Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice/Proposed decision

Will the assertion that her userpage is "provocative and rather confusing" really add anything to the arbcom's decision? Because (1) it seems that many more Wikipedians support her right to have that userpage than support her right to insult people while referencing their alleged skin color, and (2) Deecee assumes people will find it "provocative and confusing", that's why she put it there. And I imagine that those Wikipedians who oppose your overall judgment are likely be more galled by this finding of fact than the others. Why not, as Fred Bauder says, "focus on personal attacks as that is the most obvious and pressing problem?" rather than throwing in other findings that don't add a whole lot and will undermine the decision in some people's eyes? I would have brought this up on the workshop talkpage, but I didn't see this FoF there. Babajobu 23:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it does seem rather odd- "offensive" is a judgement (it doesn't really "offend" me, but it certainly makes me uncomfortable, and makes me wonder about the person who put it there), and enough people are calling this a racist witchhunt already. I can't imagine that it will pass, but that's just me.--Sean|Black 23:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the original salem witchhunts was that they weren't based on factual process. This is, and the arbitrators will decide. So even if people fervently pursue her banning, you should know that I, a part of this "witchunt" dont want her banned, but I dont like her behavior either.--Urthogie 16:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the Salem witch hunts were based on factual process. They were replete with testimony of hysterical children driven by questionable motives and peculiar fervor. Not at all dissimilar to the current process. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The judges of the salem witch trials were biased towards superstition and towards the hysteria of the village. That was the main factor leading to the death of the witches, as the judges had ultimate power over the results. The arbitrators seem to be very objective so far, so the comparison is illogical (even if the opposing parties [ie myself and others against DCV] are being hysterical).--Urthogie 17:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Now we just need Increase Mather to show up and end this filthy thing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, wait till you see the results. Banning her would be the equivelant of killing her intellectually on wikipedia. Most of us don't want that, even though she does disobey rules. I think the arbitrators themselves will prove to be the Increase Mathers on this issue.--Urthogie 22:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps -- but, just like Increase Mather's actions, it will be too late for those already killed. (This metaphor would work better if one of more of the victims of the trials had committed suicide rather than face the accusations of the crazed little girls.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noone has already been killed, cus we don't have any judges besides our Mather's. The metaphor is at best an exaggeration, and I suggest you that the user retracts it to maintain an air of objectivity, rather than sensationalism and grandeur.--Urthogie 15:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day late and a dollar short for that. Besides, how can I retract what I didn't insert? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha that was dumb of me, just noticed you didn't use the term!--Urthogie 20:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Deecee agrees not to mix references to skin color in with her insults, that'll be enough for me! She can even have a special personal exemption from WP:NPA, just don't insult people AND imply that their shortcomings are a consequence of their ancestry! I don't think that's so unreasonable, and hardly witch-hunty. Babajobu 22:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly suggest that the phrase "offensive rants" is not useful. What, exactly, is a rant? How about a polemic? How about a philippic? How about if the rant is didactic? Perhaps the proposed restriction (which should actually be Wikipedia-wide policy rather than specific to Deeceevoice) might be made clearer and more practicable were the language fine-tuned. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 09:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be humble. You are welcome to demand. However as the one thing I like about Deeceevoice is that she speaks boldly and uses plain language, you won't find agreement with me. Her page was an offensive rant. I was willing to accept it as free speech on her own page, but User:Jimbo Wales and a number of others feel otherwise, see User:Deeceevoice and the page history Fred Bauder 14:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you've misread me. I'm simply suggesting that "offensive rant" is not sufficiently precise to use as a prohibition specific for one user. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally would have less of a problem with such a user page, if it belonged to an editor who I thought was doing good. However, it looks to me like the main agenda here is disruption and insults, not making an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think the wording should be modified to "...restore the offensive material or introduce new offensive material..." - so that new (previously unposted) material can be included in the sanctions as well. --TML1988 23:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jim Apple actually supports DCV, though not as fervently as some. He has been inolved in disputes with her, in particularly regarding her use of copyrighted and misleaging images[1]. She also demanded he stay away from her talk page at one point, but he has not spoken out much in either the RfC or RfAr.

Asking DCV whether she intends to continue editing other articles is not harassment, by either a real world definition or the wikipedia definition, especially as she said she was leaving already. I can't see what Jim's "departure" page says, it is deleted, but I haven't ever seen him be uncivil.

It is also reasonable to contact Friday about the "departure" page; DCV is prone to deleting messages left on her talk page and nowhere in the harassment policy is contacting users about a subpage prohibited.

Keep in mind a measure of equity and good faith here. Jim's actions, if they had been in bad faith, still by no means approach the edits of DCV. However, I think his comments were actually a good faith effort at ending the RfAr.

-Justforasecond 18:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I'm agreeing with JFAS but I also didn't see Jim Apple's action as harassing DCV. I'd also be hesitant to lump him and Friday in with this Arb.--Alabamaboy 19:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - boundaries of good behaviour have been crossed on all sides; right or wrong, dcv has been subject to unacceptable harrassment. While we can't do much about the anons, we (the community, and the arbcomm acting on behalf of the community) cannot tolerate this water-torture. Yes, expect dcv to adhere to the community norms - but don't tolerate a "hostile [work] environment" either. Once a person injects themselves into an arbcomm case the arbcomm has the right (and, really, the obligation) to address their behaviour. The widespread horror expressed at Jim Apple's bahaviour almost obligates the arbcomm to consider his actions. Friday's are similar, if less obviously anti-social. Guettarda 19:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"widespread horror"???? Justforasecond 20:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Guettarda 18:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in his last edit JDForrester capitalized these two words. Why? Is it to lend the feel of a legal document, with that field's Germanic love of capitalization? It looks weird to me. Babajobu 02:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They started doing that right from the first. I do it too when we are being "official". It is corny. Fred Bauder 03:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dcv is not a new user...she has something like 9,000 edits and has been around since May 2004. she's also been informed of policy on numerous occassions.

-Justforasecond 02:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She fooled me Fred Bauder 05:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"One such case: you've challeneged me to provide documentation that "cool" is considered a feminine attribute, challenging the notion because whites commonly associate it with black men."--DCV. She assumes that because I'm white I must accept the (possibly erroneous) beliefs that other whites hold. She's assuming motives without proof.--Urthogie 20:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to Fred's comment on the proposed decision page:

"special:log is confusing, being a log of every user. We need one place concerning this user. Additionally it does not show bans or their basis. Good cause needs to be shown. Fred Bauder 15:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)"

Presumably this search shows relevant blocks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ADeeceevoice

Moreover, the blocking admin should post on the user's talk page describing the reasoning behind the block, if not in the blocking summary itself. — Matt Crypto 15:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the motion to close gathered momentum, Deeceevoice attacked the unfortunate soul whose last name happens to be "Skinner": Get real. Your name gives you away as a racist troll. Just stating facts. Besides, love of oneself and one's people isn't, ipso facto, racism. Look it up (if you know how). [2] this after her earlier diatribe we're the baddest, most beautiful things on God's green....I don't much give a damn about those who are so blinded by racism, intolerance, hatred and their own fears and insecurities, that they can't/won't see our Light....WE are the ancestors of everyone (and everything) else....We are God's Firstborn. Justforasecond 23:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, she's still at it. But why are you putting all this in bold and quoting it. How about cooling it a bit and moving on to some editing? Fred Bauder 23:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the bold. I usually use italics. I don't think most folks click on the diffs, so I cut and paste. Though I am not one of the top editors here, I am editing. But, a question to you guys: probation, in a typical legal system, is used for lawbreakers that show some amount of remorse, some proof of unlikely recidivism, a first-time offender, etc. A defendant that continued with his or her behavior throughout most phases of his trial would never be given probation. The wikipedia arbitration system is not an actual legal system, but it is structured very much link one. That being the case, what is the reasoning for giving this user probation? The incivility, the "boycott wikipedia", the "don't agree to free license" are all still there, this is no first-time offender, and the user has not admitted even one instance of wrongdoing. Justforasecond 02:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second passage quoted is racist itself. It's time we stand up against people using the cause of anti-racism as an excuse for reverse racism. It is really sickening and disgusting. Yid613 04:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should make clear, the second quote is from a few months ago (not during the arbitration) the first quote is from just a couple days ago. Justforasecond 16:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The case will close soon and if she keeps it up she will be blocked. I don't think too much of blocking her until the case closes. Fred Bauder 16:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]