Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request for arbitration regarding Deeceevoice's behaviour was made and approved by ArbCom. The "evidence" being posted here that involves content, POV, and so on should be discarded as not relevant to alleged incivil behaviour, but rather, is piling on, a continuation of the mysterious and unjustifiable vendetta by User:Justforasecond. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I came here with the same attitude, but the more I look at this, the more I am starting to disagree. As I read some of DcV's attitude towards other Wikipedians I see consistency. That User:Justforasecond is interested in a vendetta becomes less and less tenable, while his complaints become more and more credible. I think its unfair to describe these complaints as mysterious and unjustifiable. --Muchosucko 22:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

How does it become less tenable? S/he still had only edited 8 articles before bringing an RFC against deeceevoice, s/he still harrassed users who disagreed with her/him on the RFC, s/he still spammed dozens of pages drumming up support for the RFC... How does all this information, devoid of context, make JFAS's vendetta any less real? Guettarda 23:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, because of the edit counting of a few of DCV's supporters, it is hard for me to respond to most of these accusations. Each edit counts against me as a "harrassment". I've learned email is a better way to communicate here.

The NPOV violations are a valid issue to discuss here. They are mentioned in both the RfC and RfAr.

I have not harrassed users who disagreed with me--I informed users who endorsed an ethnic slur ("cry me a river, white boy") that I did not appreciate the slur and would appreciate it if they didn't endorse it. Guettarda was one of these users. Not a single user withdrew his support on being informed that I, and other users, found it offensive.

I did not "spam dozens of pages". I posted to talk pages on which deeceevoice had been very active. It seemed the best way to gather community input. I also sent messages to deecee's supporters. Other editors told me posting to article talk pages was not against wiki policies, but is frowned upon, so I removed these comments.

I've asked, but still haven't been told a good way to inform community members of a relevant RfC. I don't think most editors monitor the RfC pages. "Dozens" is an exaggeration.

I'd also like to say to Guettarda that following wikipedia policies is not harrassment. And, if any of DCV's "friends" had discussed the policy violations with her rather than wait for the RfAr we probably wouldn't be here. AFAIK, not a one of her friends suggested to her that taking part in the RfC would be worthwhile. -Justforasecond 00:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of "edit counting" - it's a matter of that, until it was pointed out, you used your account primarily to attack deeceevoice. You had no right to harrass me and insist that I withdraw a comment that was not to your liking. Jmabel's "cry me a river" was not at attack (although you called it that), and "white boy" was irony, not an ethnic slur.

As for your denial of spamming "dozens" of pages - I just counted at least thirty nine of them - that seems like dozens to me.

I actually posted to less than 10, all removed now. I'll assume good faith on this one, but try to count more accurately in the future. In any case, this is irrelevant. Please stick to the DCV issue. -Justforasecond 16:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As for "AFAIK, not a one of her friends suggested to her that taking part in the RfC would be worthwhile" - given your obvious bad faith, why should she have? With regards to your "I'd also like to say to Guettarda that following wikipedia policies is not harrassment" - policy does not say that you should go out of your way to harrass editors for disagreeing with you, policy does not say that you should engage in vendettas against editors with whom you have had no prior involvement (since you came out of the blue to taunt deeceevoice into a response which allowed you to initiate this vendetta. Guettarda 03:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if Justforasecond has a vendetta against Deeceevoice, but even if it were true it would mean absolutely nothing in terms of his/her arguments. Try to think logically about it. If his/her arguments have a certain validity, and the exact same arguments, word-for-word, were presented instead by someone else who you could not claim has a vendetta against Deeceevoice, would that change how valid the arguments are (despite the fact that its the same arguments)? The focus of the RfA is Deeceevoice, not anyone else.

I complained about the way Deeceevoice talked to ME, and I have had limited interaction with her, did not start the RFC, did not drum up support on talk pages, etc. The fact that someone goes to the trouble to deal with an uncivil editor, instead of just abandoning the effort (as I did), is not proof of a conspiracy. Zora 00:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that JFAS's vendetta is totally relevant here. Deeceevoice's attitude here is the product of constant harrassment, racist attacks, swastikas and photos of lynchings posted to her talk page...To dredge up all of her responses without posting the context is to produce an extremely biased view of things. JFAS has dedicated a substantial proportion of his or her career here to digging this up and doing everything possible to whip up support for his/her idea.

And I made no accusations of conspiracy. But JFAS had edited 8 articles when s/he started up on DCV. S/he also made it her/his business to harrass other editors and try to browbeat people into withdrawing their endorsements of views that did not attack deeceevoice. It's pretty hard to assume good faith regarding an account which appears to exist primarily for a single purpose. Guettarda 03:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Deeceevoice's attitude here is the product of constant harrassment, racist attacks, swastikas and photos of lynchings posted to her talk page... As I have previously stated much of the controversy regarding Deeceevoice includes her reactions and relationships with users who never harrassed her, never initiated racist attacks on wikipedia, never posted and would never think of posting swastikas and lynching pictures, but simply found conflict with her POV and agenda in her edits and meet resistance from a user who thinks that because she is African-American she has authority in African-American-related articles or other articles to disregard Wikipedia policy and resist diplomacy with other people. It is not the people of the latter category's fault that the people of the first category violate Wikipedia policy. Two wrongs don't make a right. You say that ignoring the context produces biased views, and that applies even in regards to Deeceevoice and her supporters. The actions of some people do not give Deeceevoice the right to abuse other and different people who had nothing to do with that. Yid613 05:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with User:Zora here on the ad hominem. I find JFAS's zeal in attacking DCV here an advantage. That way, the Arbitration Committee and everybody here will have more evidence to look over, and easier access to it. I think Guettarda is concerned with the bias that JFAS's zeal will bring to the evidence plate. I already assure you there is plenty of bias. Everywhere. I suppose it will be up to the trusted hands on the Arbitration Committee to sift through all of it. All in all, I am happy that JFAS brings his miserably biased view here. Just as I am happy that you, Guettarda, bring your miserably biased view here. Jocularly, Muchosucko 04:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have had a great deal of trouble dealing with Deeceevoice. She's so into racist hatred of all white people, and so blindly accepting of black supremacist proaganda, that she simply is unable to be a contributor to Wikipedia. She refuses to follow our standards for verifiability and NPOV, and is blatantly using Wikipedia to promote an anti-white, anti-science, and sometimes anti-Jewish, black supremacist philosophy. In short, she is a POV pusher with no interest in creating a reliable encyclopedia, which is Wikipedia's only true goal. RK 00:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] By the way...

This direction at the top of the RfA boilerplate seems to be being ignored by at least some participants:

Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective

FWIW. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)