that the rule should be respected. I never said it was okay to attack other editors, which I have not done. I haven't cursed at you, told you where you could go or what you could stick in whatever part of your anatomy. I am creating a very very strong rhetoric that you all feel isn't nice and makes you want to hide from the Boogy Monster. Guess what?? I have not created a battle ground, and as an argument for trying to intimidate you all: Isn't an RfC intimidating Deeceevoice in the first place? Weren't you all coming here to create drama for her on her time on Wikipedia and intimidate her into doing what you all say she should? That what the messages on her talk page infer? Please don't hurting our itty witty feelings! Please tell us what we want to hear, and let us criticize every move you make on her...but, if you bite back the snake you all try to put her in "time out." (i.e. banning her). So petty in my opinion.  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  16:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think a dose of WP:AGF would be good here. Friday (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have tried to assume good faith, but it is hard to when I see why friend being nailed to the cross. (Like I said, the outcome is all going to be the same, I am suprised that some people agreed with me)  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  16:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Criticised is different from crucified. You seem to think your friend shouldn't ever be criticised. However, if you willingly and continually break the rules, it's not persecution when you get taken to task for it. &mdash; Matt Crypto 16:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I just see you all unwilling to take her criticism as well.  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  17:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm open to criticism, but I think there's a difference. The criticism I've expressed about Deeceevoice is A) about violations of policy, and B) expressed in a civil fashion. Deeceevoice's criticism of myself has not been about violations of policy, and has typically been in the form of a insults or other incivility. &mdash; Matt Crypto 19:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I have said all I have to say a long time ago.  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  00:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's end this
This whole RfC could be done with a simple response from Deecee that "I will try my best to be more civil in the future." I know that's what I'd like to see and I'd bet that's what the vast majority of other editors on this RfC want.

I'd fully agree with wiping the slate clean and putting aside any past incivility of Deecee. But it's completely unreasonable to expect that future incidents should be ignored. There's a very quick and easy way to close this RfC. All it will take is a promise from a Deecee to try her best. Carbonite | Talk 16:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't even see the point of arguing anymore, so I will entertain myself with real world activities while you all debate what someone should do with their life and their time here.  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  16:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ...And have a Merry Christmas [[Image:Christmas tree2.jpg|25px]].  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  16:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am through arguing by the way, all of what can be said has been said.  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  17:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Justforasecond
This account seems to exist only for the purpose of pursuing this case and spamming talk pages. Are there any positive contributions from this user to the project? Guettarda 22:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I checked his/her contributions (see here). The vast majority for the past week or so are directly related to this RfC, so I can see how you'd get that impression. However, Justforasecond has also made edits to Woody Allen, Yoko Ono, credit score, and others. So I don't think it's an account that was specifically created to harass Deeceevoice, if that's what you mean. I think that JfaS just had a bad interaction with her and has since become a bit obsessed with this RfC. Hopefully (but perhaps unlikely) the whole thing will blow over soon. --Amcaja 22:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, over half of all the user's edits since coming to Wikipedia are related to this RfC. Still, I'm assuming Justforasecond is acting in good faith. However, spamming user pages with accusations of policy violation because these users disagreed with Justforasecond is not the best way to convince others of this RfC's merits. --Alabamaboy 01:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's also important to remember that Justforasecond is still fairly new and should be given some grace as he is still learning community norms. Please also keep in mind that this has been a very emotional and stressful debate, and that there are probably users on both sides who are not thinking logically (don't expect me to point fingers). -JCarriker 02:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't bite the newcomers is the policy in question, another serious problem regarding DeeCee and those who enable her. Sam Spade 02:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Justforasecond strikes me also as quite a nice gal/guy who's just gotten overly wrapped up in this (for example, after a mildly heated exchange between us and some illconsidered words on my part, he still took the time to wish me luck on my finals. =)).  I agree with JCarriker; there's some very experienced editors on both sides here who are still getting upset, so it's pretty understandable that a new guy/gal would get even more determined about it...  --Dvyost 03:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well thanks for the nice words (and no thanks for the unkind words), but, I don't see how its relevant. Deeceevoice has committed numerous NPA and civility violations -- "F*** off", etc.  I have adhered to wikipedia policy, and in any case, I am not the topic of this RfC.      -Justforasecond 06:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)