From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 1.1 Delay for the holidays 1.2 Simply finish this racial attack and be done with it 1.3 Template 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 Template 2.2 Deeceevoice forbidden from editing pages not directly related to this arbitration case 2.3 User:Deeceevoice 3 Proposed final decision 3.1 Proposed principles 3.1.1 Template 3.1.2 Discourtesy and personal attacks 3.1.3 Reliable sources 3.1.4 Don't bite the newcomers 3.1.5 Userpages 3.1.6 Licensing contributions using GFDL 3.2 Proposed findings of fact 3.2.1 Template 3.2.2 Deeceevoice has vandalized wikipedia 3.2.3 Deeceevoice has disrupted wikipedia 3.2.4 Deeceevoice has been discourteous and made personal attacks 3.2.5 Deeceevoice's use of sources 3.2.6 Justforasecond has harrassed Deeceevoice 3.2.7 User:Deeceevoice (the user page) 3.2.8 Harassment of Deeceevoice 3.2.9 User talk:Deeceevoice (the talk page) 3.2.10 Deeceevoice has refused to license contributions 3.2.11 Deeceevoice is an experienced wikipedia user 3.2.12 Guettarda has engaged in personal attacks 3.2.13 Creative work by Deeceevoice 3.3 Proposed remedies 3.3.1 Restoration of the credibility of articles 3.3.2 User page 3.4 Proposed enforcement 3.4.1 Template 3.4.2 Various remedial actions will be described on Deeceevoice's User and Talk pages 3.4.3 Citation Parole 3.4.4 Deeceevoice is to be placed on revert parole 3.4.5 Deeceevoice cannot edit in any African American related article for one year 3.4.6 Personal attack parole 3.4.7 Justforasecond is to avoid and not comment upon Deeceevoice or enforce any arbitration decisions against her 3.4.8 User:Deeceevoice (the user page) 3.4.9 Deeceevoice and Justforasecond to be placed on Personal attack parole 3.5 Analysis of evidence 3.5.1 Edits to Cool (African philosophy) 3.5.2 Adequacy of current references Cool (African philosophy) 3.5.3 Footnotes 3.5.4 Analysis 3.5.4.1 West African musical style (continued) 3.5.5 Further analysis 3.5.6 Jazz and sunglasses worn at night 3.5.7 The ice man 3.5.8 Hip 3.5.9 Summary 3.5.10 History of Cool (African philosophy) 3.5.11 Edits to Nigger 3.5.12 RfC 3.5.13 I don't do nice 3.5.14 The Wareware RfAR and oversights on ArbCom's part 3.5.15 Bowdlerization defense 3.6 General discussion

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Delay for the holidays

1) I'm not sure how long this evidence phase usually lasts, but being during the holidays this stands a chance of a) not getting enough evidence b) taking away from time with our families. I'd like to make a motion to put this on hold till mid-January -Justforasecond 21:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I don't see this as that complicated. In any event, if there is a real problem, evidence will be forthcoming from others. Fred Bauder 00:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Simply finish this racial attack and be done with it

1) I'm sure my use of this word will bother some people, but I say that the arbitrators should simply finish this lynching racial attack on Deeceevoice. Yes, she can be abrupt and, at times, insulting in her comments. However, any number of Wikipedians fall into this category. What separates them from Deeceevoice is that she edits an area (African American issues) which attempts to balance out the Wikipedia's systemic bias. As a result, she has been marked with a vendetta by those she's argued with over various racist statements and now these racists have perverted the arbitration process to get back at her. Anyway, do as you will. A number of editors (including myself from this point on) will not be taking part in this because we see this arbitration for what it is--a racial attack. While the Arbitrators are not to blame for starting this (and I don't see them as racist), they are to blame for allowing it to continue. And yes, I'm aware that all users should be civil and that this applies to Deeceevoice. But when a supposedly new user like Justforasecond is able to push a personal attack like this, devoting the majority of total edits to harassing and punishing a user, then there is something wrong with this system. Anyway, attack away. To me (and others) this arbitration is not valid. --Alabamaboy 15:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I have struck the use of lynching from this comment because it is not helping the racial climate at Wikipedia. That said, I still believe racism is at the core of some of the users who are pushing this arbitration, a statement that has also been made and supported by other editors. I also see this arbitration as being unhelpful to the entire situation. However, I also hope we can all move beyond this. See more at User:Alabamaboy/Healing Wikipedia. --Alabamaboy 16:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am striking this entire comment. My choice of wording was wrong. I apologize for this. This comment did not help the situation and was wrong.--Alabamaboy 19:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. You say, "And yes, I'm aware that all users should be civil and that this applies to Deeceevoice." Fred Bauder 15:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
2. With respect to hurrying, as Deeceevoice has taken a holiday break, we have no need to do anything quickly. She will probably be back and give input. We can wait for that. Fred Bauder 16:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. Justforasecond is just the one who started the RfAr. More than enough evidence has been presented from many other users showing that deeceevoice has abused plenty of people without due provocation or any other reasonable justifications. And I find the comparison of this minor, routine wiki-internal disciplinary procedure to a lynching in extremely poor taste. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
2. I more or less aggree with Alabamaboy here. She may need to chill a bit, but a full Arbcom is, pardon me, bullshit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
3. I've seen others banned for less. 66.98.131.129 09:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Like the edits you made to George Washington? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

See ad hominem tu qoque[1] -Justforasecond 05:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So have I, but I doubt doing so advanced our project. We want to insist on courtesy, but don't want to drive away a promising editor. Fred Bauder 13:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen much promise. Each article I look into has a lot of prima facie evidence of wiki violations. -Justforasecond 05:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

1. I am shocked by this tirade. Deeceevoice is a black supremacist who promotes policies which teach violent hatred against "white" people (a poorly defined category.) She has spurned cooperation and repeatedly violated Wikipedia NPOV policy. Yet in response to a reasonable attempt to follow the arbitration process, someone is now defending Deeceevoice by accusing everyone else of lynching a black woman? Let's not play games. That claim is racist hatespeech, with the intention of creating pity for Deeceevoice based solely on the color of her skin, and is a racist slander of anyone who disagrees with Deeceevoice, because such people have a skin color that (perhaps) differs from hers. Such statements in of themselves are bannable offenses. We cannot maintain a peaceful community working on encyclopedia articles while a handful of black supremacists attempt to use slander based on racist, anti-white stereotypes. 00:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)—the preceding unsigned comment is by RK (talk)

I'm sorry to hear that you are shocked. A number of us in the Wikipedia community are also shocked by the actions against Deeceevoice. While "lynch" may be a strong work, it is how I feel about the events that led up to this arbitration (and how others feel to0, as indicated by responses to my choice of words). That said, the use of the word is not hate speech. I should also note that you are under an arbitration ruling which says you are not to make personal attacks or accuse others of anti-Semitism or Nazi sympathy. Obviously this means you have felt the need to say that there is anti-Semitism at times here at Wikipedia. By using the word "lynch" I am trying to make a similar point that there is also strong racism here at times (although this doesn't mean that everyone against Deeceevoice is racist or that the arbitrators are racist for doing their job). Anyway, I assume this means we will just disagree about the use of the word. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If (1) your claim that "using the word 'lynch'" is "a similar point" and therefore comparable to "[accusing] others of anti-Semitism or Nazi sympathy", which for this exercise I'll assume is true, (2) the latter was ruled by an arbitration committee to be worthy of censure and therefore can be considered not permitted, and (3) it is assumed that Wikipedia at least claims to be impartial to all users, then logically following the above three conditions the use of the words "lynch" and "lynching" are also worthy of censure and therefore can be considered not permitted. Yid613 08:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the users that find this offensive, it would be entirely reasonable of you to withdraw it. -Justforasecond 05:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I find your persecution of deeceevoice and harrassment of other non-white editors offensive. Please withdraw your offensive actions as a sign of good faith, and then others might consider doing the same. Guettarda 05:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No offense Guettarda, but I think you should have to provide proof or any example that any of Justforasecond's actions or statements have anything to do with race. Your implications, implicit or explicit, will not be taken seriously unless proven. Unless you can prove that Justforasecond cares at all about "white" or "non-white", the offense that you say you take is baseless. Yid613 06:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

On what grounds have you taken it upon yourself to describe my being offended by JFAS's actions as "not credible"? Have you reviewed his/her edits? S/he demanded that I and a number of other editors withdraw our endorsement from a comment on the RFC, while staying silent about openly racist comments. I find that offensive that someone who began his/her vendetta after editing only 8 articles on Wikipedia, should tell people which opinions they can and cannot endorse. It's also curious that the people who so "offended" JFAS were all either non-white or Jewish. It doesn't matter whether JFAS is a racist or not - his/her actions are still offensive, and it's a joke for someone to call on others to remove "offensive" edits, while continuing to act offensively. JFAS harrassed a certain group of editors. This harrassment is offensive. As long as s/he continues to act offensively, s/he has no grounds to call others on behaviour that s/he finds "offensive". How is that "not credible"? Why do I have to prove racist intent on the part of JFAS in order to earn the right to be offended? Please point me to some logic or ploicy which supports your opinion. And if I have that little crebibility, please delete my 10,000+ edits, 200+ new articles, 1 FA and 1 FL, since someone with so little credibility obviously cannot make a reasonable edit. Guettarda 06:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

On what grounds have you taken it upon yourself to describe my being offended by JFAS's actions as "not credible"? You are misquoting me in order to provide a situation which I can not prove (but never claimed to be able to), a common logical fallacy. I did not say that your being offended by JFAS's actions (your statement, without specification, can only mean in general) was not credible; I did not comment on that. Rather I said that your assertion that race has anything to do with Justforasecond's respond to your question, I did not describe your being offended as such, so there's no reason to answer the question as to what grounds I have taken upon myself, etc. If I were to answer the modified question, "On what grounds have you taken it upon yourself to describe my being offended by an alleged racial basis to JFAS’s actions as 'not credible'?", then my answer is: on the grounds that at the time of my posting you stated that such a basis existed without proof. Therefore, completely valid grounds.

However you now present such evidence. Have you reviewed his/her edits? Yes, let's go through them. Since my objection was specifically to your claim that JFAS’s actions had anything to do with race, I’m only going to respond to the evidence you try to present relating to that. If that is problematic, try to read what I originally wrote carefully instead of simply repeating your entire case. Therefore: staying silent about openly racist comments is a circumstancial fact, or rather lack of fact, that only means as much as your claim it is. Even if true, it is not an example of harrassment of other non-white editors, with or without the assumption that "harrassment of non-white editors" is related to them being non-white, which is certainly the implication of your phrasing. The fact that it is lack of action indicates that it only necessarily has meaning because you construe it that way.

It's also curious that the people who so "offended" JFAS were all either non-white or Jewish. Your curiosity and imagination are not proof. Nevertheless, even if it the statement were true, it doesn’t necessarily and probably doesn’t mean what you imply it does: your claim is a logical fallacy because it assumes (after first of all assuming that your statement is true) that the reason why everyone who offended JFAS was "non-white or Jewish" is because they are “non-white or Jewish”. Rather, if Justforasecond bases his claim of offense with concrete examples that can either be proven or disproven, your mere assumption, true or not, has no relevance. And as a last technical correction with nothing to do with the arguments: the statement "non-white or Jewish" implies that Jews are white but just not the same as other whites. However the vast, vast, vast majority of Jews are not white by any biological and (until recently, and even so still for the most part) cultural definition. The exception would be converts, but I doubt that's what you meant. Anyway, as I said its just an unrelated point.

It doesn't matter whether JFAS is a racist or not It doesn't matter? Of course it does: it's the overt and obvious implication of the statement in question ("I find your persecution of deeceevoice and harrassment of other non-white editors offensive.") The reason why it is undeniably overt and obvious is because if "non-white" were only a characteristic and no further implication or meaning were behind it than there would be no explainable reason why it is in the sentence. Skipping all your text that is unrelated to the argument to --> How is that "not credible"? I didn’t say it isn’t credible. Read my opening statement to this edit. Why do I have to prove racist intent on the part of JFAS [something which you haven’t done] in order to earn the right to be offended? Because the assertion of racist intent was the basis of your original claim of being offended: see again "I find your persecution of deeceevoice and harrassment of other non-white editors offensive."

Please point me to some logic or ploicy which supports your opinion. I did; see the entire above edit. To summarize: (1) my entire opinion in this discussion (as stated in my previous edit) is actually a refutation of your opinion as originally stated in the first sentence of your edit immediately preceding, therefore the following is not an example of Ad hominem#Ad hominem tu quoque. With that considered, (2) your own observation that JFAS allegedly didn't speak out against the racist comments of others (a) is not proof of harrassment, real or perceived, (b)is not proof (if we are to assume that it is harrassment, real or perceived) that such harrassment (real or perceived) is related in any way to the fact that those being harrassed (in reality or perceived) are non-white. (3) Your "curiosity" is not proof, because (a) it is open to bias, (b) even if true it similarly is not harrassment, real or perceived, and (c) even if it is harrassment, (in reality or perceived), similarly it is not proof that such harrassment (real or perceived) has any association with the fact that the people offending JFAS are non-white. (4) I never claimed that you are not credible, as a simple reading of my previous edit shows. Logical enough?

And if I have that little crebibility, please delete my 10,000+ edits, 200+ new articles, 1 FA and 1 FL, since someone with so little credibility obviously cannot make a reasonable edit. You know I would feel embarrassed, intimidated or ashamed right now, except for the simple fact that I never claimed that you have no or little credibility. Your statement just now is an Appeal to pity, which is a logical fallacy, and I know better than to be affected by it. Thanks and take care. Yid613 08:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So how does your tirade relate to anything I said? I was not accusing JFAS of anything - I just asked for a display of good faith on his/her part. Do you think that s/he should not show do what s/he asks of others? That is the only conclusion I can draw from your interjection. I found [a certain subset] of JFAS's actions offensive. These actions happen to apply to [certain subgroups] of Wikipedia editors. One is an opinion. The other clarifies the set of edits to which the opinion relates. You say that this is "baseless" and will not be taken seriously. I can only interpret that to mean that, in order for my assertion that I was offended to be taken seriously I must somehow convince you that JFAS's underlying motivations were racist. That is (a) ridiculous, and (b) and outright attack on my credibility, since you say that I cannot be trusted to express an opinion unless I can prove some tangentially related assertion (which I never made). That's ridiculous.

You have made no attempt to provide any support for your assertions. Nothing you said shows any reason in logic or policy why I must prove that JFAS is a racist in order to be able to say that I found his/her actions offensive. Please provide some sort of support for this, rather than a tirade against things I did not say. As for the last part - an appeal to pity? Yeah, sure. As in "pity the fool"? You need to figure out when people are laughing at your self-importance. Guettarda 09:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So how does your tirade relate to anything I said? A "tirade" is "A long angry or violent speech, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature; a diatribe." [2]. (A "diatribe" is "A bitter, abusive denunciation [3]). Now I dare you to prove how my edit was either (1) angry, (2) violent, (3) bitter, (4) abusive, or (5) tending to censure or denouncement (the claim that simply disagreeing in a logical debate is "censure" or "denouncement" is grossly absurd). If you can not do that, I really suggest that you apologize for engaging in exaggeration-for-effect, which come to think of it, is also what the use of "lynching" in this context is. Furthermore, since it has been demonstrated that my edit was not a tirade, it is ironic that the definition of "tirade" much better fits your edit that I am currently responding to, considering (1) an inaccurate characterisation of an "interjection", (2) the fact that you take something personally (my so-called attack on your credibility) that is neither personal nor true, (3) the mocking nature of your second-to-last sentence, despite the fact that everything I have previously said has been serious, and (4) the personal attack in the last sentence.

I was not accusing JFAS of anything - I just asked for a display of good faith on his/her part. But you did accuse JFAS of something. Implied claims are still claims, especially when they're obvious. In this case that your claim is implied and obvious is demonstrated in my previous edit. It should also be noted that nothing in your above edit is actually a technical rebuttal or logical attempt-at-refutation of my previous edit. Do you think that s/he should not show do what s/he asks of others? That is the only conclusion I can draw from your interjection. Well such is (1) an illogical conclusion, and (2) a baseless conclusion because I never said or implied anything to that extent. Yes I believe that everyone should show or do what they ask of others. However, there is no relevance because if you read the edit you are responding to it would be obvious that that was never the issue I addressed. Please provide some sort of support for this, rather than a tirade against things I did not say. The support has been provided in my previous edit, and that it has been provided is true no matter whether or nor you wish to accept it as such. Furthermore, as I have demonstrated, I have made no "tirade".

I found [a certain subset] of JFAS's actions offensive. These actions happen to apply to [certain subgroups] of Wikipedia editors. One is an opinion. The other clarifies the set of edits to which the opinion relates. You say that this is "baseless" and will not be taken seriously. The reason why it is baseless is because the two seperate points that you mention have no correlation, as I demonstrated in my last post. to be taken seriously I must somehow convince you that JFAS's underlying motivations were racist. No I never said or implied anything like that. I said you should "prove" it, not "convince" me. I understand that reason is independant of whether or not people are convinced. (b) and outright attack on my credibility, since you say that I cannot be trusted to express an opinion unless I can prove some tangentially related assertion (which I never made). No, I only said that your single, individual sentence was baseless. If you wish to believe that it equals an attack on your credibility, only note that you have said it and I never did (nor implied it). You have made no attempt to provide any support for your assertions. Nothing you said shows any reason in logic or policy why I must prove that JFAS is a racist in order to be able to say that I found his/her actions offensive. Please provide some sort of support for this, rather than a tirade against things I did not say. Untrue, untrue, already done, and untrue. Relating to what we discussed above, reason is independant to whether or not people recognize something. As for the last part - an appeal to pity? Yeah, sure. As in "pity the fool"? You need to figure out when people are laughing at your self-importance. "Yeah, sure" indeed. (1) The above statement is an example of yet another logical fallacy, Appeal to ridicule. (2) I wish it to be noted that you were first and only to use a personal attack in this discussion. You can search all my edits here to look for a personal attack on my part, but you will not find one (a reminder: attacking an idea is not attacking the person who conveys the idea. That you associate the two does not make it a personal attack). Yid613 09:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

1. I found both deeceevoice's and Alabamaboy's deeceevoice's use of "lynching" incredibly inappropriate. Lynching is illegal execution -- murder. An RfAr couldn't be further from a lynching, there is a huge amount of evidence and process that goes into making a case and the penalty is, at the worst, disallowing a person from editing an encyclopedia. Deeceevoice's imagery was particularly disgusting, comparing an RfAr to a lynch "party", complete with picnic basket "'Join in: "Let's have a lynch party! Martha, you bring the picnic basket, Tommy 'll get the kerosene, and Dickie 'll bring the camera."'" -Justforasecond 05:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

   thanks alabamaboy for the revert Justforasecond 19:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

   They strike me as an appropriate characterisation of your actions.Guettarda 05:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

   How? Note: If (1) the original claim was that Justforasecond's actions were comparable to lynching, and (2) Justforasecond attempted to rebut or did rebut that assertion above, then (3) your response to Justforasecond should be a response to or rebuttal to his rebuttal. You must realize that simply repeating the original claim as you have done above is meaningless and is pretty much illogical. So I'll ask again, how? Yid613 09:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

   Let's try to stick to discussion of the deeceevoice conduct for now. -Justforasecond 16:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Please note JFAS' vote on Rob Church's RfA and the response (scroll down). El_C 19:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Deeceevoice forbidden from editing pages not directly related to this arbitration case

1) Pending clarification of her statement of 00:15, 12 January 2006 that I don't agree to free license diddly squat, Deeceevoice is forbidden from contributing content to Wikipedia, though she may still contribute material to this arbitration case. This injunction is to be enforced by reverts to edits made by Deeceevoice to any Wikipedia page, in any namespace, outside the page hierarchy of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice and its associated talk page hierarchy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. She is in the process of inquiring regarding the license. Until she takes a firm defiant position, regarding the GFDL, not free licensing in general, I don't think this is appropriate. Fred Bauder 16:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. There is a precedent in the case of User:Pioneer-12 where the user was blocked indefinitely (by me) because he refused to free license his signed contributions. Here in the interests of natural justice it would be wrong to block Deeceevoice entirely, but her contributions to Wikipedia should not be accepted while she disputes the terms of licensing. The injunction should be lifted as soon as it becomes clear that Deeceevoice is willing to contribute in a manner compatible with our free license. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
   • For the purpose of this application, I am joining myself to this case. I have also interacted with User:Jim Apple over concerns about a subpage he created speculating on Deeceevoice's departure, which I speedy deleted and protected with a "deletedpage" template. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
2. (Comment on Fred Bauder's statement) "'I don't agree to free license diddly-squat'" isn't firm and defiant? Justforasecond 17:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. See her talk page. Once again people have blown things totally out of proportion. Guettarda 17:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Deeceevoice

1) User:Deeceevoice (the user page) will be edited so as to conform to community standards, and then blocked for the duration of this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I don't support this. I had plenty of time to blank it or whatever, but it's free speech. As anyone with any sense could have predicted eventually someone bit and a lot of trouble ensued. But that is just the natural working out of Wikipedia:Wikikarma. Hopefully a lesson can be learned. Fred Bauder 16:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. I strongly support this injunction, see [4] for reasoning. Disguised links to NSFW pages should not be placed on pages like Talk:Jazz. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Discourtesy and personal attacks

1) Users are expected to be courteous to others and avoid personal attacks, even in the face of provocation, see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. There is no special exception Fred Bauder 01:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Reliable sources

2) Information added should have a reliable source, be verifiable and not be original research, or simply based on personal knowledge and experience.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. There is some leeway, especially regarding subjects on which there are few published references, but the general rule should be kept in mind.

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Don't bite the newcomers

3) Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I think this is covered under personal attacks and incivility. Bottom line, don't bite folks. Fred Bauder 14:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Userpages

1) Users are allowed to have whatever they like on userpages within reasonable boundaries. Other users may edit pages in another user's user space, although by convention a user page will usually not be edited by others. Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to the user space just as they do elsewhere.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. The question of Deeceevoice's userpage has become an issue on the Administrator's noticeboard. I think that this priciple is relevant to Deeceevoice's userpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Licensing contributions using GFDL

1) Users must license their contributions (other than fair-use images and other exceptions) using the GFDL

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Deeceevoice has vandalized wikipedia

1.1) Deeceevoice's insertion of uncited material that does not appear elsewhere on the internet, and subsequent refusal to cite sources constitutes Wikipedia:Vandalism. The addition of the Anton quote in particular in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence#Afrocentrism is a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia".

1.2) Deeceevoice's collecting of vandalism on both her talk page and her user page, while labeling good-faith messages vandalism, also compromises the integrity of the wikipedia. Users seeking to leave deeceevoice a message are subjected to out of place and unexpected not-safe-for-work shock images and hate phrases.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I can't find anywhere that the source is provided, but that is not Vandalism, just a point of view edit without a cited source. We are going to insist that Deeceevoice be reasonably courteous and provide sources of her edits. We are not going to issue a decree that she has wrecked Wikipedia and must be immediately banned. Fred Bauder 15:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

   Sneaky vandalism: Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos. If there is no source and DCV refuses to provide one under an RfAr, it is no longer a merely a POV edit, it is a falsehood, otherwise known as "sneaky vandalism" -Justforasecond 19:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. DCV continues to say she has proof of this quote, but has not provided it. Neglecting to provide a source for is one thing but refusing to provide a source for a highly suspicious statement is another. Though we have no confession and can never disprove completely fabricated quotations (just like it is impossible to disprove that John Seigenthaler Sr. was once thought to have been inolved in the Kennedy assasinations), statements like these are vandalism. -Justforasecond 15:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Strongly disagree. Wikipedia:Vandalism says that, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.". You could argue (and I'm not arguing this) that Deeceevoice's refusal to cite sources was unwise, foolish, arrogant, rude, etc, but I believe her edits were in good faith, and therefore not vandalism. Similarly for her "shock" user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Crypto (talk • contribs) .
2. This assertion is nonsense. Vandalism? I agree fully with Matt. Guettarda 15:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deeceevoice has disrupted wikipedia

2.1) Deeceevoice has tried to get other editors, in particular African-American users, to leave Wikipedia, thus harming Wikipedia.

2.2) Deeceevoice's user page has been a disruption to Wikipedia. She has been informed of this but has refused to alter it. The page was disruptive enough to get it wiped by Jimbo Wales for violation of WP:POINT[5]

2.3) Deeceevoice continues to be disruptive, ranting on a voting page[6] , where it is stated fairly clearly "Voters are requested not to add extensive comments to their votes"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Deeceevoice has encouraged other editors to stay, in particular African-American users, thus improving Wikipedia. - FrancisTyers 19:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Little evidence of improved behavior. Continues to blame others and escalate conflict on her talk page, admitting zero responsibility or wrongdoing. I have been threatened with a block if I post anything on her page -- as she could erupt and disrupt wikipedia in the process. Justforasecond 20:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Continues to disrupt, with a large "BOYCOTT WIKIPEDIA" image on her user page. Proudly admits on her own evidence page to trying to discourage editing: "Yep. If anyone doubts it, just read this ****." Justforasecond 07:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. It would be nice to see some examples from either Justforasecond[7] or FrancisTyers[8] backing up their assertions. --phh 19:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

   see comments on her user page (some covered in evidence). things such as "if you're black watch your back", attempts to create an african wikipedia, etc. Justforasecond 20:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deeceevoice has been discourteous and made personal attacks

3) Deeceevoice (talk · contribs) has frequently been discourteous and has made personal attacks Miss Manners, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Workshop#I_don.27t_do_nice, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence#Racial_slurs, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence#Personal_attacks and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence#Attempts_to_.22shut_up.22_other_editors_.2F_discouraging_other_editors_from_editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. But see context [9] of [10] Fred Bauder 23:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. deeceevoice continues to use profanity (bowdlerized to "bull****")[11] and call users "crackkka" even this far into the RfAr[12] . Doesn't bode well for future civility. -Justforasecond 18:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

   Wikipedia is not censored. There is nothing that says you cannot use "profanity" (see, for example, fuck, which is a great article). Guettarda 18:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

   Fuck is an article which should explain to you why not to use the word fuck. Is an article on nigger reason enough to call Farrakhan a nigga on wikipedia talk pages? I think not, so please be civil and rational here.--Urthogie 18:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

2. deeceevoice continues to engage in personal attacks, incivility, and lack of good faith. she attacked urthogie with some ignorant, intellectually arrogant/obtuse adolescent. (five edits to get it just right!), assuming he was a biased editor -- Because of your ignorance and bias... and once blocked came back without logging in to insult matt crypto you're so predictable you're boring (but took the time to type up a signature). someone who can't hold her tongue during arbitration is unlikely to be civil when not under arbitration. see block log. Justforasecond 16:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

   If anyone's wondering whether she was provoked, feel free to check out what offended her so much:[13].--Urthogie 16:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

   Edit summary "What the F*** don't you get? Do NOT post here -- or I'll open up an RfA. GET LOST.)"[14] Justforasecond 17:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

   Notice how DCV does not understand that wikipedia's policies say you should open up a request for comment first, and second that DCV makes personal attacks against me calling me an "ignorant adolescent" for the third time on her userpage, then gets mad when I calmly relpy without insulting her back. Shouldn't she know policies by now?--Urthogie 21:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Deeceevoice continues to use inappropriate racial terminology. Edit summary "...They're COONS, not crackers."[15] Her position has been that when she uses "cracker", "crakkka", etc, she is referring to the "mindset". Justforasecond 00:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
4. It continues. Edit summary "WHAT ARE YOU? RETARDED?" [16] User wasn't logged in as deeceevoice (who is blocked) but signed as deeceevoice and had the same verbal style. Justforasecond 20:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Its known that that's DCV. She was blocked by crypto for that post.--Urthogie 21:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Deeceevoice's use of sources

4.1) Despite some bad talk, Deeceevoice seems to be consulting sources [17]

4.2) Deeceevoice has often and rudely refused to provide citations and sources. Some of her edits appear to be original research, though it is nearly impossible to know what is original and what is just uncited.

4.3) Weeks into arbitration deeceevoice continued to refuse to provide sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Socialization in progress Fred Bauder 15:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. DCV cited two works. She bought the one by Thompson. The other she cites, "Birth Of The Cool : Beat, Bebop, and the American Avant Garde (Hardcover)" includes in its synopsis "Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning, and Arshile Gorky and the beginnings of modern art are examined. ...The lives of Burroughs, Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, and Neal Cassady are returned to in later chapters that cover the introduction and adoption of Zen and the final blending of bebop and Beat into one inseparable cultural unit."[18] I haven't read the book, but amazon is usually fairly accurate. Odd how DCV missed these details. Perhaps pre-emptively, she says of "The Birth of Cool" in the citation "This is not intended as a scholarly work, and is reported to have many (relatively minor) inaccuracies.". DCV often uses the criticism that sourcs are not "scholarly", though her own work is frequently void of useful references -- the hallmark of a "scholarly" work. -Justforasecond 16:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Her comment that "Cool is, indeed an African philosophy" does not reflect a NPOV and "Have you read Thompson? Unless and until you do, please refrain from such ill-informed commentary." is unproductive and discourages others from editing. Thompson is not required reading for any article, and presumably, DCV had not read him when she began the article (she's just purchased his books, after all). -Justforasecond 16:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Her lack of sources goes far beyond the "Cool (African philosophy)" article. Keep in mind that skipping sources goes hand in hand with original research and NPOV violations. If you're putting in original information, you won't have a reference. However, its not enough to just leave citations off POV and original research, an effective POV/NOR-pusher needs to leave citations off all edits, or those without citations will stand out. -Justforasecond 19:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Given her continued refusal to provide sources for edits in evidence (unless the ArbCom asks), it is unlikely that reminding deeceevoice of the relevant policies will cause her to begin providing sources, either on her own or when asked by non-ArbCom editors. Justforasecond 19:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. On Justforasecond's #1 above: The Birth of the Cool reference, and the characterization that it is "not intended as a scholarly work, and is reported to have many (relatively minor) inaccuracies" was originally added to Cool by User:CSTAR on June 29 and 30, 2004[19]. Deeceevoice merely transplanted it to the article now called Cool (African philosophy) on March 6 of this year when she created the latter page.[20][21] It hardly seems fair to hold a contributor responsible for reference sources others have added. --phh 22:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
2. On Justforasecond's #2 above: There's certainly nothing wrong with expressing a point of view or belief on an article talk page, although demanding that someone read a particular author before they can comment is inappropriate and can be taken as intimidating. Also, although I don't think it's particularly germane, Deeceevoice clarified that she's had one of Thompson's books for more than 30 years.[22] --phh 22:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
3. it's impossible to say shes good with source. check out the Cool (African philosophy) article and the way she relied on secondary sources-- her main source was an academic who interprets art, and is respectable, but not a scientist, and yet the source'sobservations are treated as the gospel truth. upon telling her this, i was treated to double reverts. she explicitly refers to me as a newcomer(on a discussion on user talk pages), but she bit me on this article completely, despite my efforts for objectivity. This isnt just me who thinks she cant source properly, the wikipedia community agrees: i dont know any of these people and they all carry the same objection about her use of non-primary sources in the vFd of the Cool (African philosophy) page. I respect some of what she brings to wikipedia, but don't defend her on issues like sourcing and biting the newcomers. She just fails in these regards.--Urthogie 07:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Also i'd like to say that her edits on that article, and the edit-battle(not quite a war) that insued enraged me enough to email the source himself. He replied that cool in african culture was centrally about dignity, and that the idea of it involving dignity is the only thing scientifically replicatable about his work(and even this he didn't prove). This article was a disgrace because of her way in approaching everyone who tried to reach NPOV-- she simply reverted and condescended. --Urthogie 07:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Justforasecond has harrassed Deeceevoice

5) Justforasecond is a new user who has exhibited an unhealthy obsession with Deeceevoice. Of the editor's 403 total edits, well over half appear to either involve discussions or actions either about, involving, or against Deeceevoice.[23] As a result of this, Justforasecond appears to be engaging in a pattern of harassment against Deeceevoice. As a new user, Justforasecond has shown that he/she is capably of good edits to articles and of working within the Wikipedia community's guidelines and standards. The only issue with the user appears to be the continual harassment of Deeceevoice. This finding of fact does not reflect upon or mitigate any accusations against Deeceevoice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I wrote yuber (and caught hell for it). I can see JFAS is a newbie and kind of got stuck on this issue. Fred Bauder 00:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Obviously I support this since I'm posting about it.--Alabamaboy 16:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. - FrancisTyers 19:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Others would continue this even if Justforasecond stopped. This isn't random.--Urthogie 17:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2. If user Alabamaboy honestly concedes that his/her statement, true or not, does not reflect upon or mitigate any accusations against Deeceevoice, ("reflect upon" must also deny causality as well) in which case it would actually be appropriate to make the statement here, then the above statement is nothing more than an example of tu qoque and has no purpose. If the above user were to claim that external stimuli by Justforasecond provoked Deeceevoice's actions (which I would strongly disagree with) it would be undeniably appropriate to make the above post here. However, since that is obviously not the case, and the user admits that her post doesn't affect the accusations against Deeceevoice (the subject of this RfA), the above statement should not be on this page as it is nothing more than an attempt to distract the community from the actions of Deeceevoice. Only one person is the defendant of this particular RfA. Yid613 18:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
3. RfArb's do not have "defendants"; this is not a criminal court, and ArbCom has already shown, in the case of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber that the actions of all parties (and even non-parties) to an arbitration may be called into question. I support this finding; JFAS should be censured for his persecutorial zeal. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

   No, Wikipedia is not a criminal court but it is clear that there is a complaintant and a defendant [24] and it is also clear that this is an RfA against Deeceevoice. My real point is this: since people understand that this is about Deeceevoice, the vast majority of the attention has gone to accusations against and defenses for Deeceevoice. If one wants to initiate action against Justforasecond it must be done in a seperate case so that all evidence pro and con can be analyzed. Don't you see how taking action aganist the complaitant based on the limited knowledge, attention and focus here would be unjust? I do not suggest making a seperate RfA because I do not believe that harrassment has been done, but if you wish to do so it should be done seperately. Yid613 00:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

4. I agree with this finding of fact. I would compare JFAS's harrassment of deeceevoice with SEWilco's actions against WMC in the Climate Chanage case, with the caveat that I found SEW's actions more constructive and, whaetever his faults, SEW has a solid history here. I also find it hard to believe that JFAS is quite the newbie s/he makes him/herself out to be. Guettarda 16:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
5. I also agree with this finding of fact. After looking very closely at User:Justforasecond's history I don't believe her/him to be the newbie that s/he first appears; rather, he appears to have previously made several hundred edits under the anon accounts User:71.112.11.220 and User:155.91.28.231, the majority of which were spent edit warring with Deeceevoice. You can see, for example, where 155.91.28.231 takes over a conversation for User:71.112.11.220 [25]; see also where Justforasecond makes her/his first edit, seven minutes after one by User:71.112.11.220, to add an image supporting an argument [26]. In case this leaves any doubt, User:71.112.11.220 disappeared within a week of the account's creation, while Justforasecond continues to edit much the same articles--Woody Allen, Afrocentrism, Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians, and Episodes of Lost (Season 2). The JFAS/DCV conflict seems to have began over the inclusion of a white supremacist link to Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians, which DCV obviously opposed [27]. To anybody interested in seeing how this really got started, I recommend checking out the site itself, particularly its stirring eulogy to Hitler: [28]. After a number of clashes, JFAS recreated her/himself in the current account and the conflict began in earnest. S/he began the RfC with Matt Crypto, spammed the pages DCV had edited (see [29]), and for days declined to take down these spam messages in the face of repeated urging from myself, BrianSmithson, and Matt Crypto [30]; even after s/he assured us that they had all been removed, this turned out not to be true [31]. JFAS proceeded to individually respond to almost every comment anyone made in the RfC, as well as comments on comments and so forth, including notes on pro-DCV editors' talk pages for what s/he saw as even the smallest infractions of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA (see [32], [33], [34], [35]). When it became obvious that the RfC was not reaching the consensus s/he sent a new round of spam suggesting an expansion to NPOV violations (see [36] for example), and when this failed as well, began an arbitration immediately, followed by yet another round of spam [37]. At this point editors from both sides of the RfC suggested that this was getting excessive, including the RfC's originator Matt Crypto ([38], [39]). Undeterred, JFAS continued the RfAr, posted a note at WP:AN complaining about DCV's user page [40], and even removed a supportive comment from DCV's talk page, claiming it to be vandalism [41]. To sum up, so far as I read it, Justforasecond is anything but a newbie; rather, s/he's a user of several months standing who's logged in literally hundreds of edits dedicated to hounding DCV. While JFAS's individual actions skirt the edges of WP policy, taken in sum I think they add up to a picture of concentrated harrassment. That this all started over JFAS not being allowed a neo-Nazi link in Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians turns my stomach all the more. --Dvyost 23:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

   Good investigation work. So this whole thing essentially boils down to some person wanting to include a link to "white-history.com". Truely illuminating. - FrancisTyers 03:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, good work. Thanks. Now I understand this a lot better -- it's good to know my gut reaction to JFAS was well-founded. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

   Congratulations. You've proved that I may have supported another user's[42] insertion of a controversial link with info about the race of ancient egyptians into a page titled "Controversy over Race of Ancient Egyptians". I believe the talk page and history of that article are plain enough to read, but if anyone needs any further explanation we can discuss it elsewhere. Other results of this "investigation" are false, but I don't want to get into it here lest I help the effort to distract from the real case. None of this is relevant to the copious evidence presented about deeceevoice's conduct. -Justforasecond 17:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

   We're certainly in agreement on that last bit; in fact, it's part of the statement of fact up I've just endorsed above. I do think it's relevant, though, to provide the history of your interactions for an arbitration case over an interpersonal dispute. In any case, the diffs are here now, so people can check them out or ignore them as they please. Cheers, --Dvyost 18:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Deeceevoice (the user page)

6) User:Deeceevoice (the user page) has offended many, and become disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Define many, offended, and prove it with diffs. - FrancisTyers 19:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. I was offended when I saw the symbol of nazism used to prove a point. Also I had to cover my computer at school after scrolling down because there was a pierced penis. I didn't even know she made the page like that, so I instantly reverted it assuming it was vandalism. Incredibly offensive, for personal reasons I won't bring up, and for general wikipedian reasons.--Urthogie 20:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment of Deeceevoice

Copied from proposed decision, finding of fact 4. Jim's comment has been removed from that page, which is for the use of arbitrators only.

7) During this arbitration certain other users have harassed Deeceevoice. Friday (talk · contribs) posting a suggestion that she leave the project [43] and Jim_Apple (talk · contribs) creating a page User_talk:Jim_Apple/deeceevoice_departure (now deleted and viewable only by administrators) [44] also posting inquiries on her talk page [45]. Jim Apple then posted links to his page on other users' pages [46] and [47]. See also this by an anonymous user inviting her to dialog on Stormfront [48]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Proposed Fred Bauder 16:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. This doesn't even mention my defense to the harassment claim. I claim I was following DCV's suggestion. See WP:DRV#User talk:Jim Apple/deeceevoice departure for more details. Many others have asked DCV to stay at Wikipedia. My question is not harassment just because it is more open-ended. ("Will you stay around?" v. "Won't you please stay around?") This arbitration is about dcv. If you don't like my actions, start and RFA about me. -- Jim Apple 17:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
2. I can't see the page that has been deleted, but this doesn't sound like harassment to me. Jim seems to be try to be fair most of the time (see his RfC comments) even though he has been mistreated by deeceevoice. If this is harassment a similar decision should be ruled towards deeceevoice, who made disparaging comments on her user page towards me and other users. I've taken other licks in this[49] that I would not, based on the policy, expect would result in harassment decisions. Justforasecond 20:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
3. As I said in my statement on the main page, this was not intended as harassment. Maybe it's seen an improper by some to try to talk a party to arbitration out of participating, but to me it seems like the best thing to do. Some conflicts do not need to be resolved; there can be wisdom in simply walking away. Since she does not intend to edit articles, I think the suggestion to walk away was reasonable. She disagreed, and I let the matter drop. Friday (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] User talk:Deeceevoice (the talk page)

8) User talk:Deeceevoice (the talk page) has become disruptive. As with the her user page, the talk page is "not safe for work" and offensive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Your own talk page is a place where you ought to have freedom to communicate freely and authentically Fred Bauder 21:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Talk pages are the standard means of communication. You can't communicate with deeceevoice without being subjected to offensive stuff. Offensive images, large type profanity, repeated use of profanity, etc should be removed or placed in some sort of display area that users conciously choose to visit. Justforasecond 20:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Give me a break. Since when did Wikipedia become censored? You got her user page axed, isn't that enough for you? Vote with your web browser, and please don't presume to tell me or anyone else what we can or cannot say. — BrianSmithson 20:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Yah. If you're unconsciously visiting someone's talk page, you're in a kinda weird state of mind anyway. Give it a rest. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

   Users aren't unconsciously visiting talk pages, JP. When you want to communicate with a user, you go to their talk page. You expect to see dialogue and a couple barnstars or other harmless stuff. When you look closely you might see some profanity, but you don't expect to be bombarded with giant swastikas and pornographic images and so on. The standard Jimbo has set forth for user pages should apply to talk pages as well. I'd even venture that talk pages should have higher standards than user pages, as a user page is not the primary means of communication with an editor. -Justforasecond 21:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

   I don't see giant swastikas or porn on her talk page. — Matt Crypto 21:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

   In JFAS's defense, it was there, but has been archived. (DCV does not remove vandalism from her talk page unless it messes with the comments of others.) — BrianSmithson 21:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Her talk page is nothing like the problematic user page that Jimbo deleted. — Matt Crypto 21:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Her talk page was enough to convince one of her supporters, alabamaboy, to withdraw support from her. Jpgordon, I'd like you to see at least a shimmer of the reasoning people are offering as to why its offensive, instead of blatantly opposing it at every chance you get.--Urthogie 21:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

   Where does Alabamaboy say that he withdrew his support based on DCV's talk page? It should be pointed out that there is a difference between arguing over DCV's civility (or lack thereof) on her talk page and the talk page itself. The part JFAS seems to be opposing is the vandalism she refuses to remove, which I don't think Alabamaboy used as justification for anything. Correct me if I'm wrong, JFAS and AB. — BrianSmithson 21:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

   Here ya go.[50] I think he is reacting to her recent comments not the vandalism. Not that my opinion counts for much here ;) but gotta say I was pretty offended when I first visited. I also think a little hint at what you might see if you follow that innocuous looking link on her new user page to her old user page would be welcome. Something as simple as "(the following contains graphic images and offensive language)" Justforasecond 02:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

8.1) As stated on Wikipedia:Talk pages "Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile." If one feels stalked or harrassed by another user, use proper channels to resolve the issue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. Proposed by Tinus 21:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (or similar wording in the Remedies section)

[edit] Deeceevoice has refused to license contributions

9) Deeceevoice has refused to "free license" her contributions. She claims she has never agreed to the GFDL.[51]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. She just misunderstands the license. She has made no move towards a legal dispute. Fred Bauder 14:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for relevant policy. Combined with her mention of www.wikipediaclassaction.org on her talk page and expressing how she agrees with it, we can't rule out some sort of legal action brewing here. Removing DCV's edits could take a huge amount of effort. Justforasecond 02:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

   DCV has still not said anything like "OK, I agree that my content is subject to the GFDL", but there's a bigger issue here.

   When you go to amazon.com and make a review there's a lengthy legalistic document you have to explicitly agree to that says you agree that amazon owns the content, blah blah. At wikipedia there is just a "Save changes" button and language that says your contributions are subject to the GFDL. The button doesn't say that you agree, just that you want your changes saved. Many people don't even notice that language. On the Admin noticeboard the example of a click-through was brought up, but most click-throughs are much more obvious and say things that indicate you are giving up some rights such as "I agree" rather than typical software installation "Next" buttons.

   User:El_C has brought up an important point about attribution. I can't tell if wikipedia is one "document" or one document for each article, but if the claim is that each article is a "document", which could be made, then the five biggest contributors to each document may have a claim that wikipedia is violating their rights under the GFDL by not giving them credit. That section of the GFDL (4B) is fairly imprecise and I don't know what sort of damages or remedies would be available anyway. Justforasecond 03:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Carbonite pointed the GFDL out to her. She has the intellectual ability to understand it. More likeley is that she just doesn't agree to it...or wants to cause a disruption. There is a case to be made that the reference to the GFDL on the "edit" page is too small to be noticed. Most other websites have a very obvious "I agree" click-through before surrendering rights. Justforasecond 16:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
3. This part of the arbitration is a waste of time. Everytime any editor makes an edit, it is under the GFDL, as stated next to the edit button. Even if DCV stated she was opposed to this, the fact that she clicked the edit button makes the issue irrelevant. I would caution people not to go back through the articles and remove DCV's edits b/c of some GFDL issue. This would be silly and risk bringing other editors into this issue (like me, who would prefer to stay out of this from now on).--Alabamaboy 18:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
4. deeceevoice's user page continues to state that she will not free license her contributions.[52] Her refusal to do so has been there long enough for any possible misunderstanding to be remedied. Justforasecond 17:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. More spurious nonsense. Guettarda 07:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Right. It's a bit late for her to decide that she doesn't agree to the GFDL. The only thing she can do at this point is to stop editing here and start writing for someone else (not what I'd like to see happen, anyway). — BrianSmithson 16:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

1. She has agreed to licence her edits by pressing the edit button. She can no more gainsay that than if someone had put their signature to a legal document and then said they didn't mean to. Wikipedia needs take no action as she has agreed to all her contributions being GFDL, as wikipedia can legally prove, SqueakBox 16:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deeceevoice is an experienced wikipedia user

10) Deeceevoice is an experienced wikipedia user who has over 10,000 edits and has been editing since May of 2004.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. If she is so experienced, how come she shows so little awareness of the policies about courtesy. How come she was not straightened out long ago. Was it because she had you all backed up? Fred Bauder 16:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
   1. In part, I don't think she thought that our policies would be enforced in her case. Part of her response to the RfC was the following: "With regard to your RfC, I never much saw the usefulness of that process. It certainly was utterly useless when I tried it for a truly serious matter. Doubtless, yours will come to a similar end. IMO, yours is fairly trivial by comparison. All that time and effort to smack my hands and say "play nice with the other kids" (who are often offensive and annoying themselves) when there are far more serious verbal altercations and conflicts and seriously disruptive behavior going on all the time on this website? Gee, good luck with that. And what will they do? Block me? It happens all the time -- mostly as collateral damage. Suspend me? Even ban me? For being impatient or snippy? Well, now. And Ed Poor, still an administrator, gets off with what he pulled recently? Now, ain't that a blip." -- from User_talk:Deeceevoice#Civility. — Matt Crypto 16:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Not many users have 10,000 edits. She is experienced enough to have filed an RfC and RfAr against WareWare. She knows the relevant policies (has even referred to them herself). Justforasecond 22:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   She does know the policies. Here the edit summary includes the term "POV" [53], here she says "I know, "no original research" [54]. Here she is informed by user RK of several policies [55] (diff is a bit messy). She's been informed of civility on her talk page as well, and removed it with edit summary "removed vandalism". I'm sure there is more evidence for her knowing the policies, but I don't see why it is necessary. It goes without saying that editors should engage in personal attacks, rudeness, disruption, etc. She used these reasons when filing an RfC against Wareware. Interesting, in that RfC User:El_C said deeceevoice is –notorious– for personal attacks, and in general, personal and uncolegial comments. The content of his/her edits do exhibit a –pronounced– (and by extension, very often unencyclopedic) Afrocentric bias. Justforasecond 16:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. While the "new user" finding would have been relevant, this is not. More evidence of JFAS's obsessive vendetta against dcv. Guettarda 22:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   User:Guettarda described deeceevoice as a "troll" in 2004. Justforasecond 22:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   And I was greatly mistaken. You, on the other hand are guilty of trolling (which is what started this whole mess anyway), neonazi POV-pushing (according to evidence presented by Dvyost, which you have admitted to), and dishonesty in your "support" for statements by Robchurch that Rob himself admitted were false. Guettarda 05:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   Please see WP:AGF Guetarda. Justforasecond 17:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   Actually it is relevant because it proves that Deeceevoice knows Wikipedia policy, and therefore doesn't have an excuse for not following it. Yid613 03:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   No, it's the underlying assumption of most arbcomm cases - it's only notable when someone can be assumed not to know policy. Guettarda 05:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda, you argue with everything JFAS says, and it really makes your arguments less powerful when they are good. Don't make a big deal of this helpful technicality.--Urthogie 09:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guettarda has engaged in personal attacks

11) User:Guettarda has attacked User:Justforasecond as a neonazi POV pusher, liar, and troll. [56]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Utter nonsense (I suppose I count as a party here). I did not call JFAS a neonazi, a troll or a liar. I commented on her/his actions. S/he has trolled deeceevoice (that's how this whole thing started), trolled these pages, trolled Robchurch... I didn't call her/him a troll, but the shoe sure does appear to fit. I did not call her/him a neonazi. I said that s/he pushed a neonazi POV - something that s/he admitted on this very page. I don't know if that was because s/he is a neonazi or because s/he out to antagonise deeceevoice, or God knows what other motivation. But her/his support for a neonazi POV was freely admitted. And I never called her/him a liar - I pointed out that s/he has supported and promoted a statement by Robchurch which Robchurch himself has not only withdrawn, but felt so badly over making that he chose to be de-sysopped over, and that JFAS has dishonestly promoted this statement as if it were true and supported by Rob. Oooh - does pointing out that her/his accusation is false count as another personal attack for calling her/him a liar? My heart be still. Guettarda 20:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   Guettarda says that calling someone a neonazi POV pusher, a troll, and a liar... all in one sentence(!) ...is not a personal attack. I'm at a loss for how such a statement has anything to do with whether deeceevoice is an experienced editor. Guettarda also says Robchuch is a liar (barring a wordy counter-definitoin of "untrue statements") Justforasecond 22:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

2. I'm not going to make any comment other than absurd as I fear it may be construed as a personal attack. I shall let the imagination of JFAS decide what I think of [s]he/it. - FrancisTyers 21:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   On second thoughts I'll spell that out as it may be construed as meaning "shit". This was not my intention. Read that section as "I think of he, she or it". (bearing in mind that it is used as signifying Androgyny, or Androgynous traits are those that either have no gender value and not in its pejorative sense). - FrancisTyers

Comment by others:

1. Agreed--really the first time I've been personally taken back by anything Guettarda has said(I've disagreed, but not on a very personal level with him up to this point). Make sure to edit this statement of fact, though, to make clear that he said you have a neonazi POV, not that you are a neonazi who goes around killing Jews like Yid and myself :)--Urthogie 20:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)I'd like to see diff's, preferably from both sides before I make up my mind. I think I went with my gut reaction too quickly(theres a certain part of me that hates the word neonazi being thrown around so easily. It's my fault for letting my emotions get to me.)--Urthogie 21:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Guettarda has been extraordinarily unhelpful during this entire process. Just on this page he dismisses a proposed finding of fact as "spurious nonsense" [57], without bothering to explain his opinion any further; resorted to personal attacks against Yid613 [58]; accused Justforasecond of committing the moral equivalent of extrajudicial premeditated murder [59]; substituted volume for argument[60], and in general continually refuses to assume good faith on the part of, apparently, anyone who makes the mistake of disagreeing with him [61] [62] [63] [64]. On the other project pages and talk pages in this RfAr you will find similar examples of intemperate responses and personal attacks from Guettarda. The majority of contributors to this RfAr, on both "sides," seem to be genuinely interested in executing the arbitration process with a minimum of heat, but Guettarda seems to see his role as being primarily to mau-mau Justforasecond into silence and to raise, rather than lower, the level of animosity in the room. --phh 22:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creative work by Deeceevoice

12) Comparison of the version which reflected the input of Deeceevoice [65] with the version produced which more or less follows Wikipedia policies which require citing of reliable sources and prohibit original research [66] show a considerably less interesting article. FrancisTyers has resurrected Deeceevoice's version and the claim is made that references have been added [67].

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I have never thought that much of the rule against original research. It is easy to see why Deeceevoice is upset. Fred Bauder 18:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Are adequate sources really there? Fred Bauder 18:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Yes, she is creatively pushing the same POV she's pushed elsewhere. Justforasecond 07:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
2. No, adequate sources are not there. There may be nuggets that have citations but there are passages that don't and never will. This analysis, for instance, will never have a reference: "This dualistic ontological perspective, of motion and stasis, of tension and tranquility, of juxtaposition and coexistence, of heat and cool, grounded in the interplay of opposites, helps form the framework of the mask of the cool." Justforasecond 07:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. No matter how interesting it was, it made the claim the cool was "feminine energy"(not that a guy believe that, but that it WAS). This is crazy. This is like writing an article on guilt, and saying Jews invented it. Maybe they did, according to some professors, but we cant say "Guilt is masculine nervousness. It is characterized by soulful anxiety and it can be seen in jewish-americans with such phrases as oy vey."--Urthogie 18:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
2. "Interesting" does not equal "good encyclopedia article"; e.g. Paradoxically, it is in the inscrutable mask of cool that the dualism of cool as a philosophical construct is, perhaps, most readily apparent. I believe it's accurate to say that most of the community supports WP:NOR. — Matt Crypto 18:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Restoration of the credibility of articles

1) (Regardless of how the Arbitration Committee decides regarding whether or not Deeceevoice's alleged or real uncivility is deserving of reprimand) The articles whose neutrality, objectivity and accuracy have been gravely damaged by Deeceevoice's POV edits and revisions as demonstrated in these RfA pages, including but not limited to Cool (African philosophy), Afro, Deadlocks, Afrocentrism, Superconductor, Black supremacy, Janis Joplin, and many others, should be restored and changed to NPOV articles that are in accordance with Wikipedia policies regarding verifiability, citation and neutrality. As long as many of these articles are left in their current form, their credibility and effectiveness are suspect Yid613 05:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I think that can happen through the normal editing process. It remains to be seen if Deeceevoice can productively participate in the give and take of wiki editing but that is true of all users, some learn, some don't Fred Bauder 14:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. As previously stated, this is an expansion of the arbitration's scope and should not be allowed.--Alabamaboy 16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

   This is not an expansion of the arbitration's scope because the protection of Wikipedia policy must be built into all actions of the Wikipedia community. Note how I put my statement under "remedies" and NOT "enforcements", simply because I never expected more than what Fred Bauder suggested above. The only "enforcement" necessary is preventing Deeceevoice from interfering (though she should be able to contribute).

2. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. NO. The dreadlocks article looked like this before DC came. I think the current version is a significant improvement and would not like to see my work, the work of DC, and the work of all the other editors removed. Please could you point to specific examples within the dreadlocks article that makes you think its credibility and effectiveness is suspect, and outline your main issues with verifiability, citations and neutrality on the talk page. Thanks. - FrancisTyers 16:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

   You did not address the point I raised but instead addressed another one. I never denied that Deeceevoice is capable of writing and does write thorough and well-written articles with substantial information. If you read my above post I objected to the content of that information. The evidence has already been presented [68]. It matters not by whom. As for your ideal suggestion of making reforms on the talk pages, evidence [69] [70] [71] [72] indicates that as long as Deeceevoice is present and unrestrained, doing so is virtually impossible. Yid613 19:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

   Please consider rephrasing, or expanding your original statement, purely for my benefit, as I seem to have made the mistake of assuming you wanted to revert DC's contributions to dreadlocks and restore it to how it was before she became involved. I also read your comment as saying that the dreadlocks article's neutrality, objectivity and accuracy has been gravely damaged by Deeceevoice's POV edits. I'm sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick and would appreciate a more clear wording. Thanks! :) - FrancisTyers 20:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

   I'm not sure I understand where the confusion is. as I seem to have made the mistake of assuming you wanted to revert DC's contributions to dreadlocks and restore it to how it was before she became involved. Oh, well no, that's not what I was suggesting. DCV's contributions can be kept, but only those that are verifiable and NPOV. What I'm not suggesting is a blind and simple revert, what I'm suggesting is a concensus of various editors working together to fix the article. Some things should be reverted to before DCV came: for example, the references to non-blacks with dreadlocks that existed before she came and were taken out because of her (with no valid reason and without working with other users) should be restored. Of course she should be able to work on this, its just that as a result of this RfA she should not be able to intimidate or drive away other users who simply trying to improve the article by personal attacks and false accusations of racism. And yes, I do believe that the neutrality, objectivity and accuracy has been gravely damaged by Deeceevoice's POV edits. Yid613 00:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

   Hi, thanks for that clarification. Did you actually read the article? Could you please state where the neutrality, objectivity and accuracy has been gravely damaged by Deeceevoice's POV edits. on the talk page of the article, as I would have to disagree. I admit the article does need an improvement in sourcing, but this isn't restricted to DC's edits, its a lot of it. Maybe you haven't actually read the article, but I think it makes perfectly clear that non-blacks have dreadlocks. Hell, I would be amazed at the hair on my head if it didn't! :) Please address all further discussion to the talk page of the article. - FrancisTyers 01:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The last "Deeceevoice version" looked like this [73] Improving the article to it's current state was hard work because she continuously deleted (or - as she calls it - "tweaked") non-black references and pictures and the few new informations she added have been unsourced and/or incorrect. CoYep 13:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to outline the few new informations she added have been unsourced and/or incorrect on the talk page. I also "tweaked" some of your stuff because you put in quite a bit of extraneous material that didn't relate directly to dreadlocks. Please keep the discussion about this article to the talk page. - FrancisTyers 13:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A note regarding the link you gave, that was a good edit. - FrancisTyers 13:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The few new informations she added which have been unsourced and/or incorrect are

the unsourced and unverified assertion that Indian dreadlock tradition has it's origins in Egypt and Ethiopia [74] [75] [76],

the incorrect connection between Tamil language and the Vedic scriptures[77],

and the incorrect information about the connection between dreadlocks and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church [78][79](After her edits were complemented by a statement by the representatives of the Egyptian Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Church denying a connection to the Rastafarian movement, she deleted the whole section "This info belongs in an article on Rastafari" [80]).

Her other edits have been either minor edits or deletions, such as the removal of Shiva pictures [81][82][83][84][85] She also asked Guettarda to remove the shiva picture [86] because "there are no visible dreadlocks in this image", but then replaced it with a Samson image which doesn't show any hair at all [87] and [88]. She also objected "the blond hair and pale skin" of the shiva picture [89].

She removed the text section stating that "Rastafari sects welcome all ethnicities"[90][91][92][93]

She reorganized the history section from a chronological to a "black first - then whites" order [94]

She removed informations about Aztec dreadlocks [95] [96] [97] (She restored the informations about Aztec dreadlocks after I reported her (3RR)) [98])

She removed the CyberGoth photo, ignorant to the fact that the woman is a cybergoth [99] and replaced the (white) cybergoth picture with (copyrighted + unlicensed) picture of (black) George Clinton [100] CoYep 15:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the diffs. Exactly how many of those edits remain in the article? Furthermore, I would encourage removing information relating to Rastafarians that isn't to do with dreadlocks to the Rastafarian page. - FrancisTyers 15:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope none, since several months I dedicated my very spare time to removing the misinformations she repeatedly edited into the article. It wouldn't hurt to double check her other contributions as well. I have little trust in someone who, for instance, claims that she is "a pan-Africanist for more than 30 years. Hell, I even studied the subject in university under C.L.R. James", but can't identify pan-african colors. [101] CoYep 16:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. From personal experience, the problem with the regular editing process were her constant reverts and intimidation, and telling you to read her sources before editing.--Urthogie 16:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page

1) User:Deeceevoice will maintain her userpage in a manner not designed to shock, offend, or disrupt.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. Mostly agree. A user's main page should not be designed to shock and offend. User pages need to be vaguely work-safe if we're to function as a community. I would change "make a point" to "be deliberately disruptive". I would also settle for the offensive stuff being moved to a sub page of Deecee's user space. — Matt Crypto 13:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
2. I am rather ambivalent to what whether the Arbcom decides that the current userpage is shocking, offensive but acceptable or if it is shocking, offensive and unacceptable. But I ask that the Arbcom decide one way or another and not to let it pass, we have had some edit warring in the past hours over it between otheruser than DC, and it has got to stop. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Various remedial actions will be described on Deeceevoice's User and Talk pages

1) Any remedial action will be described prominently on her User and Talk pages, near the top and in bold type, with a link back to the decision of this Arbitration. As each parole ends, the reference will be labeled "expired", until all paroles end, at which point all will be removed. Any attempt to alter, conceal, or remove the notations, other than apparently good faith gaffs, before they expire will result in a long term ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Perhaps she could be branded with a big A on her cheek too. No, after the arbitration is over we go back to normal editing; we don't set things up to keep the hell agoing Fred Bauder 01:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. This will increase awareness, and, should a user run into DCV's incivility, will save the trouble of going through a dispute resolution cycle.

Comment by others:

[edit] Citation Parole

1) Deeceevoice is placed on cite sources parole. DCV must include specific citations to notable encyclopedic sources with all edits, other than minor edits such as corrections of mispellings. Providing edits with a lack of citations, or providing citations that do not specifically explain her edits, or providing citations to non-encyclopedic sources such as black-supremacist or other pseudoscientific websites, or to any work deeceevoice has been involved in herself, will result in blocks of increasing lengths. A small number of missing citations will be permitted, if they are quickly followed by citations when prompted. Any incivility or otherwise inappropriate comments, such as "use your computer's search engine", to other users requesting citations or comments questioning these users motives or knowledge, will result in an immediate long-term ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Again, we will go back to normal editing. She is expected to provide sources like anyone else. But the only penalty will be that her contributions may be subject to removal if she can't give a source. Normal wiki editing. Fred Bauder 01:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Deeceevoice is to be placed on revert parole

1) Deeceevoice should not be allowed to make multiple reverts for the period of [feel free to insert reasonable time frame here] except in cases of obvious vandalism, as her current sense of POV has been shown to be inaccurate. This would also force her to be a cooperative wikipedian who discusses issues before making up her mind about people because they haven't read "her" sources.--Urthogie 07:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Deeceevoice cannot edit in any African American related article for one year

1) Deeceevoice cannot edit any article having to do with African American topics for one year after the closure of this arbitration. If found to be doing so, a block of one week is deemed appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. This doesn't make any sense Fred Bauder 19:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I'm trying to stay out of this, but this suggestion vastly expands the scope of the arbitration and increases the feeling that this is a racist lynching. The issue has been that Deeceevoice is not civil and nice. Keep the focus on this. Expanding the arbitration to such a large ban as editing "any African American related article for one year" is ridiculous when the issue all along is that she isn't "nice."--Alabamaboy 18:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
2. This is a good start, but I don't think this is strong enough. Deeceevoice turns other articles INTO African-American articles, such as the Janis Joplin article. The personal attacks alone seem grounds for stronger remedies. Similar evidence from a different user's case: [102]—the preceding unsigned comment is by Justforasecond (talk • contribs) 14:35, 27 December 2005
3. Absurd. - FrancisTyers 14:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
4. See comments on Cool (African philosophy) for an example of an ordinary article becoming African-American after DCV started working on it. -Justforasecond 02:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
5. See comments on Superconductor. DCV took pseudoscience information from black supremacist websites and inserted it as fact into a scientific article and presumed some sort of conspiracy to hide the notion that melanin is a superconductor. She instructed others, who possibly know a bit about superconductors to "don't speak/write on matters about which you know nothing", later saying "Ya better take a couple of steps back and check yourselves". She also declared that editors would have been more receptive if she had claimed ketchup was a superconductor or if she wasn't black (as if they knew!). She also added a link to Black supremacy in the "related topics" section. When reverted she told editors "Use your computer's search engine". Sort of blows holes in the theory that DCV is a promising editor. If she's kept out of African-American articles she may just go about inserting even worse information into tangentially related topics. Thankfully the other editors on superconductivity didn't succumb to this nonsense. -Justforasecond 22:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

   What a novel idea! I wonder why others didn't consider that! - FrancisTyers 23:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. This seems to be the most disruptive part of her experience on Wikipedia. She can't be trusted to edit here in a civil and neutral manner at the present time from the looks of things.karmafist 17:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
2. It is especially important that she acknowledge her circumstance of being african-american does not entitle her to any special rights or notability. If that were done, I feel this might become an uneccessary provision. Sam Spade 18:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
3. This is prohibiting her from where she's been most useful, most productive, and most helpful to Wikipedia. It would be far less hypocritical to simply ban her completely. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
4. This is going too far. You're cutting out one of our best contributors in that field, I'm afraid. 86.133.53.111 03:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
5. I also agree that this is going waaayyyyy too far. Even if she is extremely abrasive and not always NPOV, DC's contrabutions have been extremely valuable, and User:Jmabel said it best when he said "...with her we get the whole package or we get nothing" [103]. Whether you agree with all of her edits or not, she has done a great deal of work (if not the bulk) on articles about African Americans — a topic that would otherwise be somewhat neglected given WP's demographic — and it would be a tragedy to lose that. And if that means tolerating behavior that would not be tolerated on a run-of-the-mill edit war on a well covered topic like say, George W Bush, then so be it. --Bletch 22:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
6. This seems a bit misdirected. The issue is that Deeceevoice is rude, hostile, and intimidating to other contributors; her contributions on African-American topics have themselves been generally valuable, and although some of her edits have proved controversial she seems mostly willing to work with others to produce language that's acceptable to all, rather than truculently insisting that her versions always carry the day. I would think the proposed personal attack parole would be sufficient; given her history it seems unlikely that she'll be able to live up to its terms, but if she can I don't see any reason why she shouldn't be allowed to continue contributing to any and all topics on which she is knowledgeable. --PHenry 23:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

   If we're going to discuss this, please provide evidence of these "generally valuable" contributions. There's a lot of uncited original research, to be sure. -Justforasecond 03:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

7. Fred said it best. This RfAr isn't about Deeceevoice's contributions, it's about her behaviour. --King of All the Franks 14:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Absurd. Why shoot ourselves in the foot? This is about behaviour, if it is about anything at all, not her editing, which is exemplary and contributes towards our goal...we're an encyclopedia, remember? Rob Church ^Talk 03:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Agreed, its absurd. Doing this would turn it into a real intellectual lynching.--Urthogie 07:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
10. This is the silliest suggestion yet. She's done great things with blackface, and the majority of the articles listed here would not exist if she had never criticized an early draft of the minstrel show article, which I had largely written. I took her comments to heart, I researched the topic, and I expanded the article to address her concerns. I even went on a red-link reduction spree, which explains most of the articles I mention on my user page. Prevent her form editing African American-related articles? Asinine. — BrianSmithson 17:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Agreed, this particular solution doesn't make much sense. Yid613 19:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Contributions to African American related articles is what Deeceevoice does well. It's her interactions with some users that breach policy. — Matt Crypto 19:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack parole

2) Deeceevoice is placed on personal attack parole. She may be briefly blocked if she engages in personal attacks or racially-related incivility, up to a week in the case of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Our usual language Fred Bauder 13:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
2. This is said to be "not strong enough" I think it may be too strong. I think Deeceevoice might "get it" at some point, but I doubt she will in the short term. Fred Bauder 13:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Looking for a way to ensure that it's not immediately, over-rigorously enforced is a very good idea. Fred Bauder 13:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. Either this, or a "suspended" personal attack parole. Deeceevoice appears to believe that she faces no consequences for breaking policies. It might be productive to communicate that our policies will eventually be enforced, if flouted long enough, even for Wikipedians who are otherwise making many constructive edits. — Matt Crypto 19:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2. While this doesn't strike me as unreasonable (these are policies she ought to follow anyway, and usually does), I do worry about how this is going to be interpreted and enforced. There have been several cases of admins penalizing DCV in clearly two-sided fights, while letting the other person slide (see for example these racist insults posted to DCV's page[104]; when DCV responded angrily, Friday threatened to block her for civility violations without so much as a note on the anon white supremacist's page. See also [105], where Rob Church blocked DCV for days for 3RR and civility while ignoring Chameleon's simultaneous, identical violations [106]). Is there a way that we can construct this to ensure that it's not immediately, over-rigorously enforced? --Dvyost 23:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
3. This is not strong enough. This user has been informed numerous times of relevant civility policies, and, instead of responding with improved behavior, insulted those that approached her and dismissively mocked dispute resolution. Additionally, the user herself has asked that the most draconian measures be applied to users making racist comments

   A remedy like this would send a message that editors can mistreat and harangue others for months with the only risk being a sanction that, essentially, gives the user the right to act uncivil several more times during probation. The evidence against DCV is voluminous; if hers is the standard set for probationary action, the implicit statement is that lesser violations will probably go unpunished, and that equivalent violations may subject an objector (such as me) to character investigation and extensive allegations of misconduct by a violater's associates. -Justforasecond 06:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

   You should be happy, given that you appear to be describing you own behaviour. Guettarda 06:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justforasecond is to avoid and not comment upon Deeceevoice or enforce any arbitration decisions against her

1) Justforasecond is to avoid Deeceevoice, not comment upon or discuss Deeceevoice, and not attempt to enforce any arbitration decisions against Deeceevoice for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Deeceevoice is not some delicate sensitive thing. If she can't relate in a decent way, she's history. This proposal is pure blame the victim. I don't buy it. Fred Bauder 02:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

   Victim!?? Guettarda 02:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Yes, it is Deeceevoice who made all the personal attacks and was totally discourteous Fred Bauder 02:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Obviously I support this since I'm posting about it. If the arbitrators rule against Deeceevoice, then Justforasecond should also be told to avoid her and not harass her anymore. If JFAS ended up tracking Deeceevoice's future progress with regards to this arbitration, I'd imagine he would stir up trouble with her. Let other editors instead monitor this arb's outcomes. Best,--Alabamaboy 16:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. - FrancisTyers 16:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment by Others:

1. No arbitrations after this one by Jfs on dcv=yes. Avoid, and not discuss=no, unreasonable.--Urthogie 17:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Since JFAS isn't an admin, there's nothing he or she can enforce. Certainly he should stop harassing her, preferably starting a month ago. I'd think WP:DICK should suffice for the rest of it (though obviously it hasn't so far.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

   Well, there's the SEWilco example of how a non-admin can act to enforce an arbcomm decision in such a way as to be disruptive. The arbcomm ruling regarding SEWilco on the Climate Change dispute last month is a perfect precident for this sort of a ruling. Guettarda 19:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

3. You may find this surprising, but there are many who are glad JFAS posted this arbitration, not because we hate DCV but because she has not followed WP:DICK herself, among other reasons.--Urthogie 17:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Any enforceable action against Justforasecond must result from seperate action against that user and not from this arbitration. This is an arbitration against Deeceevoice who made no official "counter-arbitration", therefore this entire suggestion is merely an attempt to distract us from the actions of Deeceevoice. If Alabamaboy is looking for a suggestion that is really beyond the scope of the arbitration, it is this one. Yid613 19:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
5. It's not really desireable to forbid Justforasecond to comment on Deeceevoice. While Justforasecond may not have gone about it in the most productive way, Deeceevoice has broken policies, and it is perfectly acceptable for Justforasecond to comment on this, and even enter into dispute resolution, if he wishes. — Matt Crypto 19:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
6. A good start, but this doesn't go nearly far enough - JFAS should be severely sanctioned for comments like the one on Robchurch's RFA (as raised by El_C above). Rob's actions were so far out of line that Rob had himself de-sysopped for them, but JFAS praised Rob's admitted lies. Guettarda 19:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

   Think about what users are sanctioned for. Aside from placing his comment in the inappropriate place, what Wikipedia policy was violated? If people should be sanctioned for holding wrong opinions and for praising lies, you shouldn't be supporting Deeceevoice. Yid613 00:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

   Rob is not a liar, as anyone familiar with his voluntary departure knows. -Justforasecond 20:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

   In the nicest possible way; take your lips off my ass long enough to read what's written. I may not have told any direct lies in full knowledge of it at the time, but as my long and still-standing apology stated, the hyperbole was sufficient. It's tantamount to harrassing me, this, and I assure you - no user is going to have to put up with that. Clear as mud? Rob Church ^Talk 21:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

7. Given the evidence I've just added above about JFAS's history with DCV, I'd obviously support this, too. I think JFAS has spent a truly unhealthy amount of his/her WP career chasing DCV around, and it's time for it to stop. --Dvyost 23:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
8. It's difficult to deal with problem users. If you don't complain, they keep doing it, perhaps even escalate. If you do complain, you risk looking foolish. I think JFAS has done fairly well at keeping a level head and ignoring abuse and race-baiting. Not perfectly, but fairly well. I can't see that he (she?) has done anything that merits censure. The move to censure JFAS seems more like a counter-attack in what DCV's supporters seem to perceive as an all-out war. It would help if admins could be somewhat more aggressive in policing incivility, so that enforcement wasn't left up to the person being attacked. I was just called "dumbo" by one editor, on another talk page -- what do I do? I don't like having to complain but I'm not sure that it does Wikipedia any good for users to see that sort of language going unpunished. But then ... given the volume of Wikipedia talk compare to the amount of admin time available, I suppose it's inevitable that we end up with a "frontier" ethos, where flame warriors strut with impunity. Zora 02:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

   I certainly understand why you might perceive it as "a counterattack," but while I can't speak for any other editors, that's certainly not my intention. Though I disagreed as to their utility, I see a big difference between the reasonable proceedings that Matt Crypto and Carbonite initiated over at the RfC and JFAS's behavior here, for reasons that I tried to outline above. (since I came to that exchange via JFAS, it took me a day or two to sort that out--sorry, Matt--but as you can see on his talk page, I finally did). Nor do I find it an excuse for DCV's behavior anywhere except her exchanges with him; I'd say she appears to be in the wrong, for example, in the exchange you posted in your evidence section. As I said above, a personal attacks parole for DCV doesn't sound entirely unreasonable to me (though I'm concerned it'll be enforced in the lopsided way a few things have for her in the past, there's probably some way to keep an eye on that). As such I'm not sure I can be classed as one of DCV's "supporters," though I do like her very much personally. Still, I think it does have be noted here how many times JFAS has been reprimanded lately for his pursuit of DCV by editors of all positions on this conflict. It's one thing to start an RfC; it's another thing to plaster it in dozens of article and user talk pages, to try to rebut every single comment, to leave every dissenting user a message on their talk page saying that they're in violation of one Wikipedia or another, to remove supportive messages, to try to file a second RfC, an RfAr, and to complain on the AN all in the space of a few weeks. JFAS was surrounded by reasonable users who were trying to deal with the DCV situation in a reasonable way, and has consistently chosen to ignore them; I have a hard time believing his/her quest is going to end with this arbitration. --Dvyost 03:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Deeceevoice (the user page)

1) If Deeceevoice refuses to maintain her userpage in a manner acceptable to the community, any admin may, at their discretion, remove any offensive images or text found therin. If Deeceevoice reverts she can be blocked for a short amount of time, not to exceed 1 week. After three such blocks, the maximum duration will increase to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I'm not commenting upon this issue b/c I both find DCV's user page distasteful but also understand that it results from vandalism that others placed on her talk page. This item may be besides the point b/c Jimbo Wales deleted the page already. --Alabamaboy 20:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. The items in question would be fine on a user sub page, but the users user page is linked every time they make a comment anywhere. It's not appropriate to link NSFW stuff far-and-wide across the wikipedia in non obvious ways. Clicking a link to Penis is one thing. Clicking a link to PuppiesNSFW is quite another. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
2. The items in question would be fine on a user subpage if she decides to put them there, but if she wants them on her main user page, that's her prerogative. Who gets to decide what's "acceptable to the community"? Are we supposed to have a poll to decide on the content of her user page? The only thing WP:UP has to say about the content of userpages is that they're supposed to be Wikipedia-related, and hers is: it's a documentation of the vandalism and verbal abuse she's gotten here. WP:UP never says userpages can't be shocking or or that they have to be "safe for work". --Angr (tɔk) 17:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
3. I think it's reasonable to ask that the page be made work-safe when this RfAr is all over; I edit at the office sometimes, for example, and if I called up that page there, it wouldn't be pleasant. As someone pointed out on the AN, though, all that's going to take is a warning note at the top and one screen without offensive images. I'd strongly disagree with allowing admins discretionary censorship power. --Dvyost 17:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deeceevoice and Justforasecond to be placed on Personal attack parole

1) Deeceevoice and Justforasecond are both to be placed on personal attack parole. Justforasecond's parole is only for actions related to or about Deeceevoice. Deeceevoice may be briefly blocked if DCV engages in personal attacks or racially-related incivility, up to a week in the case of repeat violations. Justforasecond may be briefly blocked if JFAS engages in personal attacks against or harasses Deeceevoice, up to a week in the case of repeat violations. After 5 blocks for either user the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I quite agree that after this decision is made and Deeceevoice is on personal attack parole she should not be hassled by JFAS or anyone else. If we were just doing this in order to ban her we would just do it. She is potentially a valuable contributor. Fred Bauder 00:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I have come to regret my support of Deeceevoice. I initially supported her because I honestly believed she was being rail-roaded into all of this by Justforasecond, for what I perceived as racial reasons. As a result I made a comment about lynching which I have now apologized for (see section near top of page). DCV's comments in recent days changed my view and I now support a parole for her. That said, I also see this entire situation having been inflamed by Justforasecond's actions, including JFAS's deliberately provoking DCV on her talk page, as Fred Bauder stated somewhere recently (I can't seem to find the link right now). At first I was not going to go public with my disgust at DCV and just let this Arb runs its course but I am totally sick of this entire situation and can not remain silent. I'm sure I'll be attacked for saying this, but can we all come together, admit that DCV and JFAS have both behaved in inappropriate ways, put them both on parole, admit that many of us have become worked up over this situation, and move on from all of this?--Alabamaboy 19:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. I can't remember Justforasecond being particularly incivil or engaging in personal attacks towards Deeceevoice, or, if he did, evidence would need to be put forward. If not, then a personal attack parole would not be appropriate. An alternative would be a parole that would allow users to block Justforasecond if he is seen to be "harassing" Deeceevoice unduly, or some such. I don't know if such a thing is workable, or even fair, either. — Matt Crypto 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the word harrassing to JFAS's parole. Would that work? If not, any other suggestion?--Alabamaboy 22:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

1. I support this, with one minor change: JFAS should be put on attack patrole for DCV only. Because it is arguable that he has harassed her, but not arguable that he has done anything else against wikipedia policy. I respect both of them for different reasons, and I think this motion could bring a very welcome end to this arbitration.--Urthogie 20:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I made changes to the wording to this effect. Is it now acceptible to you (and — Matt Crypto)?--Alabamaboy 21:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Message to arbitrators: even if you don't think JFAS or DCV is guilty of personal attacks, I ask that you be pragmatic, and make the decision that will bring the most peace to Wikipedia and its faithful editors. Noone involved in this is evil, and I think that if one of them is not guilty, they will not suffer so much from a decision, which would be much more resolving of this conflict. I say this as someone who has suffered very much thanks to the brash, strong character of DCV and her lenience towards policy, and I definitely support JFAS, but for pragmatic reasons this is the best way to approach the case now, I think. Just my 2 cents.--Urthogie 21:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

   I would say that I also support this proposition. Once the Arbitation Committee decides on Deeceevoice, there will be no reason for Justforasecond to participate on any discourse on DCV. However, since Justforasecond is not accused of any misconduct except that relating to DCV, Justforasecond's ability to contribute to Wikipedia as before will not be constrained in any way. I support this proposition, but I view not as a punishment for Justforasecond but rather the transferring of the matter from individual users to the decisions of the Committee. However, I wish it to be remembered that Deeceevoice is not only accused of incivility but rather of using her edits to push her POV. I believe that many of the examples raised by Justforasecond in the "Evidence" page are valid, and so I urge that Committee that the addressing of this should be included in the complete decision. I also think that Alabamaboy should be commended for recent efforts on talk pages and Rfa pages to heal racial and other tensions on Wikipedia. Yid613 01:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

2. After a string of accusations of "harassment" from Alabamaboy and a few of his companions, I told him that if there was anything that I had done, other than the RfAr, that he was unhappy about, to please tell me about it and I would consider retracting it. He did not present anything. Knowing my own edits, I am certain he will be unable to make a personal case here, but even if he could, he neglected to engage in the simplest form of dispute resoltion.(removed unhelpful comment) Justforasecond 19:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)As I commit no personal attacks I couldn't care less if I were on parole, but I would not want the black mark on my record, that would undoubtedly be discovered and used as impeachment of character should I ever be involved again in dispute resolution. If deeceevoice inserts bad information into wikipedia I think I should be able to say something about it. Justforasecond 19:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

   I also find it a little more than farsical that Alabamaboy has said repeatedly that he will not take place in this RfAr but has made several statements here, now because he can "not remain silent". Only today did he remove his statements about this forum is a "lynching" and "racist attack", while leaving a statement saying he believes "racism is at the core" of editors supporting the RfAr. The about-face on DCV's conduct struck me as odd. Were he really "disgusted" with her conduct earlier, it was his duty, as an administrator, to say or do something in line with that. Instead he has tried to stop and distract this process at each turn, even contacting an arbitrator to object to the case being accepted at all. -Justforasecond 21:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)(removed unhelpful comment) Justforasecond 19:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that he has likely changed his mind, and advanced in his judgement of the case. You have a good point about the "black mark" on the record, and this is definitely an issue to address, to make sure it doesn't come back to bite JFAS in the ass later. However, JFAS, you must admit that this seems like the easiest way to get a resolution that satisfies the parties involved enough to finally be done with this thing. Well, in the meantime, we can say what the arbitrators will have to say.--Urthogie 21:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

1. While I think a personal attacks parole for DCV is fine, I have to agree with Matt that JFAS's problem really hasn't been personal attacks, and that this wouldn't quite be fair. The problem with JFAS has more been his determination to pursue the case against Deecee across so many different forums (fora?), and that may be more difficult to correct. I'd still argue that some variation of "Justforasecond is to avoid and not comment upon Deeceevoice or enforce any arbitration decisions against her" would be the most reasonable way to address his end of the case. This really isn't so much an attempt to blame the victim as it is to head off having the same problem next month... While this wording probably isn't specific enough, I'm worried that any decision that doesn't stop JFAS from posting on DCV's talk page, posting across article talk and user talk pages about her, etc., isn't going to end what's already been a long and ugly conflict. Given that JFAS has consistently argued for harsher punishments and greater charges than anyone else here, I find it likely that his quest will continue; I'm worried that if this isn't somehow addressed, we're just going to see more fighting a week from now. Much better that this get enforced by admins, preferably admins who haven't taken part here or at her user page at all. --Dvyost 21:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the word harrassing to JFAS's parole. Would that work? If not, any other suggestion? I'd also be okay if the arbitrators inserted a caveat to any ruling asking that only admins not involved in this dispute would enforce it.--Alabamaboy 22:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Edits to Cool (African philosophy)

"I've removed the secondary source tag -- again -- because I believe it was affixed in bad faith, given that it was not fully discussed on the talk page before it was slapped on the article. Also, please see my comments above. In subject matter such as this which treat third-world cultural/anthropological matters, primary sources often are not available. It is, in a way, saying no article treating San culture has credibility unless we can find an authoritative text written by a Bushman. Ridiculously eurocentric and absurd. deeceevoice 04:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)"[107]

She calls the rule about primary sourcing "eurocentric", thus showing her view that it doesn't need to be followed by removing it. It really wasn't put up in bad faith, and she reverted me twice so she could break wikipedia policy through her opinions.--Urthogie 07:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"I believe it was affixed in bad faith" -- the wiki policy is assume good faith. -Justforasecond 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• One first assumes good faith until bad faith is shown. One does not assume good faith thereafter. She said, "I believe it was bad faith because XXX". We get to do that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to insert into evidence what the "bad faith" is here, please do. Someone placed a tag on an article, that, in itself, is not bad faith. There is an entire section on the talk page labeled "Source"[108] which DCV did not participate in. -Justforasecond 20:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't need to do so. You are accusing her of not assuming good faith. I simply said that she stated that she did not believe good faith had been shown. Whether or not I agree with her is irrelevant; the very fact that she made the reference to good faith means she understands exactly what the policy is. She may have been wrong about something not being in good faith, but that's not because of any violation of WP:AGF. As I said, WP:AGF is a starting point; and a rebuttable assumption at that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

By your logic, there can be no effective AGF policy. All an editor would need to say is "because..." and then they're in the clear, regardless of the believability of the justification. -Justforasecond 22:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There can be no ironclad AGF policy, certainly. I assume good faith until it's demonstrated otherwise. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd encourage everyone, especially those who consider DCV to be a valuable editor, to read "Cool (African philosophy)". See below -Justforasecond 22:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Traditional West African ontology does not devalue one fundamental aspect of existence in relation to another. It is an intuitively existential acknowledgement and acceptance of the duality of nature and the balance of forces—of, for example, feminine and masculine, physical and spiritual, seen and unseen, of the living and the ancestors. These forces are not separated, but conjoined; and, in fact, interact continuously and with fluidity in aspects of everyday life— in the natural world, in religion and philosophy, in visual art, in folklore, in music and dance. ...

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. This latter principle is evident in the syncopation and polyrhythmic complexity of West African music and some Afro-Cuban music (and, to some extent, in African American music), and is an essential characteristic of an element of jazz: swing. This is in marked contrast to the traditional European approach to music, which is structurally linear and rhythmically regimented. In this sense, the traditional African ontological approach is the opposite of that of, for example, Zoroastrianism, where Light and Darkness are warring concepts. In the African understanding, there is no struggle, no antagonism; there is cohabitation, balance and communion. ...

This dualistic ontological perspective, of motion and stasis, of tension and tranquility, of juxtaposition and coexistence, of heat and cool, grounded in the interplay of opposites, helps form the framework of the mask of the cool. ....

Cool is feminine energy; it is stillness, calm and strength. Cool is composure, dignity in being and comportment and a practiced stoicism. It is a way of being, a way of walking in the world. Cool abides. Heat is masculine energy, strength and movement; it acts. Both elements assume co-equal values in African movement and dance, in African music and art. ...

Yes, and read the talk pages too. I showed no bad faith at all. I had never met DCV before that cool(african philosophy) article, but she really gave me my first bad editing experience, despite my efforts to be kind. The assume good faith policy exists so that we discuss things with people instead of arrogantly assuming we know more and reverting them.--Urthogie 02:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adequacy of current references Cool (African philosophy)

Cool (African philosophy) has been resurrected in its current form and an attempt to find references has been made. An analysis follows:

This passage:

"This latter principle is evident in the syncopation and polyrhythmic complexity of West African music and some Afro-Cuban music (and, to some extent, in African American music), and is an essential characteristic of an element of jazz: swing ^[109]. This is in marked contrast to the traditional European approach to music, which is structurally linear and rhythmically regimented ^[110]. In this sense, the traditional African ontological approach is the opposite of that of, for example, Zoroastrianism, where Light and Darkness are warring concepts ^[111]. In the African understanding, there is no struggle, no antagonism; there is cohabitation, balance and communion."

Is supported by these references:

[edit] Footnotes

[edit] Analysis

http://www.djworksmusic.com/smarter_kids.html supposedly supports "the traditional European approach to music, which is structurally linear and rhythmically regimented". The page is a blurb for an album by the artist Deborah Johnson written by an unknown author which, citing experimental work by Rauscher and others of the University of California, Irvine which measured performance on a test which measures spatial IQ compared to control groups found improved performance. Supposedly listening to the album Classical Spice will "make your kids smarter", the Mozart Effect, see http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/mozarteffect2.shtml for an extended discussion. There is some language in the blurb which somewhat resembles the supported language "Rauscher stressed that all classical music that is highly structured and complex has the same effect.", but there is no further discussion. Fred Bauder 20:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"This latter principle is evident in the syncopation and polyrhythmic complexity of West African music and some Afro-Cuban music (and, to some extent, in African American music), and is an essential characteristic of an element of jazz: swing" is supported by a passage from http://www.uwm.edu/Course/660-102/ClassThree.html which follows:

[edit] West African musical style (continued)

The texture of the music is often complementary layered patterns This is sometimes referred to as polyrhythm or polymeter (multiple rhythms and meters occurring at the same time – particularly 3-against-2)

[edit] Further analysis

The principle in question, under the heading "Ontological framework", is that embodied in "Traditional West African ontology " set forth as:

"Traditional West African ontology does not devalue one fundamental aspect of existence in relation to another. It is an intuitively existential acknowledgement and acceptance of the duality of nature and the balance of forces—of, for example, feminine and masculine, physical and spiritual, seen and unseen, of the living and the ancestors. These forces are not separated, but conjoined; and, in fact, interact continuously and with fluidity in aspects of everyday life— in the natural world, in religion and philosophy, in visual art, in folklore, in music and dance.

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."

The ontological principle is contrasted with that of traditional Persian culture: "In this sense, the traditional African ontological approach is the opposite of that of, for example, Zoroastrianism, where Light and Darkness are warring concepts. In the African understanding, there is no struggle, no antagonism; there is cohabitation, balance and communion." The ontological principle of traditional is sourced in http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MESO/PERSIANS.HTM which does contain a brief outline of Zoroastrianism and its ontological principle, "All of creation, all gods, all religions, and all of human history and experience can be understood as part of this struggle between light and dark, good and evil."

[edit] Jazz and sunglasses worn at night

in http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,555860,00.html an excellent on jass in the Guardian there is a passage, "I put on horn-rimmed sunglasses at night." This would seem to support the language in the article, "For decades, African American jazz musicians and, later, black-power activists in the 1970s were known for wearing sunglasses, even indoors and at night." A further conclusion "The dark, impenetrable lenses of a pair of "shades" help to mask emotion and, thus, "cool" the face." is unsupported.

[edit] The ice man

http://www.soul-patrol.com/soul/jerry.htm contains material regarding Jerry Butler which more or less supports 'Another example of cool in African American culture is the intensely emotional vocal style of soulful crooner Jerry Butler, delivered with trademark, inscrutable composure, which earned him the moniker "The Ice Man"', but not explicitly, there being no information on his demeanor, "trademark, inscrutable composure".

[edit] Hip

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hip is put forth as a source for "African American use of 'cool' has evolved to include related meanings. In addition to indicating an absence of conflict, 'cool' also is used to communicate agreement or compliance and to describe something 'hip' (from the Wolof word "hipi," meaning to open one's eyes, to be aware ) [7], meaning fashionable and current; as well as something desirable, aesthetically appealing, or something of sublime or understated elegance." from an entry in The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition":

1. Keenly aware of or knowledgeable about the latest trends or developments.
2. Very fashionable or stylish.

which does contain the language:

"[Perhaps from Wolof hipi, hepi, to open one's eyes, be aware.]"

Wolof is a West African language, see Wolof language.

[edit] Summary

• Brilliant original research Fred Bauder 20:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• References given support isolated passages, not the framework of the article as a whole. Robert Farris Thompson's work is not considered, as the book is not at hand. Fred Bauder 21:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Cool (African philosophy)

Cool (African philosophy) was created March 6, 2005 by the move of the contents of cool to the new title [112]. Cool had been edited as early as July, 2004 by Deeceevoice [113]. Over a series of edits unsourced original material was added by Deeceevoice [114], [115], defending her original language at times [116], [117], reworking [118], refining [119], [120], incorporating Thompson's work [121], [122], Adding more original work [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131]. Generally only Deeceevoice edited what was essentially a personal essay until Nectarflowed nominated it for deletion [132], see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Cool_(aesthetic) Shortly thereafter the article was moved from Cool (aesthetic) to its current name.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Edits to Nigger

Karmosin (talk · contribs) made an edit to Nigger which was unsourced, commenting "Fairly exclusive male usage, no?" [133]. Reverted by Deeceevoice with the comment "Reverted. Change was inaccurate." Karmosin then began edit warring [134] requesting "better motivation." Deeceevoice again reverted [135] with the comment "I'm an African-American, and I KNOW. Hell, you're the one making the erroneous assertion. What's YOUR motivation? *x*". Discussion continued at User_talk:Deeceevoice#Male_youth_usage_of_nigger

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Unsourced material may be removed whether you are knowledgable or not. However one's personal knowledge is not an appropriate source. In any event courtesy is required. Repeatedly inserting unsourced information while demanding a reason for its removal is inappropriate. Fred Bauder 15:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
2. The exchange on Deeceevoice's talk page is quite remarkable. Both, having encountered the tar baby, seem to get quite stuck. Fred Bauder 15:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deeceevoice

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] I don't do nice

In response to a comment Matt Crypto by regarding courtesy [136] Deeceevoice responded with "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* "[137] [138].

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Users are required by Wikipedia policy to "do nice" Fred Bauder 16:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] The Wareware RfAR and oversights on ArbCom's part

[1.] Having accepted the Wareware RfAR (5/0/0/0 – not to be confused with this case's 5/0/0/0), [2.] the Committee failed to pursue the case, citing it impertinent in relation to their backlog (which, indeed, had become prohibitive at that time), [3.] with this dismissal taking place after DCV has provided her evidence as instructed. [4.] The Committee failed to notify DCV (or anyone whatsoever, for that matter) of this, and clarification needed to be sought (by El_C) as to why the case was closed prematurely. As a consequence of this: [a.] The Committee should issue a public apology to DCV for this shortcoming and easily-percieved insensitivity for the manner of the removal, esp. lack of notification, [b.] which therefore should be reflected both in the final decision and remedies as it undoubtedly underlines some of DCV's deep misgivings and skepticism with regards to the integrity of Wikipedia's institutions. [c.] A discussion of whether this case should be merged (and what this entails) with the accepted-cum-abandoned Wareware Arbitration case, should be be undertaken prior to any motions to close being passed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. It's simple enough, he was gone, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wareware/Proposed_decision#Motion_to_close. As to not notifying Deeceevoice, as she brought the case, I guess everyone assumed she was monitoring it. I do wonder if some of the anonymous hassling is not from him though; however, a remedy banning him would not put us in any better position. Fred Bauder 14:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
2. As far as opening it again, no. We still don't have the time to go over evidence of a dispute when one person is no longer editing. Fred Bauder 14:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Another matter, you ask extreme courtesy and sensitivity from us, while Deeceevoice takes a standoffish critical attitude, presents no evidence, engages in no dialogue and we are left guessing as to what reaction she has if any to what we are doing. Fred Bauder 14:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
4. We welcome all feedback. I was not involved in closing the case, but my not being involved was undoubtedly due to the heavy caseload we labor under. Being overworked results in a loss of both courtesy and thoughtfulness. One gets distracted and what is really important slips away. Fred Bauder 17:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. This case is about deeceevoice, not Wareware or the Arbcom -Justforasecond 17:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. I am the author of the above (as an aside, I never really understood why one has to look through the history to find out who proposed what, rather than having that noted clearly as I'm doing now; perhaps Fred, in particular, could respond to that, though noting again that it is merely an aside), and I should stress that I am not implying (nor at any time have I implied) malice, underhandedness, moral failings, etc., on the part of any of the arbitrators involved, directly or indirectly, in that case. On the contrary, I do note favourably that all of whom expressed shock and dismay at the unacceptable conduct DCV has endured from Wareware. And, of course, no one had a crystal ball to make any predictions on future cases involving DCV —and I can appreciate that this is difficult, largely tedius and ultimately at best thankless work, and that time constraint is a key factor. Nevertheless, inadvertantly, oversights do happen, and in this case, I maintain that these are (now, especially) fundamental oversights; ones which, in turn, warrant a serious re-examination by the Committee. And, yes, likely self-criticism, too. Note also, that while I speak of the "Committee" generically, only the Epopt and Fred Bauder were arbitrators in that case (both are also arbitrators in this case). I am stating this in the interest clarity per se., and I imply nothing further by that (i.e. if I thought further implications were warranted, I'd be airing them). El_C 11:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

1. As I said in day one of the RfAr, the chances that Ww would be back were rather unlikely; and I specifically made the point of requesting that, in that event, the case should be heard in his absence. No one objected to that; on the contrary. Furthermore, people's scheduales vary, but what I consider key is that she had, at this point in time, provided the evidence as instructed. El_C 14:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
2. You (the Committee) failed to issue any statement at all (a close reading would have revealed, was what she sought – meaning a sentence or two); thus, she undoubtedly felt compiling the evidence after the case was accepted ended up being for naught. El_C 14:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Yes, I do expect esp. high standards (in terms of exercizing sensitivity, issuing pertinent notices, etc.) from the Committee. El_C 14:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

1. As mentioned, I appreciate that, Fred. Therefore, I appreciate any consideration given to my description and proposals. El_C 23:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bowdlerization defense

Deeceevoice has used bowdlerized profanity on the evidence page [139]

As to whether she is discouraging African-American editors: Yep. If anyone doubts it, just read this ****.

Explaining users reaction to some of her edits: the same way people had a s*** fit over black supremacy.

On a block of her user page: leaving a block in place so that I can't even edit my own user page complete bull****

On more than one occassion, she has defended this practice I take great pains not to type out profanities like "bulls****"

(this is just a small amount of the profanity deeceevoice has used)

The use of profanity and the bowdlerization thereof are both outside the guidelines set forth in Wikipedia:Profanity:

1. Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate.
2. Obscene words should never be bowdlerized

If deeceevoice can take the time to bowdlerize, she can take the time to omit the profanity altogether.

Justforasecond 21:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The policy you have cited applies to articles, not talk pages. — BrianSmithson 22:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

We are not going to label Deeceevoice a dirty dog and kick her down the road. There are real problems with her behavior but not spelling out shit in full is not one of them. Fred Bauder 22:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I am not in my proposals trying to straighten out Deeceevoice in all respects in one decision. The first step is to insist on reasonably courteous communication. That is why I did not delve deeply into whatever other ways she might fall short. I am not optimistic, but if she will begin to authentically discuss matters she may very well be able to straighten out the other problems on her own. Fred Bauder 13:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Do we need any more evidence? I haven't heard from the arbitrators so I'm not sure that there is enough yet -- POV, original research, lack of citations, civility, personal attacks, refusal to take part in mediation, profanity, AGF, trying to harm wikipedia, disruping to prove a point, etc. Geez what's left? Oh a number of copyright violations and a fair amount of "edit warring". These aren't at all hard to find but its tedious to catalog the diffs. -Justforasecond 22:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

   You would need to provide it, present it and explain it for it to be considered evidence. Rob Church ^Talk 05:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others: