Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wareware

This isn't structured like an RfC. That's going to make it a bit hard to separate out who is actually involved in a dispute and who is an outside observer. In particular, there is nowhere here for people to sign on and indicate that they have tried to work this through.

On a quick read, assuming this is accurate, Wareware's behavior is, to say the least, in appropriate: this looks to me like someone who is a detriment to Wikipedia. Deeceevoice, I know this is stupid in this case, but is there a second person who can sign on as having intervened to try to get Wareware to stop this behavior? If not, I will approach him, and doubtless incur his wrath, oh well, so that I may legitimately sign on as that second person.

Meanwhile, it would help a lot if you would reformat this like a normal RfC, so that the process can proceed sanely, with clarity as to what is evidence, what is outside comment, what is defense, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:45, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the time you've taken to address this matter. I've taken a look at the RfC form and find it a bit daunting.  I'm under a couple of fairly tight deadlines and am dealing with some hardware problems which also require my attention.  But I'll get to it as soon as I can.  I think, however, that I've provided much of the information required.  And, no.  No one has intervened in the past with regard to Wareware's despicable conduct.  I have been the only one to remonstrate with him -- and he has responded with a snide "apology" laced with more blatantly racist allusions.  What have other Wikipedians done?  They've criticized me.  And that has been the problem.  The silence of others has given Wareware license to spew racist venom at will, with impunity.  Not one individual on Wikipedia -- until now -- has said a single, solitary mumblin' word.  deeceevoice 10:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * DC that is not a fair comment. You've accused Ww as being a racist in the Af. article repeatedly, but you provided no evidence for it until now. Frankly, speaking for myself, I'm too busy (in my life and here) to somewhat arbitrarily, and rather exhaustingly dig through diffs. Had you brought the evidence that you now bring forth, you would have seen swift action, not least of which from yours truly. Now you have done so, but at the time, had you pressed on it to me, I would have told you what I said to Ww yesterday: I want individual diffs. El_C 23:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: 2nding
It occured to me that even though I did not know of Ww's abuse (or the RFC would have been filed right there and then), I was involved extensively (even if this was limited to one article: see Afrocentrism talk pages and archives) in the dispute between the two. And while I did not understand the extent or nature of the antipathy, I did attempt to help resolve the dispute. That I can only qualify the nature and scope of it now is, indeed, somewhat problematic, still, I believe it meets the burden of proof for certification. Additionally, Ww himself attempted to get me involved again in the dispute between himself and DC sometime later, for a completely different article in a comment which read: -- (No response from Wareware was provided: ) -- In light of the above, even though I wasn't requested by DC herself to help, nor have I seen the racist insults at any point until this RFC, I did, nonetheless, witness enough of the conflict directly and had lengthy conversations with both (even if DC fails to recollect these, a considerable portion of the Af./Archive1 comprises these). That I wasn't clued to what was really going on is my only concern in this sense. Nevertheless, after careful thought and review of the material (which, I should stress, I only got to do today, now that the evidence has been compiled), I am moving to certify this RFC. El_C 12:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moved from RfC page
I've refactored the page in line with the RfC template, which says that all comments not being offered in evidence should be left on this page. I copied DC's summary onto the RfC page, and also Wareware's response, but otherwise I'm posting the rest below. I'll leave it to others to decide whether they want to offer their comments in evidence. I also wrote up what I saw as the relevant diffs and have posted these as evidence, as Deeceevoice said she had some computer issues, but she should decide which of the diffs should stay or go. SlimVirgin 01:00, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Posted by User:Deeceevoice:
 * From talk: black supremacy

1. Gawd, at least I wasn't the one having all those arguments with other contributors and the one being requested to act with civility from sysops. Teach me civil discourse will you, eh? Try looking into a mirror and see if you can see a savage yourself. Are you gonna respond or just blanket revert and adding all those pointless rant in the article? Wareware 05:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not presume to teach you anything; frankly, I've begun to doubt that you are even marginally trainable. "Savage"? I have responded, civilly and with specific information -- which is far more than you have done. deeceevoice 01:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did you read anything I wrote? You haven't given any specific arguments except more semantics and "verbal diarrhea*," as one user puts it. You're the one having all those heated arguments with other users, from afrocentrism, cool, to other assorted articles that had you have edited on, not me. You say you acted with civility, you gotta be kidding me. Is your reading comprehension way below average or do you need somebody to take the jungle out of you? Wareware 04:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * [Note: The user who introduced this phrase later admitted he was only "ranting" and essentially apologized.]

2. ...Give me a break, you pathetic louse. Black supremacy, just like any kind of supremacy, should enrage people and not to be diminished by reverse racism and whitewashing. You gotta be a fucking racist if you think otherwise. Wareware 19:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

3. ...'''Now I feel like that Daily Bruin editor who was censured for calling that some obstinate and stupid opinion just sticks on like the stink on a monkey. Here, have a banana, it'll make you feel better :)''' Wareware 19:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

4. '''You're dumber than an ape really. Do you understand anything I wrote?....'''Wareware 20:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

5. '''Sorry about mocking you with racial slurs, deecee. I think next time I'll have to come up with more creative and more PC ways to address your intelligence and conduct. I suppose a bag of shit or a cockroach nincompoop is better than apes or savages for the more sensitive.''' You'll have to excuse me since I'm not really acquainted with yo mama jokes and the dozens to come up with original insults like you do all the time, so I just took the lazy way and called you an ape directly. Also it's too bad that I didn't know non-racist slurs can be thrown around with impunity like deecee here did (maybe except one warning of civility from a sysop), but a single mention of ape is going to get me labelled a racist. Just remember kids, it's okay to insult people if you're creative and don't jump into using racial slurs like I did, and make sure you don't ever call black people apes or else they'll go monkey on you. Wareware 12:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Various other (earlier) discussion threads

6. ::Nah, I just like correcting dumb and racist (reversed) people's edits. It doesn't take as much time and energy as you'd think. Wareware 00:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

7. '''...Really, why is your skull so thick? Why insist on inserting so many references to racism? Are you on a crusade or something? This is not black-o-pedia''' or something.... Wareware 18:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

8. ...Oh my god! Big Black Momma is coming to report me for suspension! Holy jesus I'd better run. Seriously, you're not getting the message here, but insist on inserting every racism/racialism/black supremacy/white supremacy every chance you get.... Wareware 07:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

9. ...I don't think anything can get through your thick skull that's so preoccupied with race, racism, racialism, and all sorts of related crap.  ware 03:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Wareware, keep in mind that the average Wiki user doesn't follow me from article to article to read my contributions. Each article to which I contribute should be viewed separately and the merits of my contributions judged as one would judge those of any other contributor. My interest is my interest, and my intent is my intent. I am no different from a music aficionado following his or her interest to articles related to that broad subject. Wareware, you keep harping on my "preoccupation" with matters of race. My stated intent is to bring a black perspective to Wiki articles -- which is sorely lacking on this website. And you seem to have a problem with that. Not my problem. The preoccupation, in fact, is yours; because you repeatedly follow me around Wikipedia like some lap dog to snipe at my contributions, becoming increasingly belligerent with each post. Get some common sense, some self-respect. Get a life. deeceevoice 09:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments of other editors moved from RfC page

 * Wareware seems to have a serious problem with racism and personal attacks. Has he been harassing any other users? Binadot 16:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Unlike Wareware, I don't stalk him around Wikipedia to find out.  I only know of his actions with regard to me.  Why hasn't this guy been suspended -- and for a fairly lengthy period of time?  deeceevoice 16:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone's brought him to the attention of the admins. Post a notice at WP:AN/I or on the Talk page of an admin and I suspect you'll get immediate results. --Calton | Talk 20:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's really pathetic for deeceevoice to have me RfCed. Look, the fact is I'm not a racist, but deeceevoice likes to pin that label if you don't agree with him. A few quotes here and there make me look bad for sure, but that doesn't really cut it. If you want, go take a look and actually read every sentence on talk pages starting with Afrocentrism and find out what the arguments were about, and you'll know what the hell was going on. Deeceevoice was there and got into arguments with all of us who don't believe in afrocentrism and was the only one who got warned for civility from a sysop. And no, I haven't had any arguments with any other users, because all of them are on my side, especially on edit contents. El C, JBarlow, delgre, pharlap and some others I forgot to mention can vouch for this. On AAVE talk page it was deeceevoice who refused to provide source and got into more sarcastic and biting attacks on Quill and Marmen, not me. It's always been deeceevoice who started using abusive and disparaging languages (again, you'll have to actual if you're creative and don't jump into using racial slurs like I did, and make sure you don't ever call black people apes or else they'll go monkey on you.''' Wareware 12:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Various other (earlier) discussion threads

6. ::Nah, I just like correcting dumb and racist (reversed) people's edits. It doesn't take as much time and energy as you'd think. Wareware 00:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

7. '''...Really, why is your skull so thick? Why insist on inserting so many references to racism? Are you on a crusade or something? This is not black-o-pedia''' or something.... Wareware 18:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

8. ...Oh my god! Big Black Momma is coming to report me for suspension! Holy jesus I'd better run. Seriously, you're not getting the message here, but insist on inserting every racism/racialism/black supremacy/white supremacy every chance you get.... Wareware 07:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

9. ...I don't think anything can get through your thick skull that's so preoccupied with race, racism, racialism, and all sorts of related crap.  ware 03:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Wareware, keep in mind that the average Wiki user doesn't follow me from article to article to read my contributions. Each article to which I contribute should be viewed separately and the merits of my contributions judged as one would judge those of any other contributor. My interest is my interest, and my intent is my intent. I am no different from a music aficionado following his or her interest to articles related to that broad subject. Wareware, you keep harping on my "preoccupation" with matters of race. My stated intent is to bring a black perspective to Wiki articles -- which is sorely lacking on this website. And you seem to have a problem with that. Not my problem. The preoccupation, in fact, is yours; because you repeatedly follow me around Wikipedia like some lap dog to snipe at my contributions, becoming increasingly belligerent with each post. Get some common sense, some self-respect. Get a life. deeceevoice 09:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments of other editors moved from RfC page

 * Wareware seems to have a serious problem with racism and personal attacks. Has he been harassing any other users? Binadot 16:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Unlike Wareware, I don't stalk him around Wikipedia to find out.  I only know of his actions with regard to me.  Why hasn't this guy been suspended -- and for a fairly lengthy period of time?  deeceevoice 16:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone's brought him to the attention of the admins. Post a notice at WP:AN/I or on the Talk page of an admin and I suspect you'll get immediate results. --Calton | Talk 20:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's really pathetic for deeceevoice to have me RfCed. Look, the fact is I'm not a racist, but deeceevoice likes to pin that label if you don't agree with him. A few quotes here and there make me look bad for sure, but that doesn't really cut it. If you want, go take a look and actually read every sentence on talk pages starting with Afrocentrism and find out what the arguments were about, and you'll know what the hell was going on. Deeceevoice was there and got into arguments with all of us who don't believe in afrocentrism and was the only one who got warned for civility from a sysop. And no, I haven't had any arguments with any other users, because all of them are on my side, especially on edit contents. El C, JBarlow, delgre, pharlap and some others I forgot to mention can vouch for this. On AAVE talk page it was deeceevoice who refused to provide source and got into more sarcastic and biting attacks on Quill and Marmen, not me. It's always been deeceevoice who started using abusive and disparaging languages (again, you'll have to actually read the talk page to find the whole story). The only difference between us is that he is pretty creative in making personal insults, and I took the shortcut and said the ape word (check black supremacy talk page). Now I know I probably shouldn't have used that particular word to describe an african, but why is it deeecee can go around spouting even more disgusting insults when one mention of ape gets me RfCed? And on deecee's claim that I stalk him, I could care less about him. I care about npov and factual content on wikipedia. Wikipedia can be a great source of disinformation, especially if the content is POV and factually incorrect. When I stumbled upon the fact that wikipedia's entry on Afrocentrism was on the 1st page of google search, I figure that as contributors we have a mission to present factual and npov content, otherwise people who google for it and read the wiki article are going to learn severly biased and incorrect information. The article was a piece of crap before I added the totally-disputed tag and actually changed a great deal of it, thanx to lots of other contributors. I don't stalk deeceevoice since it's not worth my time. But I strive for NPOV and correct content, which, sadly, deecee has very little mental grasp of. Bottom line is, go read the talk pages in totality and see who is the flamer in all those pages.   Wareware 20:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks against policy to begin with, and the kinds of racist attacks you have made are simply unacceptable. Someone who is not racist would simply not have made these statements, regardless of the "provocation". I strongly recommend you not make any more personal attacks of any kind in the future. Jayjg (talk)  23:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Wareware, if you aren't a racist, you are doing an excellent imitation of one on Wikipedia.  At this point, if deeceevoice presses his complaints against you, which I believe he should, I would be very surprised and disappointed if you were not blocked from Wikipedia for a substantial amount of time for egregious personal attacks.   --BM 23:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * From my own experience, deeceevoice is –notorious– for personal attacks, and in general, personal and uncolegial comments. The content of his/her edits do exhibit a –pronounced– (and by extension, very often unencyclopedic) Afrocentric bias. While I do –not– believe Wareware is a racist (at least, I did not think this prior to reading these outragious comments), I am very dissapointed that he lost his temper in the manner depicted above, which does reflect very poorly on him. El_C 23:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * My personal views are not at issue here, El_C -- and, of course, I would take issue with you on certain issues; but, as I've just stated, that's another discussion entirely. There are thousands of people on Wikipedia, I'm sure, with varied interests and varying viewpoints/perspectives.  That's what makes this website such a dynamic and interesting concept.  But Wareware's conduct should not be tolerated under any circumstances.  And, no.  This is not about Wareware "losing his temper."  Such a characterization is being far too charitable.  As you can see, the above-referenced comments reflect a calculated, ongoing pattern of intemperate, blatantly racist, vicious, mean-spirited comments that span a period of months.  You will note that in the last post in the excerpts from the "black supremacy" discussion, he feigns an apology and then follows up with another "monkey" comment.  He is completely unrepentant.  This is not someone who has lost his temper.  This is an individual with some very serious issues when it comes to black people, who obviously feels it's perfectly fine to say the things he's said -- and repeatedly.  In fact, his comments herein read like excuses.  IMO, the strictest of disciplinary action should be taken against him, swiftly.  deeceevoice 23:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It clearly is unacceptable, I thought I said that pointedly enough. But there is the other side of it, too, and I'm only speaking from my own experience with both of you togather. It just seemed out of character based on the lengthy discussions all of us have had at the time &mdash; discussions in which you, in fact, were the one directing virtually all of the inappropirate comments and not vice versa. I'm not sure who started the personal attacks first, I have not followed your discourse aside from that article and one request for help from Warware (which he has yet to get back to me on). Now, whether Warware is a racist in views and editorial contributions, my above comment (also) clearly leaves that open-ended. I am willing to examine evidence submitted with an open mind. And, certainly, the onus now is on Wareware to produce his (which I sincerely hope is not limited to refering us to talk pages). El_C 00:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi El C, produce what evidence besides the talk page? All the discussions were done on talk pages, what more evidence or where do you need me to look for?  Wareware 00:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I want individual diffs. El_C 00:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * And a better explantion for these totally inappropriate comments, for that matter. El_C 00:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * . No need to use diffs here because the whole section is about it.  Wareware 00:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * That's very far from enough. Discrediting yourself with the aforementioned comments was your prerogative; now the onus is on you to structure a convincing, pointed and well- organized narrative. Perhaps you're not fully grasping the position you've placed yourself in. El_C 00:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't use the diff function since the discussion's been archived, but from the above link, we see that deeceevoice first made some afrocentrist comments about Egypt, and then provided lots of links supporting this notion. Then I made a comment and listed some websites debunking the notion. Then there were several exchanges bewteen me and him and then deecee was the first one to write "Wareware, your ignorance is showing." After that, I wrote a paragraph on the nature of afrocentrism and then concluded with "anyway, I guess your favorite site is this Buddha, the earliest Chinese, Egyptians, Indians, and Beethoven were all "negroid". Must make your balls feel big :)" Here, the expression "balls" means one's confidence/pride and self-worth (has anyone seen Scarface), and is germane to the discussion and should be very clear because of Afrocentrism's "therapeutic" qualities . But deeceevoice takes it the wrong way and thought about genitals instead and wrote "Man, you better stop talkin' from up under my clothes! LOL! You're an ASIAN, and you wanna talk about the size of someone's balls? ROFLMBAO. (slappin' sides) However big they may be, it's a safe bet they're bigger than yours!" In essence deeceevoice made the racist remark that asians have small penises and was having fun with it. This statement is very offensive and racist so so I made the retort that black people compensate their lack of intelligence by showing off the length of genitals. Like I asked on the black supremacy page, who made the first racist remark? Is anyone more racist than the other? Is deeceevoice a credible figure to have me requested for comment for racist remarks? I don't think so.    Wareware 00:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Much better, though rather rambling and not very thorough. Frankly, I'm highly dissapointed with both of you. El_C 01:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * So, Wareware, I trust you understand that rather rambling and not very thorough means lacking. Now, are you going to explain why you repeatedly used racist insults against DC which featured Africans when you knew she is an African? Do you have any other evidence to suggest that DC engaged in racist insults towards you as an Asian aside from that one incident you cite above? I urge you to weigh your words carefuly. El_C 15:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that Deeceevoice's personal views are not the issue, and nor is the state of the article (which I haven't looked at), and Wareware's mention of it is a red herring. The only thing that matters are the racist attacks, and Deecee has only posted a couple; I've just taken a look and there are plenty more where these came from. Looking through some of the exchanges, she's been quite patient and generous. Deecee, you should have called for help sooner. The problem is that admins are not allowed to block people for personal attacks, though I'm surprised this doesn't fall under the more general header of disruption. No editor should have to tolerate this. SlimVirgin 23:53, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Admins should have the powers to take direct action against racist attacks (!) El_C 00:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I've thought about proposing it, but I can foresee others arguing that it would be difficult to determine what counts as a racist attack. I think admins should be allowed to use their own judgment, and should not block if there is any ambiguity, but should be allowed to block if it's clear cut, as it is in this case. SlimVirgin 00:20, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly, discretion should be the modus operandi (with appropriate safeguards in place, of course). El_C 00:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no "other side," El_C. There is no justification.  Wareware's remarks are indefensible, period, and all he can offer are weak excuses.  I have not charged "racism" in his editorial contributions, though I have my own opinions on that -- and have had from the start.  But people are entitled to their views.  Wareware's blatant racist remarks are simply the latest manifestation of Wareware's sickness, which has been evident to me for some time.  And, no.  That's not meant to be pejorative; I really do see racism as deeply pathological.  But, Wareware's views on article subject matter are not the issue here.  Once again, at issue are his blatantly racist remarks which he's made repeatedly, shamelessly and without -- unfortunately -- any comment from anyone on Wikipedia but me, until now.  And "whether" Wareware is a racist?  You're kidding -- right?  That's a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.  Hey, if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.  By the way, I want to thank everyone (but Wareware, of course) for taking the time to respond to this RfC.  Peace.  deeceevoice 00:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but both sides need to have an equale opportunity to be heard and to defend themsleves or we risk supplanting one pathology with another. El_C 01:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * And, pray tell, just what precisely is the "other" pathology? deeceevoice 01:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Tyranny. El_C 01:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I'll buy that.  :-) deeceevoice 01:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Wareware can play gee-whiz innocent if he wants. But in light of Wareware's previous comments in numerous other exchanges with him (I had him pegged for the racist he's shown himself to be a long time ago), I took his comment about the presumed size of my presumed balls (note here that I am a woman) to be a racist remark directed at me as a (presumed) blackman -- which I made light of, calling him "my misguided Asian brother." Wareware is the one who initiated comments in that crude vein, and I simply responded with an insinuation. I long ago learned not to take such insults personally, but I recognize an affront to the race when I see one. Wareware then responded with the classic "ape" reference -- not very creative, but clearly racist. And I responded cooly and yet again with levity, leaving him to fill in the blanks -- or not. In Wareware's successive, blatantly racist attacks I have refused to respond in kind. So, let's be clear about one thing: not once have I ever used a racist slur of any kind to refer to Wareware or anyone on Wiki. deeceevoice 01:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You can see the position I'm in, though. If Wareware directs racist insults about Africans towards you, while you direct racist insults about Asians towards him, I want both of you to suffer the consequences, not whomever files the first RFC. El_C 01:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding. You're equating a one-time joking insinuation making light of/deflecting a racist remark with Wareware's ongoing, blatantly racist, vicious, profane vitriol in forum after forum directed at me?  Sorry, but you're sounding more and more like an apologist.  The two are in no way even remotely the same.  deeceevoice 01:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I am far from kidding, nor am I equating anything. I said if; theoretically (taking into account Wareware's "claims"), as per the both sides having an equale opprtunity to be heard premise. El_C 02:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * On this point, I tend to agree with deeceevoice. Although her comment about Asian genetalia was certainly in bad taste and not in any way productive, it was, as far as I can see, an isolated instance of bad judgment, and not part of a sustained, premeditated campaign. I certainly agree that we should look at the comments in their original context, not because there is any doubt as to their inherent racism, but because doing so would serve to remove any doubt as to who is really out of line, i.e. Wareware. This is about Wareware's inexcusable racist remarks, which could have been directed toward any Wikipedian. Deeceevoice's alleged Afrocentric bias is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and ought to be addressed elsewhere. Binadot 02:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I had never heard of Wareware or Deeceevoice before I came across this RfC page. I have never read any talk pages concerning their behavior (prior to researching this matter), nor has my attitude been colored by any previous experiences with either user. For all I know, Deeceevoice is astonishingly biased. I have no idea, nor do I care, nor should you care. Let me stress that Deeceevoice's own bias would not in any way excuse Wareware's comments, nor would it mitigate their effect in the slightest. If Wareware is comfortable casting racial slurs at Deeceevoice, who's to say he wouldn't feel the same way about any other Wikipedian? I submit to you that Wareware is a security risk and an impediment to our project. Who knows how many potential contributors were driven away by his thoughtless remarks? Binadot 02:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Assuming the quotations above are accurate, no context could make them excusable. This seems to me like a case where mediation would be pointless: I'd recommend that the ArbCom skip that step and take this on directly. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I just read a little more of some of Wareware's excuses for his conduct (I've only skimmed them; I have no patience for reading them in their entirety). He mentions those people who have commented on my conduct.  And that's precisely the point.  Yes, I have been argumentative -- and so have others.  As much as we would like it to be, passionate discourse is not always civil -- and, presumably, Wikipedia exists because people have a passion for information, for knowledge exchange.  I am accustomed to controversy and spirited debate, so I do not shy away from controversy.  The article on blackface, for example, is one result.  When I decided to revamp the article on black supremacy, I knew there would be a firestorm, but I thought it important to bring what I knew of the subject to the table.  It is something of which few people outside the collective "black community" are aware -- let alone understand.  I am aware that addressing issues of race and racism makes a lot of people mightily uncomfortable.  As a result, they often become resentful and outright hostile, adopting a "shoot the messenger" posture -- but I'm fairly thick-skinned; that's neither my problem nor concern.  I do what I do.  Nor have my interests and my approach endeared me to some Wikipedians.  The fact that others who have seen fit to criticize my conduct in certain instances have not done so with others who have in many cases been openly antagonistic, IMO, is due in predominant part to the antipathy, antagonism, hostility and, quite possibly/likely(?), racism of other members who are offended by my take on certain matters and by my outspokenness.  I find it interesting that Wareware should cite Pharlap as an example in this regard.  In the discussion thread of black supremacy I take Pharlap to task for criticizing me -- and only me -- for examining, asking questions, bringing information to the table (not always correct, but well-intended; I make no pretensions regarding infallibility), while he completely ignored the outrageous comments of Wareware cited above.  Not surprisingly, Pharlap had nothing more to say on the matter.  This is typical of the situation here at Wikipedia and why I have such little respect for Wiki cops -- another reason, SlimVirgin, why I waited so long to bring this to the attention of others (beyond attempting to call attention to it in the discussion threads themselves).  There is obviously an inherent bias in the process, because the participants themselves are biased.  But I finally got fed up with the situation -- enough to begin this process.  Wikipedia is about as whitebread a website as one will find in cyberspace.  At least that's my impression of it.  If anyone ever expects that to change, then Wikipedia has got to change. There should be no more silence of the type that has allowed an unapologetic, rabid racist like Wareware to feel he has free rein to sling racist vitrol of the basest kind at whomever he pleases with, if not the silent imprimatur of Wikipedia, certainly with impunity.  deeceevoice 10:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Not to excuse Wareware's comments, but, as it seems, currently I am the only editor commenting here who had engaged in lengthy discourse with you in the past (which, as you recall, I suspended; though, and partially to your credit, ended up lifting). I think it would be a mistake for you to come out of this RFC without some honest introspection for your own misconduct, which you grossly understate as merely being 'argumentative.' *Again, I'm not equating anything.* In our discussions, I found the manner of your conduct to be, truthfuly, intimidating, often dismissive and even outright insulting. And this to someone (myself) who, I thought at least, treated you with the utmost respect, and continued to do so even after suffering from your abuse. Now, I have respect for you as a well-educated women, and I did, in fact, gain insights from you (regardless of the low opinion I have for the Afrocentric scholarship -in terms of methodology- and ethos -in terms of parochialism, ideologically- ; as I do for all the x-centrics – though I do view 'White centrism' more severely for reasons I'd be happy to elaborate on, but go beyond the scope of this comment). Regardless of Wareware, you simply cannot continue to interact with other editors as you've been accustomed to thus far. I want to make it clear: I'm not out here to get you, nor do I dislike you, for that matter. And I sincerely hope you'll read all this in the constructive intent under which it was written. El_C 11:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't want to shock you, El_C, but I frankly couldn't care less what you think of Afrocentrism. :-p And, regardless of whatever position you may hold on Wikipedia, your take on my opinions are just as irrelevant to this process as Wareware's. So, please, spare me. Nor do I recall any exchanges with you that resulted in my suspension, though I have, indeed, been suspended. (I don't exactly go around taking names and keeping score.) One administrator is pretty much the same as another to me. I deal with individual users as individual users. Further, I intend to deal with issues such as this on a case-by-case basis. I think it would be most productive if you did the same. Yeah. My initial response to Wareware's crudely racist remark about genitalia was on the edge; but IMO it was calculated and reasonable. While perhaps not Wiki etiquette, given the circumstance, it was hardly egregious.  Wareware assumed I was a blackman, and I regard signifyin' as a rich African-American cultural tradition. I decided not to pass up the opportunity; I played the part. :-p Was it parlor etiquette? Uh ... no. But neither is, as we say, "talkin' under somebody's clothes" about "balls" an' such. Further, if you wanna know, I think my conduct over the last several weeks vis-a-vis Wareware's increasingly rabid racism has been dignified, measured, intelligent and patient. And, no. I wasn't "playing nice" in anticipation of commencing this process -- which I didn't even know existed until I happened across it yesterday. When my RfC on an article didn't turn up anything particularly productive, I returned to the page. Skimming down it, I came upon the more appropriate RfC process for users. In fact, if you really wanna know, instead of your irrelevant observations on Afrocentrism and your criticism, I think I deserve a medal. All those things aside, however, I will assume your intentions are good -- and I appreciate your contributions to this process. deeceevoice 12:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * DC, I was commenting on your conduct towards myself. The rest was pretty much an aside, I thought I made that clear (perhaps I failed in that). You may not recall it, but I do. And, with all due respect, I will spare or add to my comments whatever 'I' deem relavent. Of course my intentions are good, you are 100% correct with that assumption, but I'm not going to insult your inteligence & critical faculties by sugarcoating my point &mdash; which, again, should be taken as a well-intentioned advice. I sincerely hope you believe me that this was the impetus for my above comment. El_C 13:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The pertinent point here is that your opinions, as well as Wareware's, regarding my viewpoints on any number of subjects are completely irrelevant and have no place in this discussion. Wareware clearly seems to think his substantive and numerous disagreements with me regarding article content are somehow justifying or mitigating factors to be considered in his despicable conduct, citing this and that article and my "afrocentrist" views.  This is a pathetic excuse for his repeated and flagrantly racist conduct.  That you have chosen to take this the opportunity to then voice your disagreement with "Afrocentrist scholarship," blah, blah, blah, seems to me to suggest that you somehow think the subject is relevant and possibly somehow mitigating, as well.  Further, your characterization of Wareware's conduct as a result of him simply "losing his temper" does, indeed, seem apologist in nature.  El_C, this discussion is not at all well served by your irrelevant "asides" regarding your opinions on the nature of afrocentric or eurocentric scholarship -- or global warming, or anything other extraneous topic, for that matter.  So, let's stick to the subject at hand -- shall we?  Further, with regard to not "insulting [my] intelligence by "sugarcoating" your appraisal of my comportment, I feel compelled to suggest that, when you decide to return to the discussion at hand, you might consider taking the same tack when commenting upon the conduct of Wareware, as well.  deeceevoice 14:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh I have, and I will. Give me time. But in a different way: he never made inappropriate personal comments towards me. I'm sorry you find my asides not only impertinent but impurdent. I meant it entirely collegially, and also as a way to ease the tension, as I was challenging you with inappropriate conduct towards myself (which is rather in-tense, in and of itself, I find). But, again, I will be the one to choose these, and risk erring thereof. To answer your question, no, I did not use Af as a mitigating factor as per Wareware's behaviour &mdash; absolutely not, I used it to illustrate my own views in relation to the previous sentence where I said I gain insights from you despite how I feel about Af. Sheesh. Are you intentionally attempting to distort my words? I wish you'd place more faith, goodfaith, and I wish you were'nt so agressive, you're demonstrating to me what I said earlier: that interacting with you is rather intense sometimes, unpleasently so. Yes, I have and will continue to take Wareware to task for what he said &mdash; you seem to question my moderation so as to draw conclusions for my position and predisposition therein, but it's a complex case and I'm far from oriented with all the facts. I will, though, inexorably get to the bottom of this. Can you place some faith in me? Will you cease from being so defensive and combative towards my comments, and will you try to be more receptive to my criticism (not seeing mitigating agendas in each of these regardless of merit – if I wish to use mitigating factors I mention them -as- such) ? If you, or any one editor here (one), thinks I'm incapable of being fair in this case, I will withdraw immediately and without protest. I gotta get going now. El_C 15:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Wetware and deeceevoice seem to have had a long-standing antagonistic relationship on a number of articles. I hadn't previously seen the particular series of comments deeceevoice posts here, which are just utterly horrendous. However, I suspect they represent not so much racism on Wetware's part, but rather extreme frustration and anger at deeceevoice, and the deliberate use of language Wetware knew deeceevoice would find deeply offensive. Still, we are supposed to maintain civility, and Wetware completely and absolutely failed to do so in these comments. So some punitive action for WW seems in order. (FWIW it's worth, WW seems to have been able to post less-inflammatory comments to DCV after that, e..g. this one.) However, what's probably appropriate (e.g. a one month block) is of a magnitude larger than what admins can hand out (in fact, admins are currently getting major grief for all but the most minimal and non-controversial blocks), so this will have to go to the ArbComm, alas. And if DCV has made other comments similar to the one WW points out, there could be an issue there too. (I'll give people one lapse of judgement under provocation.) Noel (talk) 15:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. "I suspect they represent not so much racism on Wetware's part, but rather extreme frustration and anger at deeceevoice."  And how's that?  Especially when I recognized the racism in Wareware before his first "ape" remark?  I suppose it's always good to give people the benefit of the doubt once, maybe even twice; but as I said before, "if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."  In cyberspace, we don't sit down for lunch.  We can't look in one another's eyes.  We can't judge body language.  The way we know one another is by our words.  And Wareware's words betray him as a racist.  Again, this is not about anger, emotion, or the heat of the moment.  This is a series of nasty incidents over time, the result of Wareware stalking me to a series of articles about blacks/African-Americans, interjecting antagonism; engaging in mindless, automatic reverts (even of copy I've self-corrected, including typos) and spewing abusive, racist venom in discussion threads.  Repeatedly.  This is a man who has sat down at his computer day after day, month after month and calculatedly and freely indulged in racist rantings -- without any comment from anyone other than myself.  I've asked him to stop time and time again, and he's responded with more insults.  (Let me draw your attention again, Jnc, to his "crocodile tears" apology in which he "apologizes" and then finishes with a couple of snide simian references.)  "Frustrated"?  How about being subjected to such vitrol and then getting criticism or complete silence from other Wikipedians?  How's that for frustrating?  How about Wareware's repeated submission of RfC's on articles in which he and I have been involved, which have drawn all kinds of attention -- and then my submission of one which draws one response?  How's that for frustrating?  And now imagine how appallingly the discussion threads would read if I had responded in kind.  But that's not something I do.  It's not even something I think. Frustration is one thing; acting on it is quite another.  And then Wareware's conduct is quite another thing again.  I would certainly hope that, while, unfortunately, racists of Wareware's ilk are certainly not unique in the real world, that his conduct is sui generis on Wikipedia.  And the only way we as a community can begin to act to ensure that such remains the case is to make an example of this kind of behavior.  It should not be tolerated one moment longer, under any circumstance, for any reason, by anyone.  When it comes to a matter such as this, there are no complicating factors.  Either such conduct, such verbal excrement is tolerated or it is not.  So, which is it? deeceevoice 20:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Your comment covers a lot of ground, and in your last words ("It should not be tolerated one moment longer ... tolerated or it is not.") you seem to be on what I was thinking when I read the opening, so we may not be that far apart, but let me react to the opening part.
 * I would prefer to keep the focus on what WW wrote (rather than on what character flaws they do or do not have). For one, the latter requires a "telescope into someone's soul", which I don't possess. For another, the latter is likely to be both i) a subject on which there is not widespread agreement, and therefore ii) distracting from something on which there is widespread agreement.
 * If you simply stick to what WW (utterly inexcusably) wrote (which I absolutely agree "should not be tolerated one moment") you can avoid all those distractions, stay on extremely solid ground (no member of the project should say anything deeply offensive to, and abusive of, another member), etc. I doubt you will find anyone who will defend what WW wrote, so just stick with that - the simplest, strongest, and most non-contentious point.
 * Does this make sense? Noel (talk) 18:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * El_C, "aggressive"? If standing toe to toe with someone and defending myself against a racist creep is "aggressive," if then I guess I am.  Interesting you should use that term.  Verbal aggression is part of the culture -- African-American culture, that is.  But I can see, particuarly from your latest post, that you are in earnest.  I'mma ease up on you.  And, no.  I wouldn't dream of asking you to recuse yourself from this matter.  Incidentally, you will notice that Wareware has yet to respond to your request for examples of racist name-calling from me.  He knows he can't deliver any; there is none.  You will also notice he hasn't even proffered an apology -- only weak excuses for his tawdry, tacky, appalling behavior.  Peace 2 u.  deeceevoice 20:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hum, well, I may yet recuse myself anyway as my own dispute unrelated to this (with User:Sam Spade) is suddenly proving more demanding than I expected. At any rate, while we wait for Wareware, I would like to note as an example, your response to Ed Poor for offering his services as a mediator in the Af article. Now, my problem was not with the reasons behind your rejection (that you find Ed biased -- I'm parahrasing from memory), but phrasing it in a way which was dismissive, even derisive of his genuine offer (and, in fact, Ed Poor is widely respected in that capacity by people who hold very different views). So, I don't feel my experience in that sense was isolated (though, it was limited to that one article). Thus, If I could reiterate: I just wish you'd take note of it, and not jumpt to see it as an apologism for Wareware's comments above (I wish to afford him time and every opprtunity &mdash;within reason&mdash; to comment), but draw some constructive insights from it; and furthermore, not use your particular culture as a shield, that is, in fact, one of the issues that come to my mind (unrelated to Ww). Naturally, I will come across as rather underhanded if I were to refrain from commenting on these incidents here: I am already on the record in the Af. article for waging these criticisms towards you. Really, DC, you've waited all this time before taking action, striving for a swift resolution should not be made at the expense of the investigation being thorough and well-rounded. My modus operandi here entails an improvement on all possible fronts. Thanks for listening. El_C 23:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have to strongly disagree with El_C. In all of my dealings with deeceevoice, she has always been collegial and accomodating.  I even praised her previously for her ability to keep her head when others were being obnoxious.  RickK 21:21, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I direct the reader to see my comment directly above. For the record, my dealings with DC were entirely limited to the Af. article, an article in which Ww was present (though I arrived to that article and dispute independently, having seen neither DC nor Ww in the past). El_C 23:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * There ya go again, El_C -- dragging something else into this matter. FYI, the exchange in the afrocentrism discussion dealt with someone who offered his services as a mediator -- but not before referencing only my comments (typical) and not those of others in the discussion.  I have no way of gauging how "respected" Ed Poor is on Wikipedia, but in this particular instance, he was demonstrating the same bias to which I made reference earlier.  One cannot demonstrate bias while holding oneself out to be partial.  Was I was impatient and dismissive, suggesting he should offer his services elsewhere?  Hell, yes!  I was/am completely fed up with this kind of thing on Wikipedia.  But did I start foaming at the mouth, using racial slurs and such?  Nope.  The matter under discussion here is Wareware's racism, his repeated, virulently racist verbal assaults.  It seems, in the absence of any evidence by Wareware of racial/ethnic intolerance on my part, you continue to grasp at straws.  deeceevoice 00:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, DC, that is the problem, that you were impatient and dismissive – even if there was good grounds for it, I urge you to be more imperturable in that sense nonetheless. I reiterate again, I'm not out to get you, nor am I attempting to grasp at straws. This just seemed as opprtune time as any to mention my concerns about your conduct (again, without equatations), which I do truly hope you are taking constructively and within the specific context cited. I will personally hold Ww to account in the most fair and impartial way I can; and most certainly not be based on the length of text I expended and the number of criticism I waged thus far. It just that his misconduct seems so severe, so I want to make sure I'm fully oriented with the facts. The criticism I directed towards you has been rather minor (qualitatively) in comparison. But while (still) waiting for Ww, I wanted to guage your impression for these issues, and offer constructive advice. El_C 00:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Pharlap's charges against User:Deeceevoice
deeceevoice

[NOTE: I awaken this a.m. to find Pharlap has inserted inaccurate comments in my post, which is unacceptable. As a result, I have once again deleted the second incarnation of this section and reinserted my own words. If anyone wishes to comment on anything I have written, please do so at the close of my comments, maintaining this text intact.] deeceevoice 16:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is deeceevoice. An editing conflict coincident w/Pharlap's post (which appears after this section) prevented me from posting the following before this page was formalized divided into sections. Rather than try to cut and paste the various changes and additions, I simply copied my comments to insert into the page. But now I'm not certain they fit here. Perhaps they do, since they refer to the laundry list of posts which follows, compiled by user Pharlap. Anyway, here goes:

And, quite coincidentally, what you'll find below is a raft of posts by Pharlap, including a portion of a run-in I recently had with another Wikipedian after he took a sentence clearly out of context and applied it to something else, (perhaps unintentionally) twisted a comment to say something I did not, and then charged me with bigotry, something to which I took strong exception. I responded by making light of his smugness about his purported "brilliance." Pharlap's listing below is the result of me taking him to task for his deliberate overlooking of Wareware's racism, choosing to criticize me, instead. And rather than offering me an explanation of his myopia, I see Pharlap's taken a different tack. He's responded by amassing this highly redacted list of entries purportedly exposing me as an incivil, combative black b****. (Yeah. "Omarosa" is my middle name. :-p) These are posts taken completely out of context -- without any mention of any of often antagonistic, insulting, sometimes racially motivated comments preceding my responses. In some of the other disputes with more reasonable users, these exchanges actually have ended amicably on the pages of Wikipedia or in personal e-mails. As a case in point, I offer the following, fairly lengthy exchange (sorry!) from black supremacy talk. I had had a lengthy, ongoing dispute about some of the foundational science underlying certain black supremacist notions with another user, Deglr. You will note that Wareware chimes in after Deglr makes a snide comment -- and I ignore both comments until later. (This is typical of the kinds of things that happen on Wikipedia, and typical of the kind of things omitted in Pharlap's following laundry list of posts.) Also note that this exchange occurred after Wareware's blatantly racist remarks containing comments like "eat a banana," references to "ape" "jungle," "savage," etc. referenced at the beginning of this page:

[Referring to a website Deglr regards as crackpot] Well, darlin', you dug it up; you can read it! My first reaction to that information, though, is that it doesn't seem outrageous at all. Melanin clearly does mediate energy conduction and transduction, and sound is a form of energy. But since science isn't my chosen field, I'd have to decode "electron-phonon coupling" before I could say anything more. I perceive a fundamental difference between you and me. I keep an open mind and investigate to inquire, rather than to automatically debunk. Inquiry is the essence of science, the essence of learning. I have other things to do, so I didn't read the Proctor site thoroughly. But the sections that caught my eye make perfect sense, particularly in light of the other findings that support the information he presents to which I've already alluded. Additionally, I have to say that I briefly googled "melanin conduction deafness," and the three words do seem to appear frequently in the same articles. I haven't time to search through the sites; but, hey, sounds intriguing/interesting to me. deeceevoice 08:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks but I'll pass on taking advice on methods of scientific inquiry from civil rights era grandmas, no offence. ":p" The idea that electron-phonon coupling would occur at biological temperatures and that it could possibly have anything to do with deafness and melanin is idiotic. Phonon.--Deglr6328 08:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)....

[Note: Subsequent reading proves there is, indeed, a widely acknowledged connection between melanin deficiency and deafness in mammals, including humans, which was even noted in the scientific literature of Charles Darwin. (The connection is that old.)]

I determined last night that much of what I've presented here should go in melanin, which is why this a.m. I put a note on that article's discussion page directing them to this discussion thread -- in the hopes that persons who've contributed to that article, who are more familiar with the field of plastic (organic) electronics, will take it further. (When I first came to the article on melanin, it said nothing about high-tech applications or biotech research.) I've been meaning to get back to this article, but I don't have the time right now (or the patience). When I do, I'll reinsert/insert some appropriate, pared-down language briefly referring to the physical properties of melanin that I believe are relevant to Melanin Theory and refer readers to melanin. In presenting much of what appears here in the talk section re ongoing melanin research, I was simply providing information in response to the debate about research applications, melanin's physical properties and its connection with deafness and Parkinson's -- unless someone has done/does it first, to my satisfaction. Much of it is not something I have any intention of inserting into the article. deeceevoice 18:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok by me!--Deglr6328 21:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, Deglr, re "civil rights era grandmas": in the future, when we have discussions/debates in the future, let's stick to the subject at hand and leave the personal remarks out of it. deeceevoice 06:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RE-> your (unfounded) not-so-subtle insinuation of racism in a reply to me: "It's kind of humorous -- and very telling -- that nonblacks are so accustomed to the notion of black inferiority, that the converse, which parallels such a pervasive....", and you've got yourself a deal. :)--Deglr6328 09:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This reads like an excuse for your childishness. The corollary of white supremacy -- which is widespread -- is the notion of black inferiority, and it is pervasive -- insidiously so -- (as Wareware has demonstrated repeatedly and quite admirably). That whites and other nonblacks would be accustomed to such a notion is not surprising -- nor is it racist to state such. By the way, subtlety (if you hadn't noticed) is generally not something for which I generally strive. :-p Besides, when stating the obvious, IMO, it would be silly/a wasted exercise. deeceevoice 10:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My point is I never said those things!! someone else did and it pissed me off when you accused me of it and then insinuated that I was racist because of it.--Deglr6328 21:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Never said what things"? Never mind. It's not important, because I never insinuated you were "racist." Insinuation isn't exactly my style, either. :-p If it's something you inferred from what I wrote, then there was a misunderstanding. For all I know, you could be, but as a matter of fact, the only person I know for a fact is racist in this discussion is Wareware -- because of his repeated use of racial slurs. deeceevoice 21:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please, let's concentrate on the article. I don't think it's possible to reason with someone who defines wikipedia as "enemy territory" and its members as "arrogant", "ill-informed" "wikiwhites", who "all too common" show "deep-seated, anti-black antipathy/animus" and "blatant hostility/racism". We should spend our energies on more constructive discussions. Pharlap 04:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Aw, get over it, Pharlap! What? And I suppose you haven't noticed all the racist crap around here? I suppose we should all ignore it and pretend everything's just hunky-dory, eh? I see openly addressing the race bias on Wiki as being constructive. Besides, what I have to say about Wiki on my personal page has nothing to do with this discussion -- speaking of "spend[ing] our energies on more constructive discussions." And speaking of this discussion, would you care to explain to me why someone like Wareware continues to spew racial slurs with complete impunity? Why people like you see fit to criticize me for calling attention to a very real problem, yet you have absolutely nothing to say in the way of reproval or criticism about or to a Wiki member who uses words like "ape," "savage" and "jungle" when referring to a black person? And you think when you criticize me you have some kind of credibility? Hypocrites like you are really laughable. Credibility? You got none. Criticism from someone like you reads like glowing praise. Thanks for the compliment. *x* deeceevoice 10:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(end of intact discussion thread excerpt)

So, while readers are wading through this seemingly endless raft of extremely one-sided information, keep in mind three very simple, but very critical, questions: In any of the material that appears below, is there a single, solitary example of an instance where I have levelled racist slurs of the kind referenced at the beginning of this piece toward Wareware, despite numerous provocations (which is the central issue at hand)? (The answer is no.) Is there a single, solitary example of an instance where I have done so toward any other member of Wikipedia? (The answer, again, is no.) Have I ever, ever crossed that line? No. And you can bet if there existed a scintilla of evidence of such conduct on my part, Wareware and my good friend Pharlap would have posted it here. To present this listing of bits and pieces of exchanges completely out of context is simply petty spitefulness on Pharlap's part and patently intellectually dishonest. Nice goin', Pharlap. deeceevoice 00:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * All talk pages with your contributions are still available. I would not only recommend, but urge that people read all of them in context before they come to a decision. Pharlap 16:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pharlap

IMO, rather a case of self-fulfilling prophecy, the results of permanent provocation and continuous personal attacks than a case of racism.

Deeceevoice is known for pushing her particular viewpoint at the expense of accuracy, and, as soon as her contributions are challenged, she often

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)

and rather 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)

or claims that other contributers are simply 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)

or simply claims that other contributors are "clueless"

 * Get over yourselves and get a clue! deeceevoice 17:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, get a grip. deeceevoice 19:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Get a grip. deeceevoice 19:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Give it a rest. You're boring me. deeceevoice 21:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Get a grip and stick to the subject at hand. deeceevoice 12:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Time for a reality check, bwoi. Get a grip. deeceevoice 22:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Bwoi, what you been smokin'? :-p) deeceevoice 07:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * dang, bwoi. You a fool. :-p deeceevoice  16:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

She also justifies personal atttacks as perfectly legitimate - as long as she is the one who attacks other people.

Personal attacks

 * 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)

Conclusion
All in all, she is not very pleasant to deal with. Unfortunately, it seems that the two of us share the same interests, and unfortunately, those articles are most often spoilt by edit wars as soon as Deeceevoice participates, and since I like to keep my life drama-free (and since I don't want to be accused of "stalking" simply because I contribute to the same articles like she does), I refrain most of the time from contributing.

While I'm well aware that Warewares over-reaction should not be tolerated, I can see how and why it could come so far.

Maybe this dispute could be settled by giving both, Deeceevoice and Wareware, a warning and a "watchdog", to make sure that both behave in the future. Pharlap 00:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Response
I just got around to skimming the above. Pharlap, you should be ashamed. Such selective editing! Nothing short of cynical and truly sinister. This is, frankly, just garbage. deeceevoice 16:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * As I said earlier: all talk pages with your contributions are still available. I would not only recommend, but urge that people read all of them in context before they come to a decision. Pharlap 17:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It dosen't work that way, see my comment bellow about the need for individual diffs. No, we are not going to simply issue a warning against Ww, nor are we going to view a depth and intensity to anything DC so selectively said above as remotely similar, since it is so clearly not the case. It is an insult to this RFC to propose that we treat both of them on the same par and that we issue to both of them the same warnings (and that is, in fact, how the above conclusion is phrased). Personal attacks of a non vicious nature are never weighed the same as hateful, racist ones. Quite frankly, simply calling Ww's abuse an "over-reaction" is outrageous, I am shocked that anyone would even suggest this. El_C 15:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also note that Wareware has treated editors investigating this RFC with contempt and intransigence. His last, and only, substantive (if you could call it that) comment was highly redundant, spanning far too much space to depict to us one single incident. And he has not returned since, despite additional querries. Whereas Deeceevoice has been entirely cooperative and more than thorough, providing many pertinent diffs. Unless he was in the ER, Ww's absenteeism is unacceptable. I have given Wareware his warning when I urged him to weigh [his] words carefuly. That he provided no words is an insult to this RFC, as his conduct was an insult to the Wikipedia community. El_C 16:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

=Sigh.= Ugh, not enjoying getting dragged into this one. Regarding the accusation on this page that I "attacked" DC when I said in the talk page of "Black supremacy" I wasn't keen on taking advice from her on the intricacies of the scientific method: I really think this is a bit over the top. DC made several highly dubious claims about melanin being a superconductor and then when corrected accused the editors on that page of racism. It appears I then fell into the same trap and when the editing got heated (and I became rather frustrated at her refusal to even consider that there might be factual inaccuracy in the sections of that article dealing with science) and she then accused ME of racism for edits I didn't even make. I then, perhaps unwisely, made a bit of a nasty response in kind, when she began to lecture me on methods of science. I proposed a mutual apology at the end of our edits after things cooled off and while DC didn't exactly agree to one, I think we parted in an at least modestly amicable manner. While it in no way should be taken as an excuse for other users racist comments, I would have to say that edit disputes with DC CAN get rather frustrating sometimes. --Deglr6328 08:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I said melanin was a semiconductor, which it most certainly is. And, no.  If you'll read my original comment as well as my response, Deglr, I did not "accuse the editors on that page of racism," when I was "corrected."  Yes, there were some things that I was in error about, but the same certainly can be said for you in that regard, as well.  I made a comment about how the mere discussion of the subject of black supremacy was so particularly offensive to white supremacist sensibilities, that it exposed racists for what they really were (again referring to Wareware and his racist tirades -- again, to which no one but I objected:  classic Wikipedia conduct).  I also made it, I thought, clear in my follow-up response to Deglr that, no, I was not including him in that category. Further, the characterization of Deglr's remark about "civil rights era grandmas" as an "attack" in this RfC was something someone else wrote.  They meant well, and I didn't catch it.  (I've since toned down that reference.)  Deglr's comment was childishly snide and unfortunate, but I don't think it rose to quite the level of an "attack" -- and it certainly is nowhere near on par with Wareware's series of racist verbal assaults.  Frankly, I felt the dispute between Deglr and me had been rather amicably settled.  And then Pharlap interjected his two cents.  But just one thing, Deglr, dear.  I find exchanges with you can be annoying/frustrating, as well.  :-p deeceevoice 09:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the page superconductor and your edits there. I'm .....not El_C. --Deglr6328 09:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gawd. That's an old issue which I explained and corrected long before we even had that exchange. Further, it's another forum all together. Let it be! (It's late/early, and I'm tired. Yeah, I know about the mix-up between you and El_C.  See?  Same cognitive trip w/semiconductor-superconductor.   Get it now?)  I've already made the corrections. We seem to be online at the same time. Go to bed, youngun'! :-p deeceevoice 09:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I made a comment about how the mere discussion of the subject of black supremacy was so particularly offensive to white supremacist sensibilities, that it exposed racists for what they really were (deeceevoice 09:38, 26 Mar 2005)


 * The biased viewpoints and inaccuracy contributed by Deeceevoice would probably find more supporters among white supremacists than among decent people, including me, eventhough people would classify me as "black", since I'm the result of a loving marriage between a white german woman and a black american man, or, as Deeceevoice would put it, raised by: "these misguided women who tell their confused offspring, "You're not a member of the black race or the white race; you're a member of the human race." deeceevoice  00:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)". Maybe she is adding me to her collection of "horror stories of children whose heads have been screwed sideways by inept white mothers who haven't had a clue about raising whole, healthy, black children." deeceevoice  00:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)" I wonder how this case would be dealt with if the racial labels would be transposed. Pharlap 16:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Pharlap, my position here is simple: that regardless of the rightness or wrongness of Deeceevoice's edits (I haven't read them and therefore can't comment), as soon as these racist attacks on her person began, a line was crossed. This RfC is about the crossing of that line; it isn't about anything else. SlimVirgin 17:24, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Response to SlimVirgin to clarify my position:
 * I, in no way, approve Warewares behavior, and agree that it can't be tolerated. Nevertheless, IMO, it's also of importance to examine what the circumstances and climate was within the misbehavoir occured.
 * Personal attacks, general racially offensive remarks against non-blacks, edit wars and the overall negative climate on talk pages imposed by deeceevoice should not be ignored, especially since they most likely will trigger negative behavior from other users in the future. Pharlap 17:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WHAT?!!! I'm just noticing the italicized passage you offer, Pharlap, as "proof" of my own "racism." Absolutely not. Read that passage again. You completely misconstrue my meaning and jump to a wholly inaccurate conclusion as a result. Obviously, I expect reasonable, sensible, fair-minded people to be offended by white supremacy and virulent racism. And I expect them to speak up about it. (A point which seemingly is completely lost on you.)  I feel the same way, incidentally, about homophobia, "anti-Semitism," sexism,  color and ethnic-based bias of any kind, and religious bias, as well. And, of course, I expect sensible, fair-minded people also to be offended by black supremacy and to speak up about that, too. My point was rabid white supremacists/racists would, without a doubt, be more inclined to respond to black supremacist assertions with racist vitriol of their own -- fairly frothing at the mouth -- because such a notion would so radically challenge their strongly held notions of their own inherent superiority. Decent, fair-minded people would object -- and do so, even strenuously, passionately, perhaps even offensively -- but not with vicious racial slurs of their own. It's my experience that it's fairly easy to spot the rabid racists, as well as conflicted white folks who have "issues" simply by observing how they respond when certain subjects regarding race and racism are discussed. Certain topics do, indeed, "pull the sheets off." Witness, after all, Wareware's response in talk:Black supremacy. I rest my case. deeceevoice 13:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A perfect example of Pharlap's "creative editing"
What follows is an excerpt from a discussion thread in talk: African American that provides a perfect example of the kind of disingenuous juxtapositioning of posts, taken completely out of context, in which Pharlap has engaged in an effort to skew perceptions of who I am and what I believe. (As though this has any real bearing on the nature of Wareware's obnoxious and unpardonable attacks -- which it doesn't, but I feel compelled to defend myself here.) (Thank you, Pharlap, for providing the time and date posts, so I could locate what is certainly damning proof of your methods in ths RfC.) I hope that the same readers who, perhaps, have waded through the appallingly Bowdlerized discussion threads Pharlap thus far has presented will also read the following exchange -- which, actually, I think is pretty interesting in its own right. The following excerpt contains the text Pharlap has so outrageously and disingenously edited in an effort to smear my character that, IMO, borders on libel. Now as to whether Pharlap's "head [has] been screwed sideways by [an] inept, white [mother]" -- I cannot and will not say. I learned a long time ago it's a waste of time to try to get into people's heads. That's an exhausting and often nasty business. (All those shrinks out there, my hat's off to ya!) But this is a purportedly (half)black man who sees fit to completely ignore some of the most blatant and virulet racist verbal assaults (hopefully) any of us have had the displeasure to read in a very long time, but who makes a conscious choice to criticize the person on the receiving end. When challenged about this conduct, he remains mum [no pun intended]. Now, IMO, either something is seriously wrong in the self-identity department or he's got a really, really big axe to grind. Perhaps it's both of those. I don't know; not my problem. But that's just my assessment. My sincere apologies to Pharlap if I'm wrong. But I'll leave the reader to draw his/her own conclusions. Now, here's that (really interesting) excerpt from the discussion thread: From Talk: African American Quill, thanks for your lengthy response. I haven't read this piece or contributed to it substantially in ages in its entirety, and it's undergone all kinds of changes since. When I have time, I'll go back through it and read it again -- and then I'll go back and read your criticisms in their entirety. (Right now, I'm crunching a deadline.) I skimmed as far down the list to the business about the use of biracial. (That's the one section I do recall as having previously been flagged for being POV, but I don't remember how or when that little icon was removed.) I don't know why you find it offensive; it's a fact. The movement for the adoption of the term was started by white mothers of black children. If you'd like substantiation, I'm sure I can dig some up. Anyway, like I said, I'll return to this piece when I have more time. deeceevoice 11:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, well--you're not expected to drop everything and single-handedly fix this.


 * To answer your specific question--I don't think that white mothers have black children--to me, that's eugenics and inherently racist and I reject it. The only white mothers I have read of in this context call their children 'black'--Hettie Jones springs to mind, and it seems her attitude had a deleterious effect, from Lisa Jones's writing the poor girl was messed up for a while--hope she's gotten it together since. I don't think I've ever discussed the matter with any black fathers of white children ;). I have heard support for the term from white fathers, actually, and stong support for 'multiracial' or 'multiethnic' and the like from black persons (i.e. people identifying themselves as such) who, while not rejecting their blackness, nevertheless want their whole identity recognized.


 * Interestingly, I agree the use of the term 'biracial' is problematic--is it merely the recognition of having two heritages or does it smack of not wanting to be identified as 'black'--but that's another discussion. Quill 23:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, regardless of what you think [echoes of the exchange with the no-name guy below who wants to classify white South Africans as African Americans], I've got to advise a reality check. This is not about what should be; the fact of the matter is in the context of the legal racial classification of peoples in this nation (and the customary black acceptance of "mixed-race" individuals as our own and the customary rejection by whites), white mothers (and white fathers) do, indeed, have black children! And it was white mothers who made, I suppose understandably, a big deal out of forcing/lobbying for the use of "biracial" when referring to children of mixed black/white parentage. That's simply fact -- and is correct as so stated. If changing the "black" to "mulatto" or some other such term would make it less offensive to you, then fine. But it's certainly historically accurate. This from the Internet:
 * It took a lot of angry mommas to force the U.S. Bureau of the Census to deal with reality: Some people are white. Some people are black. Some are Hispanic or Asian or Native American. And some are a mix of two or more ethnic backgrounds. In 2000, for the first time, the forms distributed by the Bureau of the Census to millions of households across America gave biracial and multiracial individuals the option of marking more than one category under the section of the survey marked "Race." This was seen as a major victory for both biracial persons and the white mothers of biracial children, who had lobbied for years for separate categories on census and other state and federal documents [emphasis added]. But it didn't address underlying issues of how biracial men and women choose their individual racial identities or how they deal with a society that wants to pigeon hole individuals as either one thing or the other.

deeceevoice 23:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) And, since you mention it, there are so many more horror stories of children whose heads have been screwed sideways by inept white mothers who haven't had a clue about raising whole, healthy, black children (who often end up raising their mixed children alone for various reasons), who've told them, in effect, "You aren't black" -- even when all, by outward appearances, they clearly are and may not appear to have any "white blood" at all; they've got brown skin, nappy hair and African features -- or simply look like millions of other African-Americans who have two black parents, but who have white or Native American ancestry somewhere along the line. Try that one on for size! Or, these misguided women tell their confused offspring, "You're not a member of the black race or the white race; you're a member of the human race." In a world where ethnic affiliations are important to apparently everyone but these mothers of biracial children, and in a society such as ours deeply polarized along racial lines, this is sheer nonsenses -- and downright irresponsible parenting. Just about any black person you may encounter can recount more than a few of those, myself included. I must admit I don't have a clue who the people who mention are. I don't spend much time mulling over the angst of mixed black folks (not to suggest you do, either). One person of mixed parentage does immediately come to mind, though, who appears to be fairly healthy, who readily identifies herself as a black woman: Halle Berry. deeceevoice 00:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * ...er...'fairly healthy' Halle Berry (even Ms. Berry isn't sure--her words) has a white mother, doesn't she?


 * Plenty of black parents have screwed up their children, black, mixed, undecided and clueless, WRT race. There are black parents who tell their children they're not black, they're black but they're not black, black; they're not 'that kind of black'; they've got 'bad hair', 'good hair', they're too dark, too light.


 * Well, we can debate that one over coffee sometime but meanwhile, good edits! Quill 00:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, uh, yes. Halle Berry has a white mother (duh) -- who, apparently understanding the dynamics of race and racism in American society, raised her daughter to recognize herself as a black woman, recognizing that that is how she would be seen by people. Unlike the examples I gave of some idiotic white mothers I've known (and known of) who taught their (obviously) black children to deny their blackness. Sad and pathetic -- and the cause eventually of all kinds of problems with the kids. And, yes, just as some white parents get it right and wrong, some black parents get it right and wrong. The thing about the sickness of racism/white supremacy (projected outward and internalized as self-loathing) is that it can cripple whites and blacks and make the[m] equally incompetent as parents, equally incapable of raising whole, healthy, loving human beings. About the edits, yes, I thought mine useful. I wish I could say the same for your tweaking. Frankly, I thought it somewhat superfluous. I don't agree that the original wording said the black middle class was a new phenomenon. You (and, possibly, others) may have read it that way, but that's not what it says. But since, apparently, there may have been room for misinterpretation, I've got no real problem with it. The movement for the use of "biracial" was in supremely predominant part a movement of white mothers. Interesting you wrote you'd never had a similar discussion about terminology with black fathers. There's a good reason for that. Black fathers generally weren't egaging the issue at all. As I said earlier, black folks have lived -- and continue to live -- with the understanding that being black in this nation is to be a "mongrel." It's hardly a news flash. What was new was that white mothers were becoming less and less stigmatized by their relationships with black men (or simply less cowed by that stigmatization) and the resulting offspring. For the most part, they were (are) the ones left to raise the children on their own and, for various reasons (some reasonably legitimate from their perspective, some for purely racist or just off-the-wall reasons) didn't want their "black" children classified in such a manner. And, no. If you find your wording less "offensive," even though it is substantially less accurate/more misleading (at least as misleading as the passage about the black middle class), then I'm not gonna make a big deal about it. I feel I've substantiated my original wording. I'm sure if I searched further, I'd find even more evidence. I simply don't have the inclination. deeceevoice 13:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(end of excerpt) And two, final notes regarding the above excerpt -- lest Pharlap choose to seize upon it as some proof of my "racism": as a typical African-American, I, myself, am a "mongrel," with, (as far as it is known) African (possibly from the Congo/Angola), Caddo, Cherokee and Irish ancestors -- all within the last four generations. I use the term somewhat facetiously, and certainly not in a negative sense. Another bonus of following Pharlap's path to Talk: African-American, I also came across an instance of Wareware's racist intrusions into a forum in which I participated -- which I'll add to the chronology in a bit. One of the most interesting things about this particular incident is that Wareware displays anti-black hostility, but he and I do not exchange words. Neither Wareware nor Pharlap can blame Wareware's flagrantly racist assaults on his anger at me or somehow claim that I "provoked" him(see footnotes 13-17). Gee, thanks loads, Pharlap. :-) deeceevoice 17:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Since Deeceevoice keeps deleting/rearranging my comments and also accused me falsely that I'm editing hers, I recommend that interested users read the history page instead of this discussion page. Pharlap 20:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pharlap, I thought I was being helpful. When I added a subhead for my remarks (they did not properly fit under "Sigh"), I realized that separated your response to SlimVirgin's remarks and placed them under the new heading --also inappropriate. Unlike your erroneous and improper edits to my earlier comments, I thought -- and still do think -- relocating your response was appropriate and enures to your advantage (not to mention it simply makes sense). However, if you'd like to refer readers to the history, that's fine with me. They will discover for themselves your insertions/changes to my text, as well as what appears to be an attempt to edit in a change in your primary ethnic identification as an afterthought. If you are so displeased with the change, I'd be more than happy to move your comment back to where it was. But I hardly think that's the case. Is it? deeceevoice 21:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Whatever you think is appropriate ... thank you for giving us a concrete example how you choose to deal with statements opposing yours.


 * Attentive history readers will see what's going on, and will also recognize the fact that I changed the explicit term "white decent people" to the more general term "decent people", but never changed my "primary ethnic identification" (not that it would make any difference to somebody anyway, unless s/he is a black or white racist)Pharlap 22:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now you're being ridiculous, Pharlap. You were interjecting your words in my post -- which was wholly inappropriate. I, on the other hand, moved your comment to a place where it should have been. (I notice you haven't moved it. Why?  Because it's where it belongs!)  deeceevoice 02:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cool. I appreciate the clarification. I found it puzzling -- seriously. [Self-edited.] Okay. So, I'll try not to read anything into it. (Another edit conflict!) But if you were confused/ambivalent about your ethnicity, it would explain the white-to-black self-edit and why Wareware's vicious racist remarks seem/ed so insigificant to you that you didn't see fit to comment on them -- not there (in the article discussion thread) or to weigh in against them here. I find it curious that you are so quick to charge me with racism (a charge which I regard as utterly groundless and which I am certain you will fail miserably in any attempt to prove because it is simply false) and have gone to such great lengths to compile a list of highly suspect, highly redacted posts; but you haven't expended the sightest effort in endorsing an action against another member who is guilty of certainly the vilest, most racist verbal attacks imaginable. In fact, you've sought to excuse them away and blame me for Wareware's conduct. Not only do I find your methods questionable, but your motives as well -- not to mention your credibility. If you are so concerned about whatever comments of mine you may honestly have misconstrued as racism, why are you not at least equally concerned about and willing to go on record as opposing Wareware's repeated, flagrantly racist conduct? Utterly mystifying. And what makes this even more curious is that you are black ("biracial," if you prefer -- whatever). Whatever is going on with you, something simply just doesn't add up. I don't know a single black person (African-American) who wouldn't speak up -- and they certainly wouldn't try to assassinate the character of the person bringing the charges in the manner you have attempted. I'm sure you'll take issue with this post; but, hey, that's the way I see it. Frankly, it seems personal and completely intellectually dishonest. deeceevoice 03:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) - Deecee, I discourage you from editing any of your preexisting comments. If I understand RFC policy correctly, that practice should be avoided. So, in the case you wish to add anything to an existing comment, please do so as an addendum to the respective excerpt (you can quote it, etc.), or simply use the   function, then [insert text]. Thanks. I am noting your changes in the following diff. El_C 04:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I second that recommendation. It's best not to heavily edit previous comments, unless it is for minor spelling or grammar fixes. Jayjg (talk)  04:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'm still fairly new at this. Despite my strong reaction to both Wareware and Pharlap's conduct, I have at moments been at war with myself over this -- moments when I've been inclined to even let this matter drop out of charity (under certain circumstances, but then I regain my sanity). When I read my previous comments, they were far too generous. (Written in a fog after having been up all night, battling my ailing computer; falling asleep online w/tech support in the wee, wee hours; and truly questioning my sanity). I had a visceral reaction to them, and I wanted them gone! Will be mindful of this in the future, though. deeceevoice 04:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thank you for your cooperation. Certainly, misgivings about the direction and potency of hitherto comments are natural and to be expected, not least for a case as upsetting as this. By qualifying these as on 2nd thought such (as you articulated directly above), you avoid the risk in being accused of doing anything underhanded. El_C 05:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did seek to indicate that the passage had been changed by inserting the notation "Self-edited" before the pertinent portion. It was my way of informing people that there was an earlier version. But I understand. Thanks again. I want my actions and motives regarding this RfC to be completely transparent and beyond reproach. Peace. deeceevoice 13:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) -
 * I already clarified my position in my comment to Slimvirgin. As I stated before, IMO, you are not an innocent victim. You rather created a climate which provoked misbehavior and negative reactions, the immature attacks and offenses have been mutal, and, from your side, a calculated means to an end in your crusade against everybody who dares to challenge your distortions of facts and subjective contributions on various issues. Pharlap 00:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IMO, at issue here is my interaction with Wareware. I invite you go to back and take a look at the first section of this document. It very accurately chronicles our interactions -- far more so than your very selective cut-and-paste of various comments. Go back and read it (if you haven't). And I repeat, I think your montage of edits is shamefully disingenuous -- and that's putting it kindly. IMO, there is absolutely no excuse for any Wikipedian to remain silent about Wareware's behavior. I find it amazing that you would criticize me and say nothing to Wareware. That, too, is indefensible -- even more so than your list of edits. Funny. You'll criticize me in the forum and go through all that trouble to falsely portray me as some kind of uber b**** -- but couldn't bring yourself to write a single sentence reproaching Wareware for his utterly despicable conduct. And you know damned well that if you happened to hold certain beliefs, he'd call you'd be an ape-monkey-savage, etc., etc., too. It's the way he handles himself. Funny, though, how people will make excuses for his vileness, claiming I somehow drove him to it. Hilarious and absurd! Further, as the examples of Wareware's conduct clearly illustrate, he doesn't need a disagreement with me (or anyone) to show his racism; it's who and what he is. He actually delights in his racism and will interject it wherever he is allowed to do so freely. And it's people like you who not only fail to call him on it, but who scapegoat others, who are the enablers, who give him license to behave in the way he does. And you a black man. You should be ashamed of yourself. And ashamed of the depths to which you have stooped to try to make that scapegoating stick. And still not a word from you where it would count written against Wareware's shameless conduct. *shaking my head*

I must say I have found this process extremely interesting. And gratifying. It is helpful to know that there are some people of courage and conviction on Wikipedia who will stand up to the likes of Wareware and speak the truth. El_C finally came to realize the real deal. Perhaps others will, as well. deeceevoice 00:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Pharlap, I take your point about the importance of examining context, and normally I'd agree with you. In a case like this, I worry that any examination of context will appear to suggest that these remarks were in some way understandable, given the context. It is somewhat similar to discussing what a woman was wearing when she was raped. This is why I talked above about a line having been crossed. At some point, we want to be able to say: this is unacceptable, and we don't even want to know what led up to it. Wareware didn't blurt out one isolated comment in a moment of frustration (which would have been bad enough); rather, this was a sustained series of attacks, using the vilest language, carried out over several weeks on several talk pages, with pretty clear evidence that he was following DC around Wikipedia in order to carry them out. My feeling is that any discussion of DC's behavior on talk pages is best separated entirely from the issue of the racist abuse, lest any kind of linkage occur. SlimVirgin 00:58, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Eventhough I definitely see a linkage, I understand your point and I agree with your idea to file a RFC which is addressing deeceevoice racist remarks and offensive behavior separately. Pharlap 01:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Or better still, try to come to an understanding with Deeceevoice just between the two of you, which would hopefully avoid the unpleasantness of an RfC. There's also mediation, which wouldn't have been appropriate with Wareware once the abuse started, but which might be appropriate between you and Deecee, as yours is largely a content dispute, with some issues about how talk pages are edited too. SlimVirgin 01:47, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

And, no. Pharlap. Leaving aside your perceptions of my conduct for a moment, let's examine my contributions. I take strenuous issue with your contentions. I happen to believe my contributions have improved the quality of the articles in which I've had a hand on Wikipedia -- enormously so in many cases. Yes, I am challenging. (IMO, that's a good thing.) Yes, I have strongly held beliefs. But I also have a knowledge of certain subjects and editorial skills. I happen to believe I am an asset to the website. If one examines the caliber of the majority articles to which I've been a substantial contributor before and after my participation, one will see not just improvement, but a marked improvement. And, no. I do not take complete credit for that. As with any article on Wikipedia, there is a kind of synergy that occurs. From the exchange and discussion of often competing ideas and information, from the debate and, finally (if there can be said to be a "finally" on Wikipedia), consensus, emerges a product that is better than it was. I take satisfaction in that. There is no question that matters of race and racism are volatile by their very nature and, perhaps, not for the faint of heart. There are some who are unable to divorce what I write from what I believe, as in the Melanin Theory section of black supremacy. They mistake my curiosity/interest in following the threads of related science as an endorsement of the sometimes outrageous extrapolations drawn from it, the few errors I've committed out of naivete (science is certainly not my field -- a fact I have readily admitted) or simple gaffs as part of some dastardly scheme to accomplish a sinister, "reverse-racist" agenda. (Sorry. But that just cracks me up. :-D) They mistake, for instance, my insistence that contributors understand the distinction between a hate group and a black supremacist group and provide substantiation for the designation of one group as one or the other as being "racist" or somehow obstructionist -- even when I express appreciation for findings that surprise me -- a fact which I admit mystifies me; it simply defies logic. The automatic assumptions of bath faith, however, and the piling-on phenomenon I have experienced on Wikipedia (with, I notice, ample encouragement from you Wareware [oops; betraying the fact that by this point, I've begun to suspect -- rightly or wrongly -- that Pharlap is a Wareware sock puppet deeceevoice 16:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)] via messages you've Wareware has [oops, again] left on various users' talk pages referring to me in a pejorative manner; as well as [in] article RfCs in, perhaps, not as nasty, but similarly unfair language), are not nearly as disconcerting as the willingness of other Wikipedians to stand idly by and permit a person like Wareware do what he has done, to write the excrement he has written. There is absolutely no place on Wikipedia for that kind of verbiage and, IMO, no place for silence in the face of it -- period. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that had the cognizant Wikipedians in the other forums cited earlier had the integrity and directness of Jmabel in the African American discussion thread, we would not be where we are today. The fact is Wareware was enabled by the silence of others. He was empowered. To Wareware, silence equals support. Those of you who are his friends failed him by not taking him aside and advising him to stop. Those of you who value the contributions he has made to various articles did him and Wikipedia a disservice by keeping silent. The clear message to Wareware from the silence of other Wikipedians who have been witness to Wareware's conduct is, "It's okay, because deeceevoice is a militant, 'afrocentrist' crackpot, and you're one of us." As I said to someone else recently, this "see no evil when we think we disagree with someone" behavior is really appalling. What ever happened to people of principle, people of conscience?

I take no delight in initiating an action that I fervently hope will result in Wareware's permanent banishment from this website. And I don't even know if that is even possible within the confines of Wiki policy. But I sincerely hope that is the outcome of this process. If I had my way, that is what would happen. I view his conduct that seriously. I recognize, as SlimVirgin stated, there is a line that no one should be permitted to cross without paying a very high price.

IMO, it's time for Wareware to ante up. deeceevoice 02:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) My "racism"? I'd laugh at that, Pharlap -- but for the fact that I regard that as a very serious charge. And it's one you should be prepared to substantiate with something other than heavily Bowdlerized text. I'm really interested in what I've written on Wikipedia that you consider racist. And I challenge you to produce concrete examples. deeceevoice 02:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Individual diffs, again
Pharlap, I urge you to provide diffs for each of your quotation of DC. Without these, the evidence is one-sided as we are not able to observe whom and to what the passages cited were in response to. El_C 13:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pharlap's questionable tactics: examined
I picked one heated quote cited by Pharlap randomally. What Pharlap cites actually features DC's response to an unpleasent Anon. Oh, and –unlike Pharlap– I am making this privy to everyone here with a diff (ctrl.F "arrogant ass").

Anon says to DC, this being his very first comment on the page:

The very next editor directly following this says to the Anon, rather mildly if I may add [Ad. On closer read, I misread this comment], in his very first sentence:

DC's comment follows that (what was partially cited by Pharlac is in italics):

Not too harsh, I would think, for someone who tells you if you don't even know what ethnic[ity] you're from then you don't deserve to call yourself by one! And this is all he says, he does not participate in the discussion at all save that one insult. And this is a (randomally picked!) quote Pharlap submitts to this RFC in order to accuse DC of personal attacks(!) So, Pharlap, who directed the first personal attack towards the other here? Was it DC or the Anon? How do you account for this? Weigh your words carefuly. El_C 15:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First of all, user "ark" (24.43.40.79) participated in the discussion 29 May 2002 - 30 May 2002, and contributed 14 edits, a rather lengthy discussion why he thought that the page should be retitled, starting 19:03, 29 May  2002  here:



In course of the discussion, he added 08:55, 30 May 2002 following comment:



Slrubenstein responded 09:09, 30 May 2002 with the statement "ark, perhaps you misunderstand the neature of an encyclopedia ... "

Deeceevoice, more than 2 years later (16:22, 31 Aug 2004), and obviosuly without bothering to read the whole discussion first,



responds to ark's statement:



But maybe you are right, and ark's statement in a discussion back in 2002 was a "first personal attack" against Deeceevoice, despite the fact that she wasn't even a member back then, and joined Wikipedia more than 2 years after ark's statement in question.

With the hope that you will trace my IP-address   more thoroughly I withdraw myself from this discussion, and, since this trial isn't about me, (even if some people want to believe otherwise) this time for good. Pharlap 23:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This is weak. Still no explanation for why my comments (in this and your other examples) were completely divorced from their context.  Why?  Because the way you've deliberately and deceptively edited discussion thread excerpts is utterly indefensible.  deeceevoice 03:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he continues to withdraw himself from the discussion, and it is myself who somehow needs to compell him to provide diffs to go with his citations. Frankly, I am unconcerned with the discrapency Pharlap cites and which I have overlooked: when I, myself, submit evidence to an RFC you can be sure that diffs would accompany it, omitting this whole random quote/diffing. Yes, I know DC is prone to nonvicious attacks, I pressed this to her repeatedly in this RFC (and if and/or when I see these, I will take her to task for it). In the midst of Pharlap withdrawls he has not done the two thing requested: provide individual diffs for each one of his citations, and explain how these (if proven to be) minor personal attacks equate with that of Ww's so as to be deemed worthy of an 'equale warning.' Perhaps Pharlap will opt to, yet again, un-withdraw himself, except this time he will go over his own evidence so we won't have to (and thereby avoid errors which are a product of unfamiliarity and unsigned, undated signatures – I am not professing having the time nor interest of going over Pharlap's quotes with utmost thorougness, I am not in the position where I need to do that, and if I did accidentally misrepresent one, it is not the same as intentionally omitting the diffs, as he has done, in evidence he has provided). Instead of taunting this RFC, Pharlap's energy would be better spent fulfiling these standards that he is expected to meet for an RFC. If he dosen't wish to be seen as something he is not, then he should not act so discreditably. Crying foul (with no remorse but much impunity) after the fact, begs the question. Once again, Pharlap, I want individual diffs for your quotes (not just one, every single-one), and if you are unwilling or unable to provide these, your next un-withdrawl is a watse of time, space, and energy as far as I'm concerned. El_C 05:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

=Final comment from Pahrlap=

First of all, let me offer my deepest apologies for my absence from this discussion. It was ignorant of me to forget that this Deeceevoice vs. Wareware trial should have top priority in my life. My decision to spend the holiday with my family and friends is inexcusable. I will try hard to keep my priorities straight in future.

I planned to contribute some additional facts, more detailed diffs, and a complete and correct "Evidence of disputed behavior", but decided otherwise because of several reasons.

I realize now that it was incredible arrogant of me to think that the mere fact that I was part of several edit teams in question, and that I wasted my time to read all of deeceevoice and wareware's contributions on other talk pages and their corresponding edit histories as well, qualified me to offer an outside view. I see now how this was an erronous assumption and understand that this is not the place to add anything which could compromise deeceevoice's reputation, that my statements were incriminatory and therefore rightfully labeled creative or outrageous, and removed.

I realize now that I have held innumerable resentments against myself, caused by my confused upbringing which screwed my head sideways and made me believe I'm human first. I promise to better myself, and will in future start to embrace paranoid conspiracy theories, will do my best to support all kinds of supremacist doctrines to prove my blackness, will fight fiercely against all opponents of supremacist thought, will refrain from any attempts to reveal circumstances that lead to certain behavoir and/or simply shut up.

I humbly accept all verbal attacks against me, because I understand that playing the devils advocate must be punished by all means necessary, which naturally includes the attempts of character assassination against me on personal talk pages.

With trust that this trial will be closed in a satisfactory manner, I leave it to wareware to fend for himself and withdraw myself with respect from this discussion. Pharlap 23:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Response:

 * For what it's worth, Deecee's line that someone of mixed ancestry can only demonstrate their mental "health" by conforming to the simplistic racial categories favored by racists--"I'm black because racists think I am!"--well, it's weak and lame, IMO. But this isn't about Deecee's ideas, Pharlap. It's about whether Wareware's comments were appropriate in any context. And they weren't. Babajobu 00:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Babajobu, I share the opinion that Warewares behavior can't be tolerated. I clarified my position here Pharlap 23:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Got it, Pharlap. I guess I would just say that if Deecee's behavior has been negative, then that should be considered separately from any discussion of the racist language to which Deecee was subjected. The former doesn't excuse the latter in any way. Babajobu 08:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Baba, that's such a ridiculous mischaracterization of my comments that I'm not even going to dignify it with a defense. And, Pharlap, your weak excuses for your reprehensibly disingenuous contributions to this RfC are an insult to the intelligence of all who have earnestly done our best to present factual information in a fair, comprehensive and comprehensible manner. Further, your sarcasm is as much a wasted exercise as it is a waste of our time to read it. deeceevoice 00:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I view Pharlap's above comments as intransigent and contemptive of this RFC. That he has yet to provide diffs, that he has yet to address the would-be personal attack I cited above, I find rather appaling. If Pharlap wishes to discredit himself with such a one-sided presentation of the evidence (which seemingly includes outright fabrication), that is his prerogative. I find his justifications utterly unconvincing. Considering the length of his one-sided, un-diff'd evidence, one would think that he would see it fit to issue this RFC with some sort of notice of forthcoming absence. Instead, we get the above diatribe which is nothing short of an insult and reflects very poorly on him. Babajobu's makes an important point in so far that: whether I would, generally, agree with Pharlap's science and disagree with that of Deeceevoice's (which seems likely), should not have &mdash;cannot have&mdash; any bearing on this case whatsoever. ed. El_C 01:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If so, Deecee, my apologies. I was responding to one particular paragraph, the one that finished with a comment about Halle Berry. If I missed the context, my bad. Anyway, it's all neither here nor there as regards the main issue of this page, which is Wareware's comments. BTW, people, what is a "diff"? Everyone keeps asking for them, and I don't know what they are. And what's the upshot here? So there are nine people vouching for Wareware's unacceptable behavior. What happens next? Babajobu 14:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gee, it's great to know I'm not the only one who had no clue what a "diff" is. (I was beginnin' to feel kinda stoo-pid.:-p) I asked, and El_C pulled my coat: "In answer to your question: diff is a Unix utility that outputs the difference between two text files." A diff would allow the reader to see Pharlap's hack job on my comments for the calculated deception it is; you would be able to follow a conversational exchange in its complete context -- as in the "Evidence of disputed behavior" segment of the RfC, which allows those interested to follow the discussion threads and verify the information provided. If you haven't read my comments on this page with regard to Pharlap's tactics, I invite you to -- should you desire to devote the time. (And I certainly understand if you do not.) Either way, I urge you not to jump to unfounded conclusions based on partial information. Just above ("Pharlap's questionable tactics: examined"), in fact, El_C provides a perfect (and far more concise) example of the kind of skewed picture Pharlap's failure to provide diffs can paint. And note that Pharlap did not respond. deeceevoice 14:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Baba, again, I haven't a clue. I simply stumbled upon this process. I don't know where this goes, to whom, or what the options for action are. Personally, I'd like to see Wareware permanently banned from the website. And that's got nothing to do with the fact that I am the aggrieved party. I happen to think the Wikipedia community as a whole has been harmed by Wareware's conduct, and I think permanent banishment is a fitting response. It would serve as an example to others of his ilk who might be tempted to behave in a similarly reprehensible manner. Perhaps someone else can shed some light on this process? deeceevoice 14:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I am also new to the dispute resolution process, and this is the first RFC I have ever endorsed or certified (I somehow managed to do both). That said, I am certainly not recommending Mediation in this case. I am hopeful that this RFC will be used as evidence brought before the Arbitration Committee, and that their findings will reflect Deecee's position as stated above, which I share. And, when everything is finally concluded and archived, we can note that with one, giant diff. :p El_C 03:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You know, this RfC is about a particular episode involving Deecee and Wareware, but several people (including Deecee) have alluded to a second and larger issue: how the hell did this go on for so long, with numerous people criticizing Deecee's behavior, but no one EVER taking a moment to tell Wareware not to talk like a racist freak? I'm generally very slow to shout "racism!", and far slower to shout "systematic, institutional racism!" but clearly something was going very wrong here. Somebody on the other page mentioned the idea of a site-wide ban on this sort of thing. That might present some "slippery slope" concerns. But the whole issue should certainly give Wikipedians pause. Things like this shouldn't ever have to make it to RfC...they're too blunt, too ridiculous, not to have been addressed much earlier in the whole process. Babajobu 10:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Very true, and yet both you and myself had witnessed DC and Ww interact, but we still didn't pick up on the real deal. Clearly, Ww was clever in knowing when and when not to engage in blatant racist attacks. But DC's point nonetheless stands: some people did see it and said nothing, which is an absolute outrage. Certainly, a very strong, unequivocal statement needs to be issued alongside a permanent ban. I would accept nothing less. El_C 01:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What the heck?
I can see a RfC being filed about all of this, but surely User:Deeceevoice, who seems to have been fighting fire with fire thruout, can't claim clean hands in this case. I don't care what name you call it, the  "signifyin'" doesn't help DC's case w me, and while it doesn't excuse the initial statement by WW, it does minimize later statements in my eyes as a tradeoff back and forth. Frankly, I think alot of apologies need to be made, and proclamations that in the future the participants here won't stoop to such a level. If such conduct continues, I would favor arbitration for either one or both of them. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You state that I've "been fighting fire with fire thruout." That clearly speaks for itself.  deeceevoice 16:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Extraneous comments moved from RfC project page
Than why do you "personally think there aren't enough black people working here"? How do you know how many we have? Maybe we are majority black, for all I know, who cares? "one should be judged on one's edits and not on how other's perceive one as a person, or even of how one is as a person". (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:47, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's just my opinion, and I don't feel the need to justify it as this page is not to do with writing an encyclopedia article, though of those who offer relevant info about themselves here the great majority are white, --SqueakBox 22:01, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the above comments here for obvious reasons. Focus, Spade. Whatever your beef or question is with regard to what I've written on my user page, it is absolutely irrelevant to the matter at hand. deeceevoice 08:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually I've never read your user page, I'll go do so now and see what I think ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, what you think of my user page -- which is where I state there aren't enough black people on Wikipedia -- again, has no bearing whatsoever on this matter. deeceevoice 13:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)