Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents 1 Evidence presented by Peter Isotalo 1.1 August 10 1.2 August 11 1.3 August 13 2 Evidence presented by Tinus 2.1 Personal attack 2.2 User page 3 Evidence presented by Pharlap 3.1 Refusal to provide sources 3.2 Racial slurs 3.2.1 Comments on the above 3.3 Personal attacks 3.3.1 Comments on Pharlap's alleged personal attacks 3.4 Attempts to "shut up" other editors / discouraging other editors from editing 3.4.1 Comments on the above 3.4.2 Attempts to discourage African-Americans from editing 3.4.3 Continued attempts to discourage users from editing 4 Evidence presented by Justforasecond 21:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 4.1 Refusal to take part in mediation and Civility, AGF, Personal Attacks violations therein 4.2 NOR/NPOV 4.2.1 In "Cool" 4.2.1.1 Comments on the above 4.2.2 Hairstyle politics: Afro and Dreadlocks 4.2.2.1 Dreadlocks 4.2.2.2 Afro 4.2.3 Afrocentrism 4.2.4 In Superconductor 4.2.5 In Black supremacy 4.2.6 Janis Joplin 4.2.6.1 Outside party comments 4.2.7 For remaining doubters 4.3 Copyright issues 4.3.1 Won't license contributions 4.3.2 Images 4.3.2.1 Bird in the Air 4.3.2.2 King Tut Mask 4.3.2.3 Buddha 5 Evidence presented by Zora 6 Evidence presented by Yid613 6.1 NOR/NPOV Issues 6.1.1 New anti-Semitism 7 Evidence presented by Urthogie 8 Evidence presented by Sjakkalle 9 Evidence presented by User:AlMac|(talk)

[edit] Evidence presented by Peter Isotalo

Please note that until recently, I went under the user name karmosin, though I've used the current signature for a much longer period. All the diffs below are under my old username.

Back in August, I tried to make a quite minor edit [2] to the article nigger. Although I didn't have solid evidence backing my statements up, I believed that the estimates were reasonable and that I had good arguments for them. I was reverted almost immidiately by deeceevoice without any detailed explanation and when I re-reverted with a polite query, I was reverted a second time with the following, quite blunt summar: I'm an African-American, and I KNOW. Hell, you're the one making the erroneous assertion. What's YOUR motivation? *x*[3]. When I tried to actually discuss the matter with deeceevoice on her talkpage, she did not manage to reply even once without resorting to abusive taunts and perceiving every slight criticism or questioning of her own judgement in an article related to black or African-American topics as pure insults. Even the act of addressing her on her talkpage with critical views was perceived as arrogant. When asked to tone down her verbal abuse she concluded that since she perceived me as ignorant and since I didn't quite accept it, she assumed that it was her unalienable right to get even with me through taunts and off-topic polemics. What was probably worst about the whole exchange was deeceevoice's obsession with constant and irrelevant generalizing about the ignorance and arrogance of white people, which all smack of prejudices or even mild racism.

Had she only taken a slightly more laid back approach, the discussion would probably have just resulted in a civil disagreement or perhaps a compromise, but this never seemed to be an option. Not even when asking for it politely. Here are the most eye-catching quotes from the exchange at user talk:deeceevoice#Male youth usage of nigger:

[edit] August 10

• And now here you come to my space and ask me -- like I'm some dim wit -- if I'm certain I'm not exaggerating the meaning your words, while at the same time telling me you pretty much don't know any black folks (and likely don't know jack) and then proceed to denigrate/criticize a traditional/historical appropriation (reread the passage) and equate it with something that is a phenomenon roughly two decades old. You'd do well to follow your own advice: "don't mess with what you don't know well." Get a clue. [4]
• 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 and inserting erroneous, ridiculous, even slanderous and outrageous things in articles as fact when they haven't a clue? (...) It's been my experience that on Wikipedia, "civility" is the last refuge of clueless hacks.[5]

[edit] August 11

• FYI, I have a tendency not to read about certain subject matter. I wouldn't spend 40 cents on a book devoted to the use of "nigger" and likely wouldn't read it if it were given to me. If you're asking for scholarly proof, you won't get it here. (The discussion was basically about who's derived, not direct knowledge, should be seen as the most accurate.)
• From my perspective, it looks like typical white arrogance/ignorance. When it comes to white folks and the things African-Americans do, say, think and how and why we do it, say it and think it, opinions are like a**holes; everybody has one.
• 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.... :p [6]

[edit] August 13

• Oh. Did I fwyten duh widdow newbie? Oops. My bad.  :p [7] (This as a reply to a concern that her abrasive and abusive behavior could easily discourage newbies from editing or participating in discussions.)
• 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!*[8]

[edit] Evidence presented by Tinus

[edit] Personal attack

Here's a personal attack on the Kwanzaa talk page [9]. Tinus 01:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Please see the entire context of this user's actions, including blanking Deeceevoice's user page, prior to her angry response. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Perhaps I misunderstood this text on No personal attacks: 'There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.'
  Unfortunately there appears to be heavy editing in this policy so I'm not sure what applies.
  Anyway, what's the point? Would an abusive user stop because you abuse him back? The only outcome I can imagine is an abusive user becoming more abusive and a benevolent user going away, a lose-lose situation. Seems like the very reason for the No personal attacks policy to me. Tinus 00:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Certainly there's no excuse -- but all of this has to be weighed in context, and common sense applied to the applications of the guidelines. She's a hell of a lot more polite than I'd be to these twits like the person she was addressing there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd just let this go. Blanking someone's user page usually going to get a reaction. There is plenty of other evidence. Putting this forward accomplishes nothing. Fred Bauder 15:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User page

I'd also like to state that I do find Deeceevoice's user page offensive and inappropriate for being hosted by Wikipedia, whatever the point she's trying to make. In researching I found that (in my opinion) it also violates the Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point guideline, in particular the general idea stated:

Don't promote or perform things you don't want to happen in order to make a point.

Also see this article about the use of swastikas: 'For example, the German postwar criminal code makes the public showing of the Hakenkreuz (the swastika) and other Nazi symbols illegal and punishable, except for scholarly reasons.' suggesting using swastikas like this is against the law in some countries. Tinus 13:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Pharlap

Please see my comments here [10]

[edit] Refusal to provide sources

• 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)[11]

• 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) [12]

• 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)[13]

• 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) [14]

[edit] Racial slurs

1. 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) [15]
2. 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)[16]
3. If Wikipedia wants to be intimidated by a handful of Zionist azzholes who can't stand to read a differing opinion, then that's pretty pathetic. But, then, that's pretty much par for the course, isn't it? deeceevoice 01:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) [17]
4. Misguided, pain-in-the-ass, often racist idiots who can do nothing but pick at anything related to African Americans and our African heritage want to criticize a holiday because its founder did time? ... YOU (white folks) celebrate a holiday named in honor of a racist, slaveholding, slave trading cracker. deeceevoice 12:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) [18]
5. Most white folks, I think are simply ignorant by default deeceevoice 21:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)[19]
6. 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) [20]
7. LOL! You're an ASIAN, and you wanna talk about the size of someone's balls? ROFLMBAO. (slappin' sides)deeceevoice 22:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) [21]
8. 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)[22]

[edit] Comments on the above

1. An honest observation of what's been happening in most African American related topics on Wikipedia.
2. Well, this was an over-reaction caused by a conflation on Deeceevoice's part; see below regarding "melanin" and "superconductor".
3. This is on her user talk page, fwiw. However, "Zionist azzholes" is not a racial slur -- I know Deeceevoice's stuff well enough to know that (unlike many people) when she says "Zionist", she means "Zionist", not "Jew".
4. This is a 100% accurate analysis of the crap that's goes on at the Kwanzaa article every Kwanzaa. It's happening right now.
5. An unfair extract from a longer discussion. She is saying quite specifically most white folk are ignorant of the black African origins of dynastic Egypt. Which is certainly true.
6. It's a valid observation, not a slur.
7. The racist Wareware jokingly referred to making her balls feel big. She responded in kind. Note that Pharlap did exactly the same sort of hatchetjob on Deeceevoice at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wareware/Evidence. One begins to wonder about Pharlap's motivations here -- vanishing completely for six months[23] and then coming back to launch attacks on Deeceevoice.
8. Another misleading and bad faith excerpt. Here's the whole thing (I wonder if Pharlap thinks people won't even look at the diffs he has so nicely provided): 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.. This is a perfectly valid observation.

--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

More bull. Since when did plain-speak on matters of race rise to the level of racism? Further the remark about Asians has been explained ad nauseam in the Wareware RfC. That's old ground, old news -- and equally groundless. deeceevoice 21:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't really see how it would be possible to defend your comments about asian genitalia (earlier comments used "eye-for-an-eye"??) but feel free to do so on the "Workshop" page or the Evidence "Talk" page. FrancisTyers tells me this is not the right place for discussion. -Justforasecond 23:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't get to control the conversation here. Discussion of the evidence is happening here already; certainly the target of your persecution gets to participate in the existing discussion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 09:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not just about wareware being a racist. It's the fact that you really push off new users when they see stuff like this. DCV was being racist when she said that.--Urthogie 19:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope -- as was generally agreed in the failed RfC. deeceevoice 15:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

1. My, my. You've really got a bug up your butt, don't you?deeceevoice 13:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)[24]
2. Aw, man. You're so full of it, your eyes are brown! lol. deeceevoice 07:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)[25]
3. So, what's all this crap? A "boatload of stupidity," indeed! :-p deeceevoice 06:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)[26]
4. Damn. Another freakin' Wikipedian with selective comprehension. *x* deeceevoice 01:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) [27]
5. You shouldn't project your small-mindedness onto others. You come off looking like an even bigger jackass....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) [28]
6. Oh. Like not being racist and actually saying you're not being racist? LOL *slappin' sides* :-D deeceevoice 00:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) [29]
7. 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)[30]
8. *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) [31]
9. 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: <http://videodetective.com/search.asp?SearchForMethodId=1&searchstring=mars+attacks&search.x=6&search.y=7>)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) [32]

[edit] Comments on Pharlap's alleged personal attacks

1. Not a personal attack; a perfectly common way of describing someone obsessed with something or another.
2. Yeah, that's a personal attack, I guess -- if a personal attack is a concise statement of what she then takes hundreds of words to spell out in great detail. She prolly shouldn't say people are full of crap. Even when they are.
3. Not a personal attack at all. Here's the context: Ortolan88 said, African-Americans put up with a boatload of stupidity and worse every day of their lives.. Deeceevoice laughingly agrees.
4. OK, a very mild personal attack. Suggesting someone has poor reading comprehension when that person has misinterpreted (deliberately or otherwise) one's statement, though not an uncommon turn of phrase (considering how often such misintepretation occurs), is not entirely polite.
5. Deeceevoice is here responding to vandalism on her user page as well as racist crap from the anonymous editor. Her nastiest attacks are reserved for exactly those sort of bad editors.
6. Come on. This is just a witty response to, I wanted to point out that there is a big difference between "giving someone the benefit of the doubt" and "telling someone you're giving them the benefit of the doubt".

   Appears like a snide way to call an editor a racist -Justforasecond 02:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

   This is a page entitled Evidence and you're saying "appears like". This is not the place for semantic divining. - FrancisTyers 02:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

7. Another typical selective extract. Here's the whole thing: I'm "shoot[ing myself] in the foot"? And how's that? No, it's all about how I choose to spend my time. My ego isn't invested in any of this. 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. Not a personal attack.
8. Not a personal attack at all. Read the whole thing.
9. Yeah, she nailed him there. She coulda just compared him to Margaret Mead in Samoa.

--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attempts to "shut up" other editors / discouraging other editors from editing

1. 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) [33]
2. Please don't speak/write on matters about which you know nothing. deeceevoice 03:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) [34]
3. 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) [35]
4. 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)[36]
5. 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)[37]
6. 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)[38]
7. 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)[39]
8. Talk about clueless and insensitive. deeceevoice 06:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)[40]

Some more detailed/in context examples of deeceevoice particular pattern of interaction are to find here [41] Pharlap 11:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on the above

(I've turned bullet points into a list to make the response more coherant.) For what ever reason, my analysis of these started at the bottom, and the very first one I looked at startled me in it's egregiousness. No, not what Deeceevoice said -- but that someone could possibly even vaguely hold this against her. Just look at the diff. Someone put the word "nigger" into the first paragraph of African American[42]. There was a discussion of it over 2 days, which resulted in it being removed. Deeceevoice came along a day later and said, "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." Clueless and insensitive are a very charitable description of the edit in question.

Number 7 also deals with African American, a couple months earlier, and the entire interchange is far more edifying. Take a look at the series of changes she'd been making that led up to her characterization of the editors.

Number 6, also African American (I detect a trend): someone's suggested a Wikiproject on African Americans. Deeceevoice expressed her opinion that given her experiences it was a bad idea. How unkind

I'll continue later. This "evidence" is really more evidence against the complainant than anything else. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, continuing in the same direction. Number 5 (African American again) is preceded by: the fact that black people request this doesn't mean anything and If you're so ignorant of your heritage that you don't even know what ethnic group you're from then you don't deserve to call yourself by one!. A pretty gentle to that sort of garbage.

Number 4 also isn't evidence of any bad behaviour. In fact, it's real good policy for Wikipedia and for society in general.

For number 3, the actual quote is, Properly tracing a concept to a particular point of origin has nothing to do with being "fascinated" by a particular culture. Let me ask you something, Lockeownzj. How is it you are so certain that cool is not an aesthetic and that it does not have West African roots? 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?. This is in response to a long thread including your "analysis" of the aesthetic of cool being somehow rooted in popular culture (which happens to be only partially infused with African American culture) is COMPLETE BULLSHIT. A quiet logical response to a belligerant editor.

Number 2 is a response to an accusation of vandalism, again, plucked out of context (I imagine we'll find that all of these are.) In full: + I do not engage in vandalism. I have reinserted the passage. Please don't speak/write on matters about which you know nothing. Use your computer's search engine and discover the truth. I believe the winners of the 2000(?) Nobel Prize in science were engaged in this kind of research. There are numerous biotech companies currently engaged in this kind of research.. Later on the same day, she realizes that she's made a brain fart and conflated superconductor and semiconductor, and apologizes for her gaffe.

Number 1 is another clip from the middle of a lengthy discussion. I do begin to wonder by this point: what the hell is wrong with suggesting people not write about things they don't know about? I'd think that would be a good policy for an encyclopedia.

OK, now I'll go up a section and see if the next pile of "evidence" is a similar pile of something else. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

From just skimming this, Gordon has done an admirable job. Deliberate misrepresentation. deeceevoice 15:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempts to discourage African-Americans from editing

On deeceevoice's talk page[43], she says "WIKIPEDIA IS HOSTILE TERRITORY", "if you're black, watch your back", "DO NOT BE SEDUCED BY RECRUITMENT EFFORTS" "don't waste your time here" andt"racism...is endemic and integral to the project". And much, *much* more. The point of all this is to discourage African-Americans from editing. In these efforts, deeceevoice strikes at wikipedia itself.

Earlier she described wikipedia as "enemy territory" and said of "wiki whites" there are "relatively few who mean well and know what the hell they're writing about"[44] . It's hard to say for sure, but based on comment about "enemy territory" and seeking validation in the eyes of "the enemy" it seems deeceevoice considers white/asian editors to be "the enemy". This is counter to the spirit of wikipedia.

-Justforasecond 02:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep. If anyone doubts it, just read this ****. :p deeceevoice 01:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continued attempts to discourage users from editing

Places a large "boycott wikipedia" image on her page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Deeceevoice&oldid=37054908 Justforasecond

[edit] Evidence presented by Justforasecond 21:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Refusal to take part in mediation and Civility, AGF, Personal Attacks violations therein

I'd like to mention that I've faced an immense amount of intimidation from a number of editors, most of them "administrator" users, friendly to deeceevoice to not file this RfAr. I also want to point out that deeceevoice is not a firebrand newbie, but an experienced editor well versed in policies, filing an RfC against user WareWare some time ago[45]. There, deeceevoice stated WareWare's conduct "should be answered with the harshest of sanctions. A clear message should be sent that there is zero tolerance for racist vitriol on Wikipedia."

Recently, I asked deeceevoice to please be more civil and try to include citations. She deleted my comments and left remarks on my page telling me not to contact her again. This makes it nearly impossible to conduct any sort of dispute resolution. Her edit comments said things like "removed annoying clutter", "deleted vandalism" and "deleted without reading". My comments were by no means vandalism. [46] [47] [48] [49]

Her comments on my talk page were labeled "Don't bother", etc. She also claimed all her edits are factual and refused to AGF -- "I'll assume good faith when the blatant ignorance and racism stop" and finally "One more thing. DO NOT tamper with my talk page...I've deleted your changes -- your last contribution without reading it. (Poof!) Don't waste your time.". These show an utter lack of interest in negotating disputes. [50] [51] [52]

User Matt Crypto had a similar interaction with her. After deeceevoice's comment "Ha! Get a life, no-name" (and an observance of her history), Matt stated "I think most people would consider that remark uncivil, at the least. Why do you think the rules don't apply to you? Noone's asking you to be best chums with everyone you meet,"[53] deeceevoice responded by deleting the thread with edit summary "Deleted annoying clutter from MY talk page"[54]

This attitude towards negotiating disputes led to a Request for Comment[55] to which she refused to respond, stating on her talk page "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."[56]. At first appearances this may have looked like a solitary tirade, but deeceevoice edited the original comment several times, adding commments such as "But take your RfC and -- well ... I think you get the idea" and refining her list of personal attacks descripting of users who file RfCs to include "niggling" and "self righteous" [57] [58] [59] [60]

The initial RFC included comments that she had made to editors in good standing (I'll leave it as a resource rather than paste quotes and diffs). Her remarks to less-than-squeaky-clean (or downright antagonistic/vandal) editors are far worse. For instance, at [61] she says "not nearly half as much as your daddy loves your teeny, weenie weenie ( =D ) (No balls -- gutless coward :p )...And the same goes for the skewered weenies on my talk page. Boring. And really, really pink. (Crakkkah, puh-leeze!) Yawn. *x*". The use of the ethnic slur "crakkkah" or variants thereof ("cracker", "crakkka") appear in other deeceevoice's comments[62][63], as does her negative attitude towards "pink" (caucasion/white) flesh such as at [64], where, advocating the removal of an image, she says "I find such images and the display of so much pink flesh distasteful". She has made other comments about genital size as well, such as in this comment that deeceevoice takes the time to embellish her original description of a users genitals with the comment "However big they may be, it's a safe bet they're bigger than yours!" [65]

Numerous editors agreed that deeceevoice has violated wikipedia policies. Even many of her supporters agree, though not on the relevant pages.

After her continued refusal to respond, I filed a Request For Arbitration. You have probably all seen how this went.

Once again, again: "cracker" or "crackkka" as used is indicative of a particular mindset. I defy you to tell me this guy isn't a crackkka. And, once again, the reference to genitalia started with Wareware (who at the time thought I was a male). I explained all this in the RfC. Old ground, old news. deeceevoice 01:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The use of a racial slur as "indicative of a particular mindset" is not acceptible when white racists say they like black people, but not "niggers", it's not acceptible when John McCain says he likes Vietnamesse, but not "gooks", and it's not acceptible when deeceevoice says she doesn't hate white people, but she does hate "crackers". Jim Apple 14:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet another way to make an excuse for her posts that clearly push off newbies, and create a bad environment here by breaking the rules.--Urthogie 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOR/NPOV

[edit] In "Cool"

Her work on this article (Cool (African culture)) has been completely biased, and in the current vfd, noone has defended her, and has suggested deletes. This article fails the Google test, and is about almost everything Wikipedia is not. She makes cooperation impossible, and if you don't hold her views, nothing is possible as far as progress, she just double reverts and whatnot.--Urthogie 08:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Through her history of interaction with "cool", deeceevoice has persistently adjusted the article in a NOR/POV way. "Cool", whatever its roots may be, is not a strictly African-American phenomenon -- but look up "cool" and that's what you'll find, due to a long series of edits.

It started our fairly stubbish, even a candidate for wiktionary, but now has become Cool (African philosophy) Deeceevoice's edits to Cool have, for the most part, been aimed at pushing the notion that "Cool" is an African "philosophy", beginning with her first edit to the article [66]

In this edit, for instance, deeceevoice tilts "cool" in an African-American way, and removes information about "cool" in France and Germany.[67]

Here she added (uncited) Cool is a "is a complex aesthetic with its roots in Africa"[68].

DCV embellishes this Cool to "of motion and interval, of juxtaposition and coexistence, of tension and tranquility"[69] (without citations, again)

Cool became more African-American with "Cool is suffused in African-American culture, in black artistic and musical expression, in the hitch in the "pimp" strut of urban black men, in dress, demeanor and speech" (again without citations). Notice that the examples are strictly African-American.[70]

Another editor tries to expand Cool beyond African-American examples (without citations). DCV deletes edits -- [71]

DCV rightly recognizes uncited POV -- in the work of another editor [72]

DCV turns Cool into a disambig page, first pointing to Cool(Aesthetic) [73] and then moving that page to Cool(African Philosophy).[74]

One editor objected to unsourced description as "cool" being rooted in West Africa. DCV reverted with summary "This is not some disputed claim. Among those who are familiar with West African culture and Af-Am culture, this is not remotely in question.The definition is clear." In other words, this is her "original research" [75]

To another editor she states "Restored as an accurate description of "cool." You've as much as admitted your ignorance on the subject -- so, how can you presume to correct it?"[76]

Here she reverts another editors change to her description of cool, which is "precisetly what the writer intended -- and it is accurate" [77]

A series of over 20 edits follows, and the article emerges completely rewritten.[78] Two citations exist, one for Robert Farris Thompson's book, and one for "The Birth of Cool" (Lewis Macadams). "The Birth of Cool" includes information about "cool" artists that are non-black, but you'd never know it from the article. The rewritten article also contains completely original language such as "Apparent opposites, or countervailing constructs, not only meet-as with the Kalunga line, a sacred, underwater line of demarcation where the worlds of the living and of those passed on reconnect and interact— but can and often do inhabit the same space, conceptually or literally. Sometimes, one element inhabits the interstices of another in time and space"

Cool is added to the "African culture" category, etc. It goes on and on. No citations, plenty of original work, and overall, making coolness exclusively black. -Justforasecond 03:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

-Justforasecond 02:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on the above

Also should be noted the addition of cultural appropriation to the "See also" section [79]. The clear result is a POV Afrocentric article posing as an informative article on a cultural subject. Yid613 | Talk 04:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The complete "see also" created by deeceevoice includes Blackface. This subject (a archaic form of theater where actors put on black make-up) seemingly has nothing "cool" about it -- but is a favorite stomping ground for deeceevoice -Justforasecond 01:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My contributions to the article formed its very foundation. They were substantial and solid. For the most part, people simply were reacting to the notion of cultural appropriation -- the same way people had a s*** fit over black supremacy. I readily acknowledged that the article benefited from the inclusion of references to the phenomenon occurring in different cultural contexts. Read the article talk page. Anyone with a little common sense -- and without an axe to grind -- will see what I mean. deeceevoice 22:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind cultural appropriation, I've noticed you sometimes use the phrase "kvetch." Political mumbo-jumbo about oppression aside, as a rational human being, I wouldn't claim that you're stealing my culture. My objections to the article had to do with your presentation as fact of things which were merely respected opinions(add to that the fact that the main source himself believes you've overextended the encyclopedic value of his research). Perhaps this arbitration wouldn't have occured if DCV didnt act in the following way:[80]

I'm leaving Wikipedia and so will not be able to flesh this out as I had intended. Cool is, indeed, an African philosophy. This is not about your opinion (or anyone else's, for that matter). Have you read Thompson? Unless and until you do, please refrain from such ill-informed commentary.

Here she tells me that I need to read her sources to be able to comment on the issue on the discussion page. This prompted me to talk to the source himself, who disagreed with the extension of his ideas in the scientific way she presented it.

OR

I'm not here to debate you. You asked me a question, and I answered it. You may be interested to know that, after much debate about cool being an African philosophy at all, users urged me to create a separate article from "cool" -- precisely for the reasons I've already stated. (You obviously haven't bothered to check the article or its talk page's edit history.) And doing so has nothing to do with "isolating" anyone. I have nothing else to say on the matter. deeceevoice 17:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Here she makes clear she plans to edit and revert without discussion, because shes not here to "debate"

What DCV did on this article was edited it while refusing further discussion, except to briefly state her stance. There was no real exchange, so that's why people were frustrated-- things like this. That made it impossible for the regular wikipedia processes of collaboritive editing to work.--Urthogie 19:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

More complaints about article content. Urthogie seems to think the article is a review of Thompson and must agree with him in all respects. Otherwise, it is fabricated. Not the case -- at all. Read the talk page and see my list of sources. This piece was also the subject of an earlier VfD -- which vailed miserably -- initiated by another ill-informed POV pusher/critic. As with any article it was a work in progress, one which I was preparing to further contribute to with additional sources online and purchased. Urthogie steps in and crusades for the article to be something different than its title indicates and proceeds to make wholesale changes. He says he contacted Thompson in an attempt to debunk the article -- and then simply dismisses Thompson because he's 'not a scientist', when the article is about a cultural phenomenon. Go figure. deeceevoice 15:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Culture is not math. It deserves encyclopedia articles, but they shouldn't be written like math articles. E.G 2+2 IS 4, kinda like Cool IS feminine energy. No questions asked? Revert when I try to fix it? Huh? Please explain that sentance.--Urthogie 16:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hairstyle politics: Afro and Dreadlocks

DCV has made several POV edits to Afro and Dreadlocks.

[edit] Dreadlocks

In the Dreadlocks article, a photo of a white man with dread locks was removed. DCV claimed this was due to poor image quality. Other users suggested having multiple images; this was unacceptable. However, she later took the same poor quality image and used it on the Cultural appropriation page, adding the pejorative label "trustafarian". Trustafarian is a person with a trust fund who behaves like a rastafarian. DCV had no evidence the man in the image had a trust fund. Some of her edits follow. Individually, many don't stand out, but the overall trend is to diminish any connection between non-black people and dreadlocks.

Added links to (black) India.Arie and Erykah Badu [81]

Added links to (black) Lisa Bonet and Lenny Kravitz [82]

Removed link to (white) Rob Zombie, creator of "Scum of the Earth"[83]

Removed "Bruce's Dreadlocks" image. Image is gone, but Bruce is usually a whtie name [84]

Adds "Rasta hairstlye" image. Image is deleted, but a Rasta, in DCV lingo, is black. ("Trustafarian" is a white person with dreads)[85]

Deletes another image, claiming it is a "head shot" rather than a "hair shot". This rule does not apply to her own additions. [86]

"real dreads" are on "black" folks and absence of a photo is preferable to a photo of a white man with dreads [87]

replaced image of white man with dreadlocks with a black man, edit wars [88]

and again [89]

and again [90]

etc [91],[92]

(goes on and on)

At one point DCV deletes copyright violated photo, stating ("Deleted photo. Just read copyright concerns. Will replace it with a photo of a black person with dreads later"). [93]

Adds "In order to more closely approximate the appearance of black dreadlocks" (uncited, as usual)[94]

Removes "such as Caucasians" [95]

Other ethnic groups become "nonblacks"[96]

DCV states the first known images of dreadlocks are in ancient Egypt (which she believes was a black society). uncited. [97]

"Goth" mention moved near bottom of article [98]

Shortens quote regarding Indian dreads [99]

Delets image of indian dreads, claiming copyright is "sketchy" [100]

Deletes image again, replaces with image of Samson killing lion (dreads not obvious) [101]

Added text "Some blacks ... look upon nonblacks who adopt the style with disfavor, viewing such practice as a form of cultural appropriation" (uncited..as usual) [102]

Moves references to Indian and Viking dreads further down in the article -- even though Indian dreads seem to predate others [103]

Edit summary: "...Egypt is likely the source of Indian dreads" (uncited) [104]

Deletion of presumably white "goth" woman with dreads: [105]

Edit summary "...what's with the blond hair and pale skin? :p" [106]

Deletion of photo of Indian dreads. Image is quite clear [107]

A Response

More highly selective bull. Anyone reading the talk page and checking the edit history of this article will readily see that I've worked steadily to improve the quality of this article and responsibly include other cultures in it. Furthermore, despite a series of verbal attacks against me (occurring simultaneously at dreadlocks and cultural appropriation -- primarily by User:Chameleon, I refused to respond in kind. I even called in outside editors/admins to take a look at the continued edit warring going on by User:Coyep. And guess what? They agreed with my edits and that Coyep was being unreasonable in his continued insertions of irrelevant text and inappropriate photos. *x* deeceevoice 21:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afro

Similarly, in the Afro article, DCV has steadily removed or de-emphasized any reference to "nonblacks" with Afros.

Several POV edits including "have remained popular with many African Americans who continue wear them as an affirmation of the natural beauty of African people, a rejection of European aesthetics and a symbol of political consciousness. Others, including members of other ethnic groups, wear the style simply as an edgy or retro fashion." (uncited) [108]

Another b.s. "issue." deeceevoice 22:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Substitutes darker skinned image: [109]

Deleted reference to jewish afros. Edi summary: "...Jews only have such hair because they have black, African roots."[110].

Deleted the reference to "Jewfro" -- because it had been deleted before. Basis? Jews found the term offensive. deeceevoice 22:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

A single editor says "jewfro" is offensive and DCV removes it, but reinserts "trustafarian", regardless of how many say it is incorrect and offensive. This would be easier to believe if DCV just removed the term "jewfro" but left the reference to Jewish people. BTW, there is a jewfro article, which doesn't mention the term is offensive. -Justforasecond 18:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed again, summary includes "Deleted (to be fixed by someone else later)". DC shows an uncharacteristic regard for others' sensitivities here. Rather than change wording she just deletes. [111]

Deletes jewish afro reference again: [112]

Deletes mention of any other ethnic group with afros (Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Pacific Islanders, Australian Aborigines) [113]

Another silly point. Again, this was simply bad/amateurish writing and was silly. Why not mention every ethnic group capable of getting an afro? deeceevoice 22:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletes image of white man with afro "'You see the guy's face more than you see his hair'" [114]

It was true. deeceevoice 22:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Removes/moves to bottom of article references to white folks with afros. [115]

Deletes white band with afros (leaves anime reference intact)[116]

This entire section is ridiculous. It's about editorial content. I deleted the reference to the white band, if memory serves, because it referred to a specific band and didn't seem to rise above the level of trivia. deeceevoice 22:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind DCV left this in place Afros often pop up in anime with characters such as Nabeshin and Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo, both of whom seemingly derive mystical powers from their afros. -Justforasecond 18:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afrocentrism

Her edits to this article are incredibly biased, and present afrocentrism as cool-headed systems analysis rather than the african version of eurocentrism.--Urthogie 08:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding King Tut cranial reconstruction

Possibly FABRICATED QUOTES from Susan Anton. Uncited and no google references (other than wiki and forks)[117]. Google test: [118]. One of the references comes back as deeceevoice on another website quoting herself. She says, of the Anton quote "Her words. Feel free to verify." (but no citation supplied)[119]

Accusation of bias in others "Hawass, who has been accused by some of orchestrating a campaign to Arabize ancient dynastic Egypt". [120](uncited)

DCV first states "French team's reconstruction, which gave the king fair skin and hazel eyes " then later says "French did not assign skin color". Latter may be correct, but lack of citations make it hard to verify(both uncited) [121][122]

-Justforasecond 17:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

A response

The quotes weren't fabricated. I have proof -- if anybody really cares. Further, it is quite clear that I worked to include opposing points of view in this piece -- even openly solicited comments from those who complained. But they could come up with nothing concrete. Further, one will see that I even worked to clarify and improve language in the piece that questioned certain Afrocentrist contentions. This is just more garbage about ... gee, I can't even call it a "content dispute" -- because, while people (like Zora below) complained incessantly, no one stepped up to the plate with anything of substance in terms of alternative wording or even a credible challenge to the material I presented -- with, I might add, copious documentation. Unless, of course, you include Justforasecond's insistence at including some ridiculous b.s. not even anti-Afrocentrist scholars believe from a blatantly white supremacist stormfront fork website. deeceevoice 22:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have this (still unseen) "proof" it would have been appropriate to include it in the article at the time. I'd still be interested in seeing it. I'd guess there is more POV/NOR/uncivil material in this article, but digging up diffs gets old after a while. Zora's comment below indicates it was impossible to approach you without being attacked. -Justforasecond 18:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You're makin' this stuff up as you go along aincha, bwoi? Nowhere does Zora claim I attacked her. Why? Because our disagreement was completely civil. We merely disagreed. See my other comments in this regard. Simply another example of a disagreement over content has been conflated to my purported "POV pushing" (when she never attempted to contribute diddly-squat to the article itself) and was clearly mistaken in her assertions on the talk page. Utter rubbish. *x* deeceevoice 13:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"Proof" of the uncited quote still not provided. -Justforasecond 16:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If the ArbCom wants proof, I'll happily provide it. :p deeceevoice 15:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Superconductor

DCV asserts that melanin, a skin pigment protein, is "an organic, polymeric superconductor currently in use in bio-tech research". Also adds link to Black supremacy to superconductor article. Untrue and...of course...uncited. [123]

[edit] In Black supremacy

DCV removes statement that white supremacists "typically come from more marginalized backgrounds" , stating Not true of white supremacists; they're everyday white people. [124]. In my experience "everyday" white people are not white supremacists.

Black supremacy, "does not exist" (uncited) [125]

Removes NPOV language, replaces with POV certainty about white supremacy supported by Western economic, political and military power (uncited) [126], again [127]

DCV adds "Melanin theory" -- "Some claim" melanin is a superconductor, melanin is the chemical basis for "soul". Could be true, but uncited[128]

Removes links to black supremacist orgs. [129][130]

Removes comparison of Nation of Islam to KKK, rather than correcting to Black Hebrew Israelites as she claims is correct. Later insists Black Hebrew Israelites are not a black supremacist org.[131]

Black supremacy "little more than an intellectual construct" and "does not exist" (uncited) [132]

Melanin is a "superconductor" (uncited) [[133]]

From talk page, "white supremacy is the rule, rather than the exception. There is a common presumption of black inferiority among whites.". This is a slur on white folks. More profanity -- "The U.S. got b****-slapped in Vietnam, and it's getting its arrogant a** handed back to it in Iraq. ". The page is littered with requests for citations from Wareware -- possibly the beginning of the DCV/Wareware conflict.[134]

That's not a "slur"; that's the truth as I -- and many blacks -- perceive it. It's a talk page, and I'm free to express my opinions. You don't like it? Gee, that's not my problem. And, no. The beginning of the Wareware conflict is clear. Check the RfC -- unless you'd just prefer to speculate wildly. deeceevoice 01:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

White people are also aware of this, but definitely not cool to talk candidly about it. Fred Bauder 01:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Fred, I disagree with this. Saying "white supremacy is the rule" is inflammatory, in my experience untrue, and of course, unproven. I don't know the percentage required to be a "rule", but my reading of this is that something over 95% of white folks are racists. -Justforasecond 18:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Further, sorry -- but these complaints are utter bull. The article has stood, because it is accurate. The complainant may not like what it has to say, but it's factual. I deleted certain groups from the list because my research was inconclusive. I urged other contributors to cite specific, unambiguous charges from reputable, credible groups before reinserting them --and thanked those who did so. In fact, I asked for an annotated list, of sorts, because when it came down to particularly individuals, or organizations with splinter, extremist offshoots that were considered black supremacist, rather than the core groups themselves, there seemed to be considerable confusion in the literature. No dice. The groups and individuals were simply reinserted without any additional information. After a lot of struggle with it, I simply decided to let it go. I was satisfied that my wording remained intact -- because it is accurate. deeceevoice 15:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Janis Joplin

[edit] Outside party comments

Deeceevoice's earliest edits to the Talk Page for Janis Joplin reveal her views - not only of the musical talent of Janis Joplin but her expected racial dimension.

While Deeceevoice is entitled to her opinions, pointing them out as they were delivered on the talk page is important because when we move on to her changes to the actual article it becomes obvious that she changed the article to reflect her opinions by either stating her opinions as fact or presenting them as "black people thought...", with extremely POV phrasing indicating that those opinions are natural.

Here [135] Deeceevoice is completely frank: not only is Joplin a terrible singer, but how dare she try to contaminate a "black" art form (POV?) with her "white" characteristics, which are those of prissy and sedate, or guitar-strumming "folkies."? Not only that, but she stole her style from blacks, and disgraced them by making her blues prissy and sedate. Moreover, blacks couldn't stand her music and of course that indicates that it is offensive. And of course, the figure used for the "she was worse than" phrase is none other than the white Michael Bolton. This sentiment is repeated later [136]. To her original message she added the sentiment that white people were abusing black music for their own selfishness.[137].

Her statement that She had the technique and the desire, but certainly not the pipes, not the talent. was revised to She copied black vocal techniques and musical stylings as best she could manage [138]. Throughout her edits on the talk page, Deeceevoice uses words such as "bullshit" and other possible offensive words in order to voice her strong opinion. While she can voice her opinion, Wikipedia mandates that profanity be avoided, especially in a situation like this when it was absolutely not provoked.

While perhaps too much time was spent by me analyzing her POV as presented in the talk page, it is important in order to consider her edits to the article and whether they are NPOV cited facts or her opinion stated as natural fact.

First she deletes a positive analysis of Joplin that was carefully stated using "arguably" because of her own belief that Arguably, she sounded like a yowling cat with its tail caught under a rocking chair. This is total bull. Deeceevoice omits the opinions of others (which are presented in a NPOV manner) because her own opinion disagrees [139]. However, there was no problem with the original passage other than Deeceevoice disagreed with it. Someone else's edit is deleted because Deeceevoice believes that she knows what the truth is.

Perhaps most important is this passage from the "Aftermath", later "Criticism" section: Not everyone was enamored of Joplin, however. Although she was crowned posthumously "Queen of the Blues," neither her yowlish, screaming singing syle nor her tile was ever widely appreciated or accepted by black audiences. Her designation as blues royalty also has raised vehement objections about "cultural appropriation". Joplin's fan base was and remains overwhelmingly white. Further, according to music critic Sam Graham, Peter Townsend of The Who said of Joplin, she was "just an ugly, hard-drinking, screaming woman" with a band that was "just about the worst f***ing band I'd heard" [140]. Not only does the POV passage imply that black approval or disapproval is the accurate method to evaluate anyone's blues music, but the addition of cultural appropriation (which has been added by Deeceevoice to many articles) and the statement about white fans does imply clearly that Joplin stole black music and her music is not authentic. The entire passage could be made much less POV. More importantly, however, Deeceevoice omits or forgets any citations for her additions. When she states that neither her... syle nor her tile was ever widely appreciated or accepted by black audiences., there is not support given to indicate any reflection of black attitudes towards Joplin. Deeceevoice states that there have been "vehement objections about "cultural appropriation", however, no outside source giving such an objection is provided. Returning to Deeceevoice's comments on the talk page, it is obvious that she simply transferred her POV, uncited, from the talk page to the article.

Later, to the statement Although there were some notable exceptions, it can be argued that, prior to Joplin, there was a tendency for solo female pop performers to be pigeonholed in to a few broadly-defined roles, Deeceevoice added "white" female pop singers..., and the following is about as POV as a passage can get. Deeceevoice's opinion, which was pointed out in the talk page, is stated as fact.

Deeceevoice contrasts Joplin to Jimi Hendrix, whos noted acceptance by blacks implies that black acceptance is the proper method to evaluate all music in this style: In significant part, too, it must be noted that the music of Hendrix, an African-American, was far more widely accepted than Joplin's. Hendrix's psychedelic blues and R&B stylings were deemed far more authentic to the black musical tradition than Joplin's attempts at blues and garnered the guitarist fans, black and white. [141]. Note the wording = "mimicking" African Americans. Also, the statement "Joplin's attempts at blues" is clear anti-Joplin bias reflected in the article. And again, none of this is cited. No support is given to the statement that Jimi Hendrix was accepted as more authentic than Joplin. It appears that it is simply Deeceevoice's opinion.

Also Deeceevoice quotes Pete Towsnhend to make it look like he without a doubt is opposed to Joplin. However, in the same quote from Sam Graham one will find ...Joplin....was a great singer and an enduring inspiration... It is not surprising that this was ommitted by Deeceevoice, who appears to occassionaly quote sources but only when they are convenient to her POV.

One can not read the Criticism section of the article as modified by Deeceevoice and fail to see Deeceevoice's POV either stated as fact or implied to be the truth. Yid613 02:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

A response

I'm just getting around to skimming some of this page, and this struck me as particularly disingenuous. I didn't intend to spend any time with this, but this an easy one. Yid has totally misrepresented my comments about Joplin. Anyone who'd say she was "prissy" would have to be insane. This may come from an honest failure to comprehend my remarks, but I'm confident that any halfway attentive reading of what I had to say in that regard will yield a totally different understanding. I invite anyone to visit the article and read my revisions. Also, see[142] and [143]. deeceevoice 16:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a tendency to skim such sorts of off-base rants, so I'm just now seeing this. For what it's worth, I take great pains not to type out profanities like "bulls****", etc. And some of Yid's accusations would lead one to believe certain comments were posted to the article itself, rather than the talk page. Not so. This is really fabrication and distortion. And for those who might not take the time to read my comments, I didn't initiate the comparison to Hendrix; someone else did. It was a totally disingenuous/overblown one -- beyond the fact that they both died young as a result of drug use/abuse. My comments were added in an attempt to make the comparison a bit more objective. I tried to add some perspective/balance -- which Yid takes as criticism -- something I anticipated and addressed on the talk page (in case anyone cares to read it). deeceevoice 15:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

And some of Yid's accusations would lead one to believe certain comments were posted to the article itself, rather than the talk page. Not so. "Not so" indeed, since if you read my edits I distinguish very clearly between which comments you made on the talk page and which were additions made to the article. No matter who "initiated" the comparison to Hendrix, the diffs show that you took advantage of the opportunity to use the comparison to push you "cultural appropriation" POV. Nothing I said or quoted was presented out of context. Yid613 18:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For remaining doubters

A few souls may still doubt that this is original research. Last week I was made aware of a real-life individual whose writing bears a striking resemblance to DCV's. I'll leave out the details; revealing the identity of this individual might cause her difficulty outside of wikipedia and is of no concern here. I'll just say that...either DCV has been reading this individual's work extensively and neglected to give appropriate credit, or DCV has been publishing a lot of her own research here.

DCV has been informed of the NPOV policy on several occassions, even acknowledging the policy herself.[144]

-Justforasecond 18:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oooh! LOL No one in cyberspace knows who deeceevoice is. I've never written anything under my own name. And I haven't plagiarized a thing. This is utterly irrelevant and -- sorry -- but plain silly.  :) deeceevoice 16:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issues

[edit] Won't license contributions

Deeceevoice refuses to "free license" her work (edit summary "Nada") [145]

Carbonite then asks on her talk page "You're still licensing your diddly squat [17] under GFDL, aren't you?"

She responds ""Still?" Never did" [146]

According to WP:COPY#Contributors' rights and obligations, all Wikipedia material is licensed as GFDL forever. Jim Apple 05:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Deeceevoice has inserted several non-free images. I cannot look at deleted pages so gathering diffs is difficult.

[edit] Bird in the Air

Most recent image was of a "Bird in the Air" quilt [[147]] Image has now been deleted [[148]].

This also served as "flipping the bird" (see The finger NSFW) to anyone who read it the large, bold text accompanying it.

[edit] King Tut Mask

Earlier images included Image:King Tut Death Mask.jpg, a perspective-distorted version of King Tut's golden mask in which he has more African-looking features. This image has been deleted for copyright reasons.

According to DCV, the distorted image..."shows more detail" "shows the projection of the upper lip...as well as Tut's full lips"..."the mask much more accurately"... [149]. Later on her POV comes out "People who say he was white cannot use the death mask and show it in any light because to be honest the mask looks like a black guy."

Petrograd pointed out the copyright on the photo in an upload Exactly what's not alright with the picture Deeceevoice is passing off as "benign." Along with the photo was a link to Afrocentrist "Return to Glory" website. (this should probably be removed too?) Image:The Racist Agenda.jpg

DCV's response "Pharlap's complaints about the copyright notice are flimsy and downright ridiculous." (she calls Petrogard "Pharlap" as thinks he's a puppet. She says "Pharlap, Pharlap, Pharlap, Pharlap, Pharlap, Pharlap, Pharlap, Pharlap. :p :p :p :p :p" [150] elsewhere on the talk page. She later says "Bwoi, anyone with half a brain can see your kinda ugly comin' a mile away"[151] After his departure, DCV left "Aw, boo. Don't go 'way mad! Oh, well. Him, he gone. :( / :p"[152] on his talk page. Unknown whether this user was indeed also known as Pharlap.)

The distorted image was taken from[153] the site states in bold "Nothing may be used without written permission from Dr. Freeman." and the copyright notice, printed on the image is easy to see.

DCV on the same page says she had permission to use this image. It is hard to believe that DCV, as an experienced academic, does not understand the most basic nature of copyright notices.

Note that this is not mere uploading of images because they look nice and add to wikipedia, but the uploading of a distorted image to push a POV.

Justforasecond 01:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The perspective-distortion argument didn't come out until late in the debate over this image. After some discussion (on a now-deleted image talk page), DCV agreed that the photo she advocated is distorted. (As I recall. AT least, she stopped arguing that it wasn't distorted.) Not only did she allow the photo to slip away from WP because of copyright issues, but she also stopped using another distored image that was free from copyright problems. (That image, uploaded by me, has also been deleted).

DCV's complaints about Petrograd's comments about the copyright notice refer to Petrograd's complaint that the copyright notice links to a POV website. This dispute was never resolved, as the copyright problems for the image made it moot. However, I can find no WP policy that prevents linking to POV websites.

I spoke with the copyright holder (Joel Freeman), who confirmed that this DCV had been granted the right to use this image on Wikipedia. This "wikipedia can use it, but only Wikipedia" isn't within Wikipedia guidelines for image use, so it was deleted. Jim Apple 05:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Not that it makes any difference, but for the sake of clarification I should note that I am NOT user Petrogard Pharlap 13:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buddha

deeceevoice added [Image:Thai_Bronze_Fang_Thai_Budda_17th-18th_century.jpg]. This is now marked "nosource". I can't see it in any articles, but at that time period deeceevoice was pushing a POV that Buddha was black at the Race talk page (now in Archive 14). "the Buddha, who was also -- yes -- black" [154].

(the edit log of the article at the time is strange, a very active article goes quiet for 10 days)

User:Guettarda, thinking DCV was male, remarked "Don't waste your time arguing with deeceevoice - he makes his definitions of black, included Beyonce is it, and then gets abusive when you disagree with him. Don't waste your time debating trolls."

...if you consider anyone with a trace of black to be black, then you define yourself into the positon where you call Egyptians "black"....I find it strange that afrocentrists and white racists come up with the same ideas about white racial purity - anyone with the least drop of black is black....I find him especially annoying....he "proved" that Buddha was black, and then went on to quote a series of racist websites....when I have the time I will correct some of the garbage he said[155]

[edit] Evidence presented by Zora

Deeceevoice supports her position with ad hominem attacks rather than addressing criticisms. I attempted, briefly, to discuss matters at the Afrocentrism article (invited by my friend Mustafaa). The hot topic at that point was whether or not Tutankhamen was "black" or not. I made the following comment on the talk page, pointing out that genetics was a matter of statistics, not "either-or", and it didn't make much sense to opine in the absence of statistics [156].

Ooops, did it wrong -- need diffs. Here they are:

• [157]
• [158]
• [159]
• [160]
• [161]
• [162]
• [163]
• [164]
• [165]
• [166]

Deeceevoice's response: I need a reading list from you about as much as I need to be patronized about inherent black intelligence or to have the contributions of the race mischaracterized/devalued. I could respond with an even longer list. Again, the forensic evidence is clear. There is absolutely nothing about the physiology of King Tut's skull that even remotely suggests he was Caucasoid -- except, of course, that he had one. deeceevoice 10:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zora was, indeed, patronizing -- and utterly off-the-mark. I merely called her on it. deeceevoice 13:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Another response: "Stuck in the Stone Age" my a**. And I need a reading list from someone who exhibits such ignorance. That's pretty funny. deeceevoice 13:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

She didn't discuss the issue of statistics, genetics, and racial classification at all. She just swore and called me names. Seeing as how I'm spending too much time on Wikipedia anyway, I decided not to take the matter further. This is definitely uncivil behavior, and discourages participation by other editors. Zora 04:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've already addressed this in the RfC. This complaint is utterly groundless. This person failed to make any attempt whatosever at contributing to the article itself. I saw no need to get into a debate about statistics. To my way of thinking, it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. Furthermore, she was clearly off base and totally wrong about the significance of certain craniofacio phenotypical characteristics and their value/use in determining racial/ethnic identity. Totally. deeceevoice 22:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, DCV did not respond whatsoever to the RfC, other than a rant on her talk page about "niggling, mealy mouthed brats". In one of several RfAr comments, DCV implied that racism influenced Zora's edits. [167] Justforasecond 19:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Yid613

[edit] NOR/NPOV Issues

[edit] New anti-Semitism

During a series of edits to New anti-Semitism during December 2004 and January 2005, Deeceevoice attempted to insert her opinion criticizing the idea that such a concept exists. Sometimes this was done legitimately by using language stating what outside people or organizations believe, however, other times Deeceevoice stated her opinion (uncited) as fact.

In this edit [168], Deeceevoice alternates by presenting her opinions in a NPOV manner and a POV manner. Deeceevoice claims the existence of and the ongoing and long-standing offenses committed against Palestinians by Israel, without using language indicating that those offenses are believed by the groups mentioned in the beginning of the sentence. Rather, the beliefs of those groups are stated as fact in a POV manner. Later during the edit Deeceevoice assumes the existence of discriminatory, racist legislation barring Palestinian-Israeli couples from living together, without any indication that these are only claimed by the groups mentioned. In addition, the adjectives discriminatory and racist make the passage POV without a doubt.

When another user reverted the edit by pointing out these POV problems and ambiguities in wording [169], Deeceevoice restored her text because she believes it is Simple, indisputable logic, apparently meaning that to her there is no need for citation [170]. After objections to Deeceevoice's "original research", she again restored her text, refusing to consider the objections of other users, restored her text [171]. After another objection stating that the text would perhaps be permissible if those who are making the claims Deeceevoice alludes to are named, [172], Deeceevoice completely ignores the other user and restores her own text [173]. Another user noted that Deeceevoice's text was editorial material; pov and unsourced; [and] also [violates the] 3RR rule violation [174]. Objections were also made to exaggerations in Deeceevoice's wording [175].

Deeceevoice responded by making a series of unilateral nine edits that ignored the objections of the other two users. In one edit [176], Deeceevoice adds the extremely POV "it is appropriate to acknowledge that responding to human rights violations by nation-states is within the legitimate purview of the UN. Her wording states that something is appropriate, and does not say that certain groups or people claim so. In another return to her text [177], she claims that her additions are Imminently factual; check it out. She also mentioned an organization [178], that another user questioned the existence of [179].

Deeceevoice claimed that the actions of the United Nations have been appropriate and warranted as a fact. She stated that her edit was More specifically worded to respond to Bayefsky's criticism., indicating her POV [180]. Deeceevoice claimed on the Talk page that the article was very POV, but the way to solve POV problems are to make the article NPOV, not add POV statements from the opposite side. Yid613 21:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there are many on this website who will readily concede that there is a Zionist clique/cabal -- whatever you care to call it -- at Wikipedia who work to overpower any anti-Zionist input here. The article was incredibly, appalling POV when I encountered it. I sought merely to interject some balance (hence Yid's curious observation that I "alternate[d] ... presenting [my] opinions in a NPOV manner and a POV manner" After encountering such opposition to my efforts, I simply left the article. It's not a primary subject of importance to me, and it wasn't worth the struggle. After I left, the arguing resumed/intensified, because there were others who felt as I did --that the article was hopelessly and inherently structured to reflect bias. Gee, conflict on an article treating Jews and anti-Semitism (which essentially defines an anti-Semite as anyone who opposes the State of Israel. Gee, I guess that would include a lot of Jews I know. Imagine that. :p). What a surprise! deeceevoice 22:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a "cabal" for every popular point of view. Also, your reply doesn't answer several of the problems he points out in your edits.--Urthogie 22:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

the way to solve POV problems are to make the article NPOV, not add POV statements from the opposite side. Yid613 21:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC) is not Wikipedia policy Fred Bauder 22:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I phrased that properly. When I said not add POV statements from the opposite side, I did not mean that in order for an article to be balanced it must not contain any POVs and must be 100% "neutral", and yes I know that a balanced article does contain POVs from multiple viewpoints. What I really meant was a POV stated as fact. In other words, when an article says "Some people believe X", yes the way to solve that is add "Other people believe Y." I was not disputing that. What I meant was that if an article says "X is true" (when that is neither verified not accepted), the solution is to change it to "Some people believe X is true" and also add "Others believe Y is true", NOT leave it but add "Y is true" (also neither verified nor accepted) in order to instill some strange sense of "balance". With that statement revised, is it still not Wikipedia policy? Yid613 22:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Much better Fred Bauder 01:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, duh. My point is the pro-Zionist clique I encountered in this article seemed to consider any attempt at presenting the other side an interjection of POV into the article. I decided it simply wasn't worth the hassle. Any check of the edit history will verify that the page blew up after I left, and the edit warring continued -- precisely because of this mind-set. deeceevoice 06:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Urthogie

Deeceevoices broke the 3 revert rule so that she can enforce her POV. An example would be her legacy of reverts on palestinian territories:

On 11 May 2005, she made 6 or more reverts to the article. The supposed "wikiracists" made such requests as "Deecevoice, this is already close to your 6th revert. read the 3 revert rule." She admits to her reverts in the talk page, and give a YOU TOO argument for why it's ok. this argument would be reasonable if it weren't for the fact that her constant reverts disrupted other editors, and not just those who triple reverted such as jayjg.-Urthogie 22:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Old news. It's explained above. And read the entire exchange on the talk page and the state of the article at the time. deeceevoice 13:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Sjakkalle

Deeceevoice's userpage has been an issue and I want to present some evidence of the activities made by other users than Deeceevoice herself on it.

• 4 January 2005, 04:52: [181], Anon blanks Deeceevoice's userpage.
• 4 January 2005, 04:53: [182], User:KnowledgeOfSelf reverts back.
• 4 January 2005, 04:54: [183], Anon removes all the commentary from the userpage, leaving only the large-type racial slur slogans and images including the swastika flag.
• 4 January 2005, 04:54: [184] User:KnowledgeOfSelf reverts back again.
• 4 January 2005, 14:25: [185] User:Aaron Brenneman removes several of the large-type racial slur slogans and images with the edit summary "Toned this down a bit... user pages are meant to be holding cells for the work of creating an encyclopedia."
• 4 January 2005, 14:41: [186] User:BrianSmithson reverts back.
• 5 January 2005, 15:19, [187] anon deletes most of the userpage.
• 5 January 2005, 15:25, [188], User:NoSeptember reverts.
• 6 January 2006, 08:25, [189], User:Snowspinner blanks the talkpage, leaving instead "This is the userpage of Deeceevoice.".
• 6 January 2006, 08:25, [190] User:Snowspinner protects the userpage.
• 6 January 2006, 08:35, [191], User:Angr reverts back to Deeceevoice's version.
• 6 January 2006, 10:49, [192], User:Anthere reverts back to Snowspinner's version.
• 6 January 2006, 11:27, [193] User:Matt Crypto restores most of the userpage, minus the swastika images and large-type racial slurs, etc.

But not only that, Crypto has blocked the page, so that I cannot even edit my own page. This is highly inappropriate and, IMO, a high-handed abuse of his authority -- particularly given his involvement in this and the RfC process and given that the matter is under administrative discussion (again). deeceevoice 13:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not protect the page. My edit was to try to restore parts of your user page after it had been completely blanked by Snowspinner and Anthere. — Matt Crypto 13:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

(From my talk page) You denied deleting images. Not competely true, Matt. Now I understand what happened. You didn't do the first round of deletions, but you restored the text only -- thus tacitly sanctioning Snowspinner's removal of the images. When you realized you'd left the image of the snaggle-toothed, watermelon-eatin' mammy, you went back in and deleted that one, too. (Yes, you did!)[194] But you left the lock in effect. You "suggested" that I use only links, but your upholding of the lockdown made even that impossible. I could not edit my own page -- until User:Angr stepped in at my request. I appreciate the restoration of the text -- but your actions are still unacceptable. As unacceptable as Snowspinner's. deeceevoice 14:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

All this goes to prove is that one person's nutty behavior will result in more nutty behavior, ad infinitum. You might consider breaking the chain. Fred Bauder 16:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK Deeceevoice, should someone blank your userpage again, I'll just do nothing at all. Truth is, I don't think the images and stuff on your page are a good idea, but I don't think it should be blanked without community consensus, either. My aim in editing your page was not to piss you off, but to try and restore as much as I could. (This is probably the wrong place for this conversation). — Matt Crypto 16:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Who says I'm PO'ed? I've already thanked you for reverting the text. I simply consider a partial, selective reversion of vandalism unacceptible -- and then leaving a block in place so that I can't even edit my own user page complete bull****. It's no one's place to decide what does or does not go on someone else's user page. There are a lot of people on this website who simply flat-out disagree with your assessment of my user page. Who are you to impose your values and sensibilities on others? Answer: you're just an admin. You're expected exercise your privileges/authority responsibly and with equanimity. To quote Nike: "Just do it!" deeceevoice 17:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Further, Freddy, "nutty"? You dismissively characterize issues of racism, censorship, intellectual bias, admin corruption and unfairness on this website as "nutty"? Well, excuse me. But I happen to think it's a good deal more serious than that. deeceevoice 17:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:AlMac|^(talk)

At first glance, I was troubled and annoyed by images on User:Jimbo Wales ... does this mean that he is a communist sympathizer, or just that he likes those pictures? I guess, living in a democratic capitalist nation, I may be too sensitive to people promoting an ideology that my country fought a bitter Cold War with for half a century. It would be like what affect one person using Nazi symbols would have on people who remember what pain the Nazis inflicted on the world, half a centrury ago. But isn't Wiki supposed to reflect the truths of the world, including the Nazi world and the Communist world, the Pro Life world and the Choice world, the worlds of Athiests Agnostics Secular, and that of all religions, except where Wiki resides in territories governed by some laws restricting freedom of belief expression?

I was also offended by what I saw on deeceevoice page ... Is she telling us, by posting certain words, that she feels it is acceptable for people to be using this language? Or is it only acceptable for a victim of certain abuse, to be using such language? But she raises a valid point. An encyclopaedia needs to present a NPOV (friendly) picture of both the victims of racism and the prejudiced racists, which does not paint evil actions as evil, but dispashionately describes what the actions were, and the various positions for and against those actions. It would appear that deeceevoice does not think WP has achieved a good balance there.

Note that I did stumble across this stuff some time ago, asked about it on the Help desk, in hopes of clarification over the Userbox war, what's appropriate to go on our userpages, and basically got an answer that seemed like it was Ok for her to be doing this, so then I forgot it until User:Justforasecond sent me an e-mail inviting me to comment here. Hopefully you can see that I have mixed feelings. I have had zero contact with deeceevoice ... I no longer remember what caused me to visit her user page in the first place, some time ago.

Perhaps I am being too sensitive. I am now over age 60 and recognize that norms of behavior evolve in society, so that what was inapporpriate behavior years or decades ago, may be Ok today. User:AlMac|^(talk) 23:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You're not being too sensitive, even 16 year olds like me are offended and disgusted by an image of a penis ring kept to make a "statement" about vandalism.--Urthogie 15:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)