Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice/Workshop

message: I am shocked by the inflammatory language about "lynching" a black woman that we see here.  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 language 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.  None of us here can attempt to drive away black contributors by calling them "niggers" and using racist anti-black stereotypes.  Such behaviour would be recognized as an instantly bannable offense.  The same, obviously, should be true for people who attempt to discredit and shame non-black contributors by using racist anti-white stereotypes, such as accusing white people of "lynching" Deeceevoice for the mere "sin" of using our arbitration process. RK 00:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 too, 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 01:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought of it as a reference to a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves. If it's good enough for a Supreme Court Justice, it's good enough for me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that too. --Alabamaboy 02:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with your analogy is that you picked the wrong perceived 'victim' to champion, because no one is trying to punish Deeceevoice for thinking for herself. On the contrary, people are only trying to stop her from forcing her thoughts on an encyclopedia trying to remain NPOV, in part by playing the "race card" in situations when it is completely unrelated. Surely you must be able to tell the difference. Furthermore I don't think that the fact that the Senate Judiciary Committee tried to investigate a claim of sexual harrassment when it was made has anything to do with "lynching" either, because race had nothing to do with except in the minds of those who want it to. Yid613 06:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflammatory language about lynching a black woman 

message: I wonder if there is a way to heal the issues and differences that DCV's arbitration has brought to the foreground? In some ways, this entire affair has been bad for racial relations here at Wikipedia. Those who don't like how DCV acts have said that their actions are solely in response to DCV not being "nice" (so to speak). Those who don't like what has happened to DCV (like me) see the affair as being driven by racism and bigotry. The funny thing is that there is overlap between the two sides. A number of those pushing to sanction DCV admit that some of actions against her have been wrong and haven't helped racial issues here (and that some of the users pushing the issue against her are doing so for possibly racist reasons). Almost all of us opposed to the actions against DCV admit that she is abrasive and has violated Wikipedia guidelines and should be more civil in her discussions here. What we see, though, is a double-standard at work, with users appearing to gang up against non-minority editors like DCV for being less than civil but not doing the same to white editors. I would encourage people to post their thoughts here on a special talk page I created. --Alabamaboy 21:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Healing Wikipedia