Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deeceevoice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deeceevoice returned to wikipedia yesterday. Based on her behavior in her first few hours, I think its reasonable to expect continued civility (and other) violations. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deeceevoice_Civility -Justforasecond 15:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

---

• (Deeceevoice (talk • contribs))

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents 1 Statement of the dispute 1.1 Description 1.2 Evidence of disputed behavior 1.3 Applicable policies 1.4 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 1.5 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 1.6 Other users who endorse this summary 1.7 Users who do not endorse this summary and RfC 2 Response 3 Outside view by FrancisTyers 4 Outside view by Guettarda 5 Amazing (Outside view by Zaphnathpaaneah) 6 Outside view by Encyclopedist 7 Outside view by Jmabel 7.1 Followup by Jmabel 8 Outside view by Friday 9 Outside view by Alabamaboy 10 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

I would first emphasise that User:Deeceevoice is a competent and valuable editor. However, I'm concerned by her attitude towards the Civility and No personal attacks policies: in short, it appears she doesn't think she need follow them. While everyone loses their cool from time to time -- and Deeceevoice seems to get a lot of nasty racist troll attention -- it seems that there's more to it than that. I would hope that this RfC would signal to Deeceevoice that, while she does some great work, she still needs to treat other editors with courtesy and respect.

I've asked Deeceevoice on three separate occasions to observe the policy, and have been dismissed out of hand (usually accompanied by further insults). Others have also tried.

I don't want this to eat up enormous amounts of time, so I've taken a selection of quotes from just User talk:Deeceevoice and User talk:Deeceevoice/Archive 1, rather than citing diffs. — Matt Crypto 14:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Diffs now added by User:Cryptic. — Matt Crypto 20:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

From conversation with User:Zoe:

Hi. We don't know each other, as far as I can recall...I am, however, curious about your comment -- Don't ever, ever, EVER look for validation in the eyes of the enemy. I hope you don't feel like all of us are your enemy. Zoe 23:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

What? U want me 2 hold your little, white hand and sing "Kumbaya"? What the hell kinda comment is that? Don't insult my intelligence... deeceevoice 08:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC) [2] [3]

...I can only conclude you wanted to read some reassuring warm-and-fuzzy expression of brotherhood/sisterhood. No offense intended, but I got no time, no patience to stroke your psyche. Get a teddy bear. deeceevoice 21:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC) [4]

From conversation with User:Matt Crypto:

Lookahere. When you've been subjected to half the shyt (check my page; the vandalism you see here is just a taste) that I have on this website, when you've walked in my shoes, then and only then should you ever dare to presume to come to my place and school me on comportment. When I need a lesson on playing nicey-nice to someone's irksome, naive bullcrap, I'll be sure to look you up. I don't do nice. In the meantime, kindly go to hell. *x* deeceevoice 05:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC) [5]

Hey, whatever floats your boat. Waste your time if that's what does it fuyyah. Do you really think some little twit instructing me in "civility" is going to change me? I find that mildly amusing. Thanks for the comic relief. Okay, I'm done w/you. Now go home. (yawn) *x* deeceevoice 10:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC) [6] [7]

From conversation with anon, who asked deeceevoice to follow Wikipedia:Civility:

Ha! Get a life, no-name. deeceevoice 01:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC) [8]

From further conversation with User:Matt Crypto on the topic:

Do you really think I give a flying ****? Some friendly advice: don't waste your time.deeceevoice 01:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC) [9].

(With edit comments of "pathetic" [10] and "Deleted annoying clutter from MY talk page" [11])

From conversation with User:Karmosin (Peter Isotalo):

And you're gonna cite Wiki etiquette about "civility"? ROTFLMBAO. How about the particular brand of Wiki "incivility" of ignorant and often arrogant white people presuming and assuming things about African American culture...It's been my experience that on Wikipedia, "civility" is the last refuge of clueless hacks. [12]

(ROTFLMBAO is short for "rolling on the floor laughing my blask ass off" -Justforasecond 22:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

Was I "mocking" you? Nope. If you find my plain-speak mocking, perhaps the situation being discussed reflects more on your hardheadedness than my "incivility." Did I say your obvious ignorance and apparent arrogance (or stubborness) make you a racist? Nope. But does the latter make you an "asshole"? Hey, if the shoe fits.... [13]

Oh. Did I fwyten duh widdow newbie? Oops. My bad. (In response to a comment about biting the newbies). [14]

I grew tired of your whining, pedantic drivel long ago. Please don't bother to post here again. Any subsequent posts to this page you may leave simply will be deleted without being read. The door is now closed. *SLAM!* deeceevoice 18:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC) [15]

From conversation with User:Sam Spade:

Stop buggin', bwoi. Go preach to someone who gives a damn. You're boring me. *yawn* Kindly refrain from responding; I'll simply delete any entry from you before reading it. You are not welcome here.deeceevoice 20:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC) [16]

From conversation with User:Justforasecond:

Please don't visit my talk page w/inane messages. [17]

One more thing. DO NOT tamper with my talk page. What I choose to keep or delete is strictly my prerogative. Per my earlier warning, I've deleted your changes -- your last contribution without reading it. (Poof!) Don't waste your time. deeceevoice 06:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC) [18]

Deeceevoice then deleted Justforasecond's comments from her talk page with edit summaries like "vandalism [19] [20] [21] and "remove annoying clutter" [22].

From conversation with User:Jim Apple:

Stay the f*ck off my talk page. U ain't welcome here (edit summary "F*** you"). [23]

deeceevoice later apologized to me, citing confusion over thinking I was a troll, based on unnamed previous posts. My edit history before deeceevoice told me to get lost reveals that I had barely begun editing, and had been trollish in no way.

I'm not taking sides, but I thought both facts to be pertinent. (1. I didn't deserve it. 2. She apologized.) Jim Apple 06:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

To User:Matt Crypto in response to this RfC:

it amazes me that people have nothing better to do on this website than play Miss Manners with other adults like prissy, pedantic, insufferable, niggling, mealy-mouthed, self-righteous, tattletale brats. And, no. I'm not saying that to get your back up; it's simply what I honestly think. [24]

[edit] Applicable policies

1. Wikipedia:Civility
2. Wikipedia:No personal attacks

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

• See User talk:Deeceevoice
• Wikipedia:Wikimediation/Deeceevoice

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

1. — Matt Crypto 08:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Peter ^Isotalo 10:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Sam Spade 15:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Justforasecond 16:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Robert McClenon 13:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
2. —Cryptic (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Carbonite | Talk 17:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
4. brenneman^(t)(c) 01:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Sekicho 05:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
6. I agree that deeceevoice has been extremely uncivil in her actions, but I think even more important is the fact that her edits constantly break the NPOV policy, as she appears to only be here to push her Afrocentrist agenda and becomes abusive when people interfere with that in some way. I really think that's the larger problem that deserves comment and action on. DreamGuy 21:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
7. BorgQueen 23:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Olorin28 02:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
9. — Chameleon 05:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
10. I support the comments of DreamGuy. CoYep 14:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
11. I agree with what DreamGuy said SuperBleda 17:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
12. --Edward Wakelin 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
13. :( —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-08 21:05:32Z
14. If there are NPOV issues, they should be addressed seperately in my opinion. The civility problems have been made adundantly clear by the evidence shown here. This is poison for the community and should not be tolerated. Friday (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
15. This person seems to welcome confrontation and take it as some kind of validation of being in the right. Community norms of civility have been pointed out to this individual. The response was to mock civility as being weakness and spineless, and to dismiss the intervention as being somehow motivated by some aspect of her identity (which pretty much torpedoes any effort to talk about the behavior rather than the person). So basically we have an editor where our choices are to agree with all her edits or to have ugly personal battles. Where I come from that's called bullying, and that kind of behavior shouldn't be allowed to pass without comment. The Crow 14:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
16. She's written some of the most mean spirited and insulting messages I've ever seen here. People who have approached her with good faith and civilility have been met with venom. The very real abuse she's taken needs to be addressed as well but she's not handling it very well. Rx StrangeLove 18:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Civility is one of the key components to the success of Wikipedia. It saddens me to see such a valuable editor, such as Deeceevoice, feel the need to lash out at other editors (or trolls). Please use the proper channels for settling disputes; making personal attacks only breeds more problems. Hall Monitor 20:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
18. I agree. -- Jbamb 17:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Users who do not endorse this summary and RfC

(sign with ~~~~)

1. --Alabamaboy 17:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
2. --I would normally prefer not to add disendorsement sections to an RfC, and I'd be glad to see all (including this one) moved to talk, but if they are going to be here, I certainly want to make my disendorsement of this summary clear in every way possible. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

(A response to this RfC was given by Deeceevoice on her talk page [25] which suggests that she may not have any interest in providing a response on this page. — Matt Crypto 21:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC))

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Deeceevoice's response on her user talk page can be seen at User_talk:Deeceevoice#Civility. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not a place to insert your opinions as to her response. Deeceevoice has refused to take part in this effort. -Justforasecond 02:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by FrancisTyers

She's an excellent editor, certainly a much better writer than I am. Her approach to conversation is different from mine, but hey, people are different. Keep two things in mind; 1. this is the internet and 2. so what if she's abrasive, patronising, uncivil, whatever, it reflects badly on her, not the person on the receiving end.

If we had more editors like deecee, the wikipedia would be a much better place (she'd probably berate me for pathetic sentimentality with that last comment ^_______^). - FrancisTyers 17:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
2. -JCarriker 10:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
3. - Guettarda 15:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Users who don't endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. I cannot endorse this summary. Deeceevoice is by no means a "good" editor. She violates many wikipedia policies regularly. Furthermore, this is not a referendum on whether we *should* have civility policy at all, but whether deeceevoice has been breaking the policy that we do have. -Justforasecond 23:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Guettarda

She's a good editor who's a tad abrasive when harrassed. I would be too if people posted a swastika and said "die nigger" on my talk page. Civility is a good thing and she should strive to be more polite, but a sense of humour and willingness to not take yourself too seriously is also valuable. While civility is valuable and important, so is the right of an editor to not be harrassed. Guettarda 18:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
2. After reviewing the evidence provided above, having been brought here by what I would consider campaigning and finding a personal attack here, I find myself led to the conclusion that the above summary is accurate. Jkelly 02:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
3. I totally agree. This RfC is part of a continual trend of harrassment of Deevoice.--Alabamaboy 14:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
4. -JCarriker 14:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Spot on Dan100 (Talk) 18:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amazing (Outside view by Zaphnathpaaneah)

Somone cited her because she took their content off of HER talk page, AFTER she had warned them. Justforasecond, I think thats lowwwwww.... Hey cite me while you are at it, I should have racked enough to join her. --Zaphnathpaaneah 18:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Guettarda 18:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
3. -JCarriker 10:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
4. --Alabamaboy 14:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Users who don't endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. I think this summary completely misrepresents the disputed conduct. While the majority of diffs are from Deeceevoice's talk page, they are in response to multiple editors on many different topics. Users are still expected to act in a civil manner on their talk pages. Carbonite | Talk 18:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
2. This is an entirely disingenous summary. There are numerous other uncivil remarks quoted above. -Justforasecond 19:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Most of the complaint does not concern the removal of content from her talk page. — Matt Crypto 20:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Encyclopedist

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

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

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. — PhilHibbs | talk 12:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
2. - FrancisTyers 17:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
4. -JCarriker 10:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
5. --Alabamaboy 14:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
6. - Guettarda 15:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
7. - To break the tie vote, and have a winning argument, I endorse this. I am not going to side with people who want to make Wikipedia a Leave it to Beaver episode. ; ). εγκυκλοπαίδεια*(talk) 16:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Users who don't endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Again, I don't believe there's any dispute about Deeceevoice's article contributions. It's her lack of civility in certain situations that is an issue. There may be many reasons why she responded in the manner that she did, but there aren't any excuses. No personal attacks and civility exist to make a better editing environment for all editors. Carbonite | Talk 20:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
2. I tried to emphasise that Deeceevoice is "a competent and valuable editor", indeed, that's the first thing I wrote in this RfC. I'm certainly not here to crucify anyone. However, I believe there is a legitimate problem with her completely ignoring the personal attacks and civility policies, and not just with trolls and vandals, but with editors in good standing. As I also said in the introduction to this RfC, I'm sure that Deeceevoice gets "a lot of nasty racist troll attention", which is unfortunate, but that does not excuse her behaviour, and she has never backed down an inch or apologised for her remarks. Also, I would conjecture she might get more support from the community if she didn't spit in people's faces (metaphorically) when they make friendly guestures (as is the case with Zoe, documented above) — Matt Crypto 20:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
3. deeceevoice violated Civility policies, as seen above. There is no lack of context. Users with no history with dcv have come to her talk page and asked for citations or for civility and been treated with complete incivility. The civility violations needs to be acknowledged in *any* honest summary, so I cannot endorse this. Beyond on her user-talk page, deeceevoice has attacked people on article-talk pages, and regularly chooses to escalate, rather than to defuse situations chooses to escelate verbal confrontations. In the "Wareware" confrontation encylopedist cites, she makes fun of an asian editors genital size; perhaps he instigated the conflict, but this is completely unacceptable behavior nontheless. I would also like to dispute the claim that deeceevoice's is a "good" editor and do not agree that she deserves credit for her "viewpoint". We all are supposed to have the same viewpoint here -- the NEUTRAL viewpoint. Most of her edits lack any citations. In fact, she considers it vandalism to request citations. -Justforasecond 01:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
4. I would support the comments of Justforasecond; deeceevoice's contributions to the Afrocentrism article have been largely NPOV and he/she has posted attacks on others and accused them of vandalism in response to their edits. A number of his/her contributions to the article have been of questionable neutrality and factual accuracy. He/she is neither civil nor a good editor. 62.25.106.209 13:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
5. I have seen a lack of civility and definite PoV in the Afrocentrism article and talk. Apropos of Encyclopedist's comments, I'm not sure what this means: "Black topics here are often ignored, so Deecee's efforts to try to improve such have been criticized as POV. THEY ARE RE NOT. They are from a different, and interestingly enough, an AFRICAN AMERICAN perspective." I don't get how having a perspective is different from having a point of view... --Edward Wakelin 19:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Wikipedia does not have an "eye for an eye" policy, as far as I'm aware. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-08 21:08:27Z

[edit] Outside view by Jmabel

Deeceevoice is one of the best contributors I've worked with on Wikipedia. Definitely not the queen of mellow, but that's not what we are here for. In terms of civility, she is certainly more sinned against than sinning. Yes, occasionally she takes offense sooner than she might, but, in case you folk haven't noticed, on the whole she is doing good work in an often hostile environment. On the whole, my response to the complaints above can be summed up in the words of a certain ex-girlfriend of mine in a similar situation (I was not, by the way, the person toward whom it was directed): "Cry me a river, white boy." -- Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Indeed. Well said. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
2. -JCarriker 10:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Well said. FrancisTyers 21:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
4. --Alabamaboy 14:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
5. - Guettarda 15:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
6. A bit late but.... Dan100 (Talk) 18:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Followup by Jmabel

For the record, Justforasecond has accused me of a "racist comment" for the above. My feeling is that by doing so he more or less demonstrates my point. Justforasecond, if you want to accuse me of making racist comments, feel free to start an RfC, but I am quite comfortable in saying that nothing I said above rises (or sinks) to the level of racism. Or of lightly throwing around accusations of racism. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

To be dangerously tolerant of blatant double standards is not an essentially a way to work towardsCivility and No personal attacks. In this context, the example below might help you to recognize that both, "black boy" as well as "white boy" are considered racial slurs:

"U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals - LEE BROWNING v PRESIDENT RIVERBOAT

Further, at some point during Browning's brief employment with Riverboat, Naomi Purchase saw Browning come out of Taylor's office looking "mad" after a meeting with Taylor. She asked Taylor if everything was okay, to which Taylor responded, "that white boy better learn who he's messing with, he better get his act together." ... Taylor's reference to Browning as "that white boy" in the context of Browning's employment warrants an inference of discriminatory attitude sufficient to permit the factfinder to conclude that race was a motivating factor in the decision to terminate Browning. Such use of a racial slur by a supervisor and the principal decisionmaker in Browning's termination constitutes more than a stray remark in the workplace and directly suggests the existence of bias; no inference is necessary. Compare Delph v. Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. , 130 F.3d 349, 352 (8th Cir. 1997) (recognizing "black boy" as a racial slur.) This comment did not simply evidence an awareness of the employee's gender or race, it reveals "a decidedly negative attitude toward [white] people on the part of [a person] responsible for [the employment decision]." [26]CoYep 12:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

1. In case anyone doesn't know, as an Ashkenazi Jew, I am myself someone who virtually all Americans would count as white.
2. Note in the above "in the context of Browning's employment": this is not an employment situation.
3. FWIW, though: yes, I am extremely skeptical of any suggestion that one of the quite few African Americans who are active in Wikipedia is effectively creating a hostile atmosphere for the white Wikipedians along racial lines. I think there is an enormous failure of empathy in not understanding what Deeceevoice is (often) up against here. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, it is plainly racist to call editors "white boys" and "cry me a river" is a personal attack. How else would you categorize these statements? Whether you are jewish or not makes no difference. -Justforasecond 20:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It isn't racist or sexist to call an editor "white boy". "cry me a river" is not a personal attack. - FrancisTyers 21:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, I am not endorsing the comment, I am merely stating that it isn't racist, sexist or a personal attack. - FrancisTyers 21:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Francis. If you aren't endorsing it, could you remove your endorsement of Jmabel's statement? -Justforasecond 22:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying, Jmabel. Do you believe that racial slurs are only offensive in employment situations and that Wiki guidelines are flexible and should be modified depending on the editors ethnic or religious background?

I don't know what "Deeceevoice is (often) up against here" but I can't imagine that incivility (personal attacks, racial slurs, POV edits) is a supportive approach to addressing the issue. CoYep 12:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with User:Justforasecond regarding the above personal attack. I had a group of older children refer to me in that racist manner on a city bus once when I was in middle school, and I would have gladly beaten the $#!+ out of them had I been able. I can assure you I tolerate the use of such disgusting remarks in a professional environment no more than I would tolerate slurs like nigger, spic, or jewboy. The fact that we are online and can't spit in each others faces or beat each other with chairs doesn't mean we should act like animals. Such behavior would not be tolerated on a forum, and should certainly not be allowed amongst the staff on what purports to be an encyclopedia. Sam Spade 14:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see "whiteboy" as racist b/c it's not a racist term when used by whites, as evidenced by the fact that on the rather long list of ethnic slurs on Wikipedia it says of this term, "Originally not offensive and used by whites self-descriptively." In case anyone missed it, Jmabel would be considered white by most people. As for "cry me a river," I'd say Jmabel was just making light of this entire situation. That phrase is often used for humorous effect; in fact, I can't remember the last time I heard it used seriously. I wonder if this issue with Jmabel raises the further issue of why people raised this RfC against Deevoice--i.e., oversensitivity. If anyone here had a right to be oversensitive about the way they have been treated, it would be Deevoice. Yet she doesn't do this. Instead, she merely defends herself.--Alabamaboy 14:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It's listed as an ethnic slur, and was used in an attack. It is racist. There is absolutely no reasonable purpose for that statement. Jmabel could retract it easily enough. -Justforasecond 16:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Too bad you don't know what racism is. His comment wasn't an attack and wasn't racist.--Alabamaboy 17:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Your aggressively arrogant ignorance is not helping make your case, Alabamaboy. There is no way you can know Justforasecond well enough to see into his heart that way. You can have an opinion, but possess no special claim to the truth. I can see from your user name that you don't mind being called "boy", but others clearly do. Sam Spade 17:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm amazed at all the insults in this RfC. I have been polite and merely stating my opinion on the matter, which is what an RfC is for (although this issue about the comment is a side issue). I am quite familiar with racism and choose my username to make fun of the southern use of "boy" to put people down. A reclaiming of the word, so to speak. Anyway, as stated before this RfC has violated numerous guidelines of how RfCs are supposed to be run, chiefly by failing to be civil and by there being a lack of any attempt to reach a consensus or compromise. The fact that Justforasecond is accusing everyone who disagreed with him of a borderline policy violation on their talk pages is proof of this lack of civility. Because of all of this, I doubt this RfC will result in anything useful in the end.--Alabamaboy 01:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Friday

I won't argue that DCV doesn't do useful things. I don't really know that from my own knowledge, but many have said it and I see no reason to doubt it. I also have no doubt that DCV is getting more than her share of user page harassment, but based on comments she's made, I wonder how much of it she brings on herself. The uncivil and sometimes racist comments she has made are most troubling. You reap what you sow, and I'm not surprised that she finds Wikipedia such a hostile environment. Friday (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*(talk) 06:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC), Argument does not, in my opinion, address the fact that she is being perscuted because of what she decided to focus on...not because of civility (or lack thereof). I am very strongly suggested that Wikipedia choses to be a whitewashed 1950's Leave it to Beaver sitcom; with little or no interest to show other perspectives (i.e. why in the hell is their so much about the Holocaust and the World Wars, but so little of the African Diaspora and the Rwandan Genocide [see here for more info.] ). All my acumen tells me is that Deeceevoice was going to be crucified from the start by dubious editors that had it in for here because what she stands for. May I quote from here talk page "We [i.e. African Americans] are everywhere except Wikipedia." What I see is that people want to keep it like that. Hell, I know two black admins (Alabamaboy and Journalist) here out of 714; I am pretty sure there aren't much more. If you want to argue about proportion of editors; it is the same thing (which reflects the previous). Perhaps Wikipedia doesn't attract black editors because it doesn't focus on black topics. Finally, I must sum all of what I said in one thing in relation to your argument: it is not about "you reaping what you sow..." She has only sown quality edits and being an excellent contributor, without being shown respect. So if she has been mean or making people go home and cry and hide under their beds, it is because she doesn't have time for the niceties. Some people are being told the truth, and secondly, I don't know how you think someone can be civil with swastikas on their page and people calling here everything but a Child of God. And you know something else? She hasn't been here since 6 Dec. hmmm....I wonder why? And whatever her being mean is about (that is the sum of the argument of the complainants, being mean and adding POV in articles) life is not a Walgreen's commercial, it is not perfect; and Wikipedia has proven itself imperfect with or without Deeceevoice. So I don't believe you all can sit back on your high horses and tell me that this editor should be perfect and smile in the face of vandals leaving pictures of lynching on her talk page. If that is you all's idea of the real world; good luck. Peace. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*(talk) 06:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Alabamaboy

This RfC against Deevoice is one of the most hypocritical things I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Almost all of the examples given for Deevoice's so-called lack of civility were responses given by her in response to the poor actions of other individuals. I have never seen Deevoice to jump on someone for no reason. However, if a racist individual picks on her or an article she is editing, she will call it as she sees it. I am also concerned about the motives of some of the individuals who are bringing this RfC (as shown by Jmabel comments above about Justforasecond). In addition, some of the charges are just silly (for example, Deevoice is free to edit her talk page in any manner she chooses, as all editors are free to edit their own talk pages). Finally, the evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute that the people bring these charges present is weak. I'd say they didn't try very hard. In fact, I would think that Deevoice could bring RfCs against many of them.

Deevoice's discussion style is abrupt and to the point, but there is nothing wrong with this. She is an excellent editor who edits an area (African American articles) that attracts more than its fair share of vandals, racists, and people with personal agendas. She is also attempting to overcome some of the systemic bias of Wikipedia.

In short, this RfC is a travesty and worth ignoring--if the harm it could do to a good editor wasn't so serious. --Alabamaboy 14:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. --Alabamaboy 14:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
2. - Guettarda 15:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
3. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*(talk) 16:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Jmabel | Talk 18:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Many of the users who tried to solve this dispute ended up with Deeceevoice halting the discussion and simply reverting any further comments with abusive edit summaries, so I'm not convinced by your assertion that complainants "didn't try very hard". Deeceevoice is free to edit her own talk page as long as she follows Wikipedia policies of Civility and No Personal Attacks. There is nothing wrong with being abrupt and to the point, as you say, but there is something wrong with rudeness and incivility. Telling someone "F*** you", for example, is not merely direct speaking that offends the overly-sensitive. It's abusive language. — Matt Crypto 16:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

So what next? εγκυκλοπαίδεια*(talk) 16:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

1. deeceevoice's incivility is directed even at cordial requests, such as asking for citations -- or for civility. it is not "self defense" as one of her defenders as stated. Edit summaries like "F*** you" are never permitted. she is also not a "good editor"; she violates numerous policies on a regular basis. -Justforasecond 18:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Someone asked me to comment here. I'm not interested in getting deeply involved, so I'll just point out that Deeceevoice's edits are those of a vulgar racist and she should not be welcome here. Chameleon 01:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Chameleon, I've removed part of your comment. On an RfC about civility and personal attacks, it's not particularly helpful to add your own attacks. — Matt Crypto 17:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It was a description of her behaviour. Your behaviour is that of a censor. — Chameleon 21:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. This RfC is about personal attacks...so...? — Matt Crypto 22:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Where did this "users who don't endorse this summary" thing come from? Never seen it before. The way you don't endorse is by not endorsing. It seems to undercut any defense by allowing a rebuttal in the same section, while the original complainants get a section to themselves. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. I'm not sure they shouldn't just be expunged. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This isn't the first RfC to use "disendorsements". I think they're useful to give the subject of the RfC a better idea of the community's opinion. Simply abstaining from endorsing an outside view can lead to completely inaccurate or skewed views appearing to have much greater support than they really do. In this particular RfC, since there likely won't be participation from Deeceevoice, it's especially important to provide a clear view of the community's consensus (or lack of consensus) on her behavior. However, any threads that develop in the endorsement or disendorsement sections should be moved to the talk page. Carbonite | Talk 11:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• The disendorsements are threads. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't object to the disendorsements being moved to the Talk: page if it's thought to be unfair or otherwise undesirable to keep them here.— Matt Crypto 18:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This is just another example of this RfC not following proper guidelines. To me, all the problems with this RfC merely underscores its lack of validity.--Alabamaboy 14:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I'd suggest adding a disendorsement to the initial complaint at the top of the page if this issue isn't settled soon.--Alabamaboy 15:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have now added this disendorsement. It seems to me that this RfC is no longer valid b/c it violates numerous RfC policies and has turned into a witchhunt instead of a search for compromise (as indicated by comments on the talk page about how people who started this RfC would end it if Deevoice would only give in to their POV).--Alabamaboy 17:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

An RfC is a formal attempt at dispute resolution. I find it odd that you criticize this RfC for alleged violations of policy, but completely ignore policy violations by Deeceevoice. Carbonite | Talk 18:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring any alleged violations by Deevoice--I disagree that she has violated policy. And it is hypocritical for a RfC about policy violations to itself violate so many policies. Not the best way to prove your case.--Alabamaboy 19:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain how she has not violated WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA? Carbonite | Talk 19:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You disagree that she's violated policy? Good grief. — Matt Crypto 19:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

When admins don't think "F*** off" is incivility, we've got a problem.... -Justforasecond 22:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

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