Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice

message: *deeceevoice Deeceevoice is charged with regularly and repeatedly violating wikipedia policies.
*User:justforasecond  Author of this request
*Alabamaboy I wish to become an involved party in this. Even though User:justforasecond is the author of this RfA, User:justforasecond is bringing this RfA against deeceevoice despite having NO interactions with deeceevoice since the failed RfC against her. This RfA appears to be part of a pattern of harrassment by User:justforasecond against deeceevoice, as evidenced by the fact that half of User:justforasecond's total edits on Wikipedia (and nearly 80-90% in recent weeks) are against or about deeceevoice. Since User:justforasecond appears to have no standing to bring this new RfA, I am also taking part in this.--Alabamaboy 16:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: deeceevoice refused to take part in the RfC.  She also deleted comments on her talk page regarding civility policies, labeling them vandalism.  Given this behavior, it would likely be fruitless to pursue any other steps. -Justforasecond 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involved parties 

message: I won't dignify this apparent retread of the RfC with a response.  I would, however, like to say something to those who have weighed in in support of me.  First, sincerely, thank you.  But more importantly, this: just ignore JFAS.  He seems to have a rather unhealthful fixation with me (and perhaps may be a recycled antagonist with a new user name and ulterior motives -- perhaps not).  He seems to crave attention of even the most negative sort.  Whatever the case, it is extremely difficult at this point to believe his actions are well-intentioned. Not only do I believe his antics are divisive and counterproductive, I am concerned about the degree to which responding to him  has diverted the time and energies of positive contributors to the project away from the business of improving Wikipedia.  I truly appreciate the support, but, please, go back to your editing.  It's what I intend to do -- when I have the time and the tolerance for it.
I have nothing else to say.  Period.  deeceevoice 10:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by deeceevoice 

message: As stated before, even though User:justforasecond is the author of this RfA, User:justforasecond is bringing this RfA against deeceevoice despite having NO interactions with deeceevoice since the failed RfC against her. This RfA appears to be part of a pattern of harrassment by User:justforasecond against deeceevoice, as evidenced by the fact that nearly 2/3 of User:justforasecond's total edits on Wikipedia (see corrected stats below) are against deeceevoice.
Yes, Deeceevoice can be abrupt to users who make racist and other attacking comments to her. However, many of the examples cited above are from her talk page and, by Wikipedia standards, users are given more freedom to do what they want with regards to their talk page. Deeceevoice is also an excellent editor of articles, as indicated by a long track record of edits. Finally, this RfA is not valid because the previous RfC failed to achieve consensus and was stopped early due to excessive personal attacks.--Alabamaboy 16:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Alabamaboy 

message: I just feel the need to reiterate what my comment on that RfC:
It must be said that there are many places in discussions on Wikipedia where saying "Fuck off" in so many words would save an awful lot of time and energy currently consumed by coming up with long-winded euphemisms and policy discussions that mean exactly "fuck off". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Jpgordon|Jpgordon]] 

message: Since this is an extended version of the same bullcrap, I will add exactly what I did here
I am a strong friend of Deeceevoice on this site, so I don't know if anyone is going to object to my views as being arbitrary.  However, I do know that Deeceevoice, above all arguments, has done much to improve this site, and should be considered one of the valued colloborators here.  This has not been the case, one need only look at her talk page to see hate filled vitriol and rascist comments that she has decided to post there (and I am not just talking about obvious vandalism, I am talking about some contributors) as "gratitude" for her hard work here.  I am not going to condone any NPA or POV actions that Deeceevoice may have; but I do think that it is important to see firstly that as an African American and as an avid intellectual; she may and does have more to offer in terms of contributions to Afrocentrism articles, and this may seem to be POV to others, as on the talk page I have seen several preconceived, biased and rascists notions against her and her edits.  No, it is not right to insult another Wikipedian, however, this argument is inherentently excluding the fault that Deeceevoice's opponents here and outside this RfA have, especially in regards to questionable civility. In Deeceevoice I see a very very strong person; who has convinced me to stay on a site where I am bombarded by hateful racism, along with arrogant and abrasive editors.  As a contributor on Wikipedia, she has stayed through several cases of attacks against her and insults, but only to contribute more to this site.  Her attitudes in my opinion do shed light on the fact that she is trying to give attention to several themes that are ignored and often of poor quality on Wikipedia.  Black topics here are often ignored, so Deecee's efforts to try to improve such have been criticized as POV.  THEY ARE NOT.  They are from a different, and interestingly enough, an AFRICAN AMERICAN perspective.  Does being African American give here the right to add POV in articles? No.  But does being a scholarly intellectual with African descent give her the right to contribute to sites that are often ignored by the monotone community of Wikipedia? Yes. Sure, I know that people will probably not endorse or agree with what I am saying; I have been in a number of debates here (i.e. VfDs, RfAs etc.) , and frankly, every one has been like pulling teeth.  I predict dissent and naysayers leaving nasty comments under this message; but I do not have time for any arguments.  I could sit here and type all day about the excellent contributions Deecee has created for this site; and similarly, write about the rascists and hate filled words directed towards her.  Concerning NPA, it is comprehensible that Deecee voice will get angry.  The problem here is that the complainants are focusing on bad points when Deeceevoice finally did insult malactors for their insults; but never look into the times when she has brushed off such foolishness.  Bottom line, I have no qualms against anyone here (at least not anymore); and I do consider Deeceevoice to be a true friend.  My argument stands as it is.  I know that no one will agree with it, and I will hear people complaining with little subcaps below, as if I am going to give them the time of day to respond to them.  I have a life, I suggest others get the same.  And concerning Deeceevoice not resppnding, I wouldn't either: nothing ever comes of it, people here are ready to crucify her since she has been here.  It will just be a long argument, but the outcome is the same.  Deeceevoice, stay strong. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*  (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Encyclopedist|Encyclopedist]] 

message: deeceevoice has a long history of extremely harassing statements and extreme POV-pushing on this site. She regularly inserts highly Afrocentric opinions into articles related to Ancient Egypt and calls people racists and other major violations of WP:NPA when the edits are removed, while using racially abusive language herself in response, calling editors "Whitey" for example without knowing anything about their actual race. The RFC was not a "failed" RFC, as a large number of posters agreed that she was extremely abusive - nothing further happened solely because RFCs have no teeth, and deeceevoice was ignoring the entire process, instead having editors with questionable histories show up to try to portray her as an angel and her detractors as racist and etc. etc. I don't know [[User:Justforasecond from Adam, other than he tried to get me to make more active role in the RFC, but regardless of whether the attacks on him above by the questionable editors are accurate in their claims or not, the fact remains that deeceevoice's only goal here seems to be rather drastic POV pushing and major, major examples of not just uncivil behavior but outright abuse. Those looking whether to take on this case should ignore the back and forth of the editors above and simply browse the RFC against her and her contribution history. It won't take much time, and you can see for yourselves which (if indeed any) of the views posted above are accurate, or, more importantly, whether there is enough there to open this up to the evidence stage. Much of the content of the statements above are highly irrelevant to the question of whether arbitration is necessary and I think could all too easily act as a smokescreen to the real issues here. DreamGuy 11:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by DreamGuy 

message: see User:Deeceevoice. Sam Spade 16:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]]

message: [I thought only arbitrators were allowed to delete comments). Original question read: WTF stands for what the fuck, right? El_C 12:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: Statement by [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]]

message: I once made some effort to participate in the Afrocentrism article and gave up; dealing with Deeceevoice's high-handedness would have been just too wearing. She holds strong views which I would regard as both racist and unscientific. I have two anthropology degrees; I've taken physical anthropology courses; I know that categories such as "dolichocephalic" and the like are antiquated labels from the 19th century. Yet she uses them with abandon. Deeceevoice has no scientific training and no qualms about labelling anyone who disagrees with her a racist. She is not improving Wikipedia; she is filling it with pseudo-scientific nonsense. I have no objection to the Afrocentric POV being represented, but it should not be allowed to crowd out or intimidate other POVs by playing the "racist" card. Zora 23:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Zora|Zora]]

message: I had similar experiences with DeeCeeVoice. She frequently vandalized the dreadlocks article by removing valid informations about non-blacks, or, as she calls it: "Caucasoid wannabes" . 
The very few things DeeCeeVoice added to the article were either unverifiable or plain incorrect, for instance a reference to Tuts wig, which has braids, not dreads; that dreadlocks are connected to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which is simply incorrect, the assertion that only "black" hair is able to grow into dreadlocks naturally, which is incorrect, the assertion that dreadlocks in Indian Hindu culture have Egyptian origins, which is a totally unverified and unsourced POV edit. (When I asked her to verify her edits, she refused, telling me that: "good writing is more than a regurgitation of facts.")
Instead of adding valid material, she constantly removed valid and sourced informations, for instance the Celtic/Vedic connection, the fact that Rastafari sects welcome all ethnicities, a reference to dreadlocked priests of the Aztec, the Hindu references and quotes, that dreadlocks are a cross cultural hairstyle. She even removed a cybergoth picture asking me to replace it by a cybergoth, totally ignorant to the fact that it IS a cybergoth, she removed the Shiva picture because she disliked that it was "curiously fair-skinned and weirdly blond", totally ignorant of the Hindu color symbolic.
Her biased edits reached a high when she repeatedly removed a picture (Dreadlocked Gabriele.jpg) showing an european dreadlocked man from the dreadlocks article because the picture was allegedly of "poor quality"      , but then insisted to include the very same picture into the Cultural appropriation article to illustrate the pejorative term "Trustafari"     . CoYep 10:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:CoYep|Coyep]]

message: Mostly harmless. Her contributions are largely ridiculous and over-the-top Afrocentric gibberish - ranting about "slave trading crackers" , the size of asians testicles , her distaste at pink flesh , and ignorant-by-default white folks . Since I believe in free speech, I'm happy for racists of whatever hue to participate, whether they be Nordicists, Zionists or, as in DC's case, Afrocentrics. Some might say that allowing these types to contribute is the only way to expose their moribund arguments. To make it clear, I don't support this arbitration attempt. - Xed 12:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Xed|Xed]]

message: I'll sign in because I offered a comment on the RfC and my participation was solicited here.  This has evolved into something different and broader than the RfC.  The RfC was regarding lapses in civility by the editor in question.  The reason I commented on the RfC is that I have noticed she does have over-the-top lapses in civility and there is no reasonable excuse for this.  However, both that RfC and this RfA has turned into something of a witch hunt prosecuted mainly by the stalk handle User:Justforasecond for the purpose of talking about race-related POV issues, and others have jumped on the same bandwagon.  You've taken what was originally a reasonable intervention of a reasonable scope and derailed it by turning it into a broad POV lynching, and I do not appreciate your soliciting my support to participate in it. The Crow 15:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:The Hokkaido Crow|The Crow]]

message: An encyclopedia has to be a neutral source of informations. A bias is a bias, no matter if it's a black bias or a white bias. A racist is a racist and a supremacist is a supremacist, no matter if s/he is black or white. There is no "Black" NPOV and there is no "White" NPOV, there is only a NPOV.  Replacing a "white POV" with a "black POV" and white racism/supremacism with black racism/supremacism, is counterproductive, especially if it's accompanied by insults and uncivil behavior.
Deeceevoice is not very pleasant to deal with. She justifies her personal attacks against other editors as perfectly legitimate and likes to portrait herself as a mere victim. In a former case she even managed to claim that a comment, which was posted more than two years before she even joined Wikipedia, was a "personal attack" against her and therefore entitled her to insult the editors.  Whenever you comment on her lousy behavior she calls you a liar, asking you to provide diffs. When you provide the diffs, she calls you a racist and/or a socketpuppy and accuses you of harrassing and stalking her. Deeceevoice is known for pushing her particular viewpoints at the expense of accuracy, and, as soon as her contributions are challenged, she 
refuses to provide sources or to get up evidence
* I'm not going to spend my time searching the Internet for sources -- particularly for stuff that isn't germane to the article in question and that is perfectly obvious to just about every black person on the street. I have neither the time nor the patience. But that's just me. After a while, this kind of stuff gets really old really fast; it's just wearisome. I've already spent too much time discussing this. What some white folks stubbornly want to believe is what they want to believe. deeceevoice  10:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Pharlap|Pharlap]]

message: I am withdrawing what I will freely admit to being absolutely disgusting and unacceptable comments from this RfAr. Please read the full reasoning at User:Robchurch/deeceevoice.
I'm guilty of everything I blamed Deeceevoice of, and I recognise that, community-wise, I'm not much use here. Wikipedia has no place for my like, and so I'm retiring to develop.
Apologies, profuse and unceasing, to all...Rob Church Talk 19:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]]

message: My one and only dealing with deeceevoice was not pleasant, as documented above.  I will not be working with her in the future unless I have to.  I have never been involved with her in any edits, so I cannot comment on her editing behavior.  However, I am offended that an article in my Talk space and my discussions with her were added as evidence without anyone letting me know they were here that I might discuss them myself.  Zoe (216.234.130.130 19:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Zoe 

message: It's amazing that when people make condescending remarks to DeeCeeVoice and then she responds bluntly to it, we find ourselves here, having perhaps the LONGEST RFA page in the entire history of Wikipedia RFA. How much vandalism has she endured and how much of her responses have been to nip in the bud sneaky attempts to maintain or establish a anti-black POV. For example, she mentions how "Kike" is not given the same lengthy detail and association to Jews as Nigger is given to black people. Therefore those that argue for maintaining a literary or social/cultural link between a racial slur and an ethnic group should not be surprised if a memeber of that group becomes irate. Can you imagine DeeCeeVoice going to a Jewish page and trying to push the same "logic" and meeting resistance from Jewish contributors? Can you then imagine her insisting on her ignorant position that "Kike" should have the same treatment as "nigger" has done? No, I do not think the angry protests from Jewish contributors would be seriously taken as RFCs. These experiences she endurs are obvious. I am starting to get some of the same foolishness. Don't tell me that "nigger" is a real legitimate racial description of a black person. Don't tell me that an IQ test should be put into the black people article. Otherwise you will get some of the same responses that DeeCeeVoice has given some of the "victims" here. So hopefully these examples illustrate the obvious bias. There is a credibility and quality problem in Wikipedia in dealing with articles related to black people. It is something that is extremely frustrating for her I imagine. Who knows how many times she overreacted. She hasn't posted unilaterally and she certainly doesn't seem to be the type that uses circular reasoning as justification for her posts. --Zaphnathpaaneah 23:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Zaphnthpaaneah

message: * Accept. Fred Bauder 21:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0) 

message: I'm going away for the holidays, as I expect many others are.  I'd like to put this into suspended animation until mid-to-late January.
-Justforasecond 17:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion for Holiday Hiatus 

message: In light of Guettarda's notion that Deeceevoice abuses other editors because of the repeated harrassment she has suffered here, I went back and looked at the very first contribution she ever made to Wikipedia, to Talk:Motherfucker on May 30, 2004:
:==Since the term is indisputedly African-American in origin, did Wikipedia ask any of us?==
:It's too bad "scholarly" folk have a tendency to pontificate on a subject, presuming a certain level of knowledge on the matter, without having once bothered to consult the source. My experience has been that white folks are especially good at this when the subject of discussion is black folks and black culture.
:They know it all.
:Wikipedia: "In spite of overuse, the term is widely considered highly insulting when used in earnest. In recent years, 'motherfucker' is increasingly being used to describe inanimate objects, dating back to early hip hop culture."
:Amusing. Any black person would have told Wikipedia’s etymological experts the use of “motherfucker” in this fashion predates hip-hop by several decades.
:Giving credit where credit is due, however, Wikipedia's tracing of the term back to slavery appears entirely plausible/probable. It is clear motherfucker is African-American in origin. It is merely another fine example of blacks crafting, bending the language to make it our own. Highly conscious of the fact that the commission of physical violence against a white man or his property could result in the most draconian punishment, bondsmen often used language as a weapon of choice. Verbal aggression, "woofin'," playing "the dozens" (a reference to the fact that slaves past their prime, who were aged or plain worn out from back-breaking labor, were sold by the dozen) became a means of survival, of safely venting hostility, as well as a sometimes raucous pastime.
:"Motherfucker" -- a word accusatory of, perhaps, the most heinous of universal taboos -- is elegant in its simplicity; exquisitely cutting; elegantly, powerfully destructive. Wikipedia’s explanation grounded in the sexual abuse and exploitation of African bondswomen seems plausible, but is far too facile. The venom of it, its viciousness and obvious contempt tells me the target of such vitriol was even closer to home. White folks were white folks. They were godless and brutal and regarded us as subhuman. We EXPECTED them to behave as they did. Did we despise them? Certainly.
:But the worst of black fury was directed inward, at “race traitors” and those who disgraced members of the group – people of whom we expected better. One must understand the communal consciousness of African bondsmen and women. This awareness was in some respects a product of their shared oppression. But it was also an element central to the traditions from whence they came. In traditional African societies, the dignity and honor of the family, tribe/nation was essential to the health, survival and spiritual well-being of the individual as well as the collective.
:Because the institution of slavery so muddled bloodlines and tore apart family groupings, filial bonds often were in question or completely unpresumed/unknown. While likely relatively infrequent, closely related blacks unknowingly engaging in incestuous relationships would not have been unheard of. Family members often were sold to neighboring plantations, their last names changed to reflect their new owners. Depending on the age of the slave, kinship knowledge easily could be lost within even a generation.
:In today's society, many of us have been desensitized to its power through the pervasiveness of its use today. But back in the day it WAS a fightin`, cuttin`, shootin`, bleedin` word.
:To my way of thinking, without a doubt, “motherfucker” was reserved for those unfortunate black men who, unaware of their lineage, had slept with their mothers or other close relation.
:It was the ultimate condemnation, the Oedipal curse as curse word.
I'm not qualified to judge the merits of the argument being made here, but this was long before the swastikas, the vandals, the racist trolls, and already Deeceevoice is coming out swinging: The disparaging remarks about white folks. The vaguely expressed notion of "Wikipedia" as some sort of anthropomorphized embodiment of the Man, monolithic and clueless. The contemptuous assumption of ignorance on the part of the editors who had contributed to the article in the past, whom she was certain—without asking—had never "bothered to consult the source." (For what it's worth, I first encountered the etymology she ridicules about 15 years ago, not from "white folks" but from... Bobby Seale, in Seize the Time: "Motherfucker actually comes from the old slave system and was a reference to the slave master who raped our mothers which society today doesn't want to face as a fact." So maybe she was wrong about white folks making assumptions.)
It seems clear to me that this is not a case of a reasonable editor being driven to lash out by racist vandals: Deeceevoice was contentious and discourteous from day one. And while it is certainly true that she attracts far more than her share of vermin, I think it's less likely that her hostility stems from being attacked by vermin than that the vermin are attracted to her precisely because of her repeated willingness to rise the bait. In my experience, bullies the world over know that the most "fun" can be had at the expense of the people who give them the biggest reaction. Now, because I know someone's going to say I'm suggesting Deeceevoice deserves to have swastikas posted to her talk page by anonymous vandals... no, that's not what I'm saying at all. Of course not. Use your head. My point is that it's simply wrong to say that Deeceevoice "[lost her] temper in response to constant harassment"—clearly, it was already lost by the time she got here. --phh 07:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I could write nearly half as well as her first contribution. - FrancisTyers 13:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was pretty impressed too. Little bit of attitude should not set folks off. Fred Bauder 13:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful with commenting on Deeceevoice's  well-spokenness and her ability to articulate herself, she might take offense.  CoYep 15:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately it borders on racist, is uncited, and includes original research.  It is just on the talk page, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of it carried over to the article.  Note early in the passage DCV's disdain at scholars who don't consult sources -- "presuming a certain level of knowledge on the matter, without having once bothered to consult the source"  -Justforasecond 16:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A more constructive approach would be to avoid throwing around pejorative terms, using the word racist time after time after time only dilutes the meaning and force of the original word or phrase (in linguistics I believe this is referred to as semantic bleaching). Think of these talk page comments as an opportunity to develop your skills at accomodating other points of view and working towards consensus in difficult circumstances. Deeceevoice is clearly an articulate opponent and a challenging one. I for one have found the process of developing a consensus with her very rewarding. - FrancisTyers 17:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement "White folks are especially good at this when the subject of discussion is black folks and black culture.  They know it all." is borderline racist.  As phh showed, her assumption that "white folks" had come up with information without consulting "the source" (black people) is flat-out wrong.  "White folks were white folks. They were godless and brutal and regarded us as subhuman." displays an us vs. them attitude, lumping all white people into one group; a godless, brutal, racist group.  I also get the feeling that DCV blames present day white folks, as if they're somehow guilty of slaving.  Sure, it could slide if it were just one instance, but it isn't.  She's made many similar comments, such as her later statements about "the enemy".  In any case, phh's point is that DCV was discourteous from day one, which seems to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.  -Justforasecond 17:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The chicken or the egg?

message: It is interesting to note that her user page now displays a "Boycott Wikipedia" graphic.  The logic behind expressing such a message while continuing to participate actively in this site is left as an exercise to the reader.  Skill at Orwellian doublethink might be helpful. *Dan T.* 17:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia boycott?

message: I'm a bit late to the party here, but I did want to register my opinion.  I can't speak to other's experiences, but I have had several arguments with deeceevoice (on blackface, on jazz and, I think, on white supremacy) and at no time was she uncivil.  Certainly she said nothing that could have been construed as a personal attack.  I also think that her work on blackface is exemplary, and I have trouble believing that some users have actually questioned the worth of her contributions to this site.  I disagree with deeceevoice about lots of things, but I have no hesitation in saying that I think Wikipedia is a better place with her than it is without her.
And by the by -- I admit I'm not familiar with the arbitration process, so I have to ask...are these things usually such a mess?  This is just a disaster from start to finish -- admissions of lying, various bizarre conflicts of interest -- I can't even follow all the accusation and counter accusations.  It seems a shame to me that a committed editor has been driven away, as near as I can tell, by the bumbling and undignified nature of this process.  Perhaps that's inevitable in an all-volunteer organization -- but explaining the reason for an inadequacy doesn't make it adequate.  69.217.206.113 06:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your statement that your experience with Deeceevoice was positive. I like her work too, but then I generally like anyone's original research. As to personal attacks and discourtesy, we have the diffs, the evidence. "I don't do nice" is ridiculous. So is, "Don't talk to me". Even when things turn messy I try to keep my eye on the ball, bottom line, reasonable courtesy and writing which is reasonably well sourced is required. Fred Bauder 19:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Fred.  I'm not sure what original research has to do with my comments, unless you're claiming that the blackface article is original research?  If so, I disagree with you strongly; it seems extremely well-documented to me, and (since it's a featured article) that seems to be the consensus in the Wikipedia community as well.  In any case, would you care to respond to my second paragraph?  I am actually curious about whether the arbitration process is usually this...fraught. NoahB 14:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't look at Blackface, but original research and other's reaction to it is a central issue. Deeceevoice is unusual because she has significant community support, folks who think her behavior is excused due to racial consideration. Fred Bauder 23:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Noah, a good place to start on this case are the evidence and workshop pages.  You may have had less-than-negative experiences with deeceevoice in your "argument" with her, but it seems that others were nto so lucky. If you wonder how things work in other arbitrations, they are all available online.  I don't suspect that deeeceevoice has been driven away "by the bumbling and undignified nature of this process".  She's never said anything like "I wanted to hang around wikipedia, but there's just way too much bumbling going on", and she continues to edit daily, though she has been blocked for personal attacks recently.  But, its impossible to know her intentions.  Ask her a question and she responds with incivility (e.g. "F*** OFF", "ARE YOU A RETARD?")   23:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't find it without spending way more time on this than I have available, I fear, but the point where deeceevoice said that she was going to seriously curtail her involvement was in response to the arbitrator who (by his own later admission) lied about her.  It's not that hard to figure out what she's doing; she still participates in talk pages occasionally, but has mightily curtailed her involvement in the project.  So I guess it seemed to me that she was reacting to this process.  I have looked at some of the evidence page stuff already, but thank you for the link.  By the by, I don't know that I was "lucky" with deeceevoice; she has had civil interactions with many editors.  NoahB 23:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noah, I'm surprised you don't recall deeceevoice's incivility; you were in the midst of a flame war with her on White Supremacy (though not the primary party) where she used "head-crakkka-in-charge", "cracker", "low minded mental cretin", etc, claiming that in the South this is perfectly polite language to use.  She also came to your talk page and implied your opinions were incorrect because of your presumed ethnicity "Damn! White people".   What you might not have been aware of was that she continued and continues to use these terms after being informed they were offensive, and that, in addition to her minor edit-war with you over whether Malcolm X was a black supremacist (which I am unaware of), she also insisted the Nation of Islam is not black supremacist (which is well documented).  Take a look at the evidence page.  Justforasecond 00:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and thank you for responding Fred; missed your comments the first time through.  I think Deeceevoice has support because she's been a valuable and intelligent editor, not because of her race.     And if original research is really part of the issue, then you and the other arbitrators certainly need to check out blackface.  You should look at jazz as well. NoahB 23:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Justforasecond, your characterization of my interactions with deeceevoice is exactly the sort of thing that makes me view this proceeding with some suspicion.  A casual reader of your summary would assume that deeceevoice called another user "head-crakka-in-charge."  In fact, she was referring to President Andrew Johnson, a virulent racist whose actions and beliefs were devastating for black Americans -- in my view, it's rather like taking someone to task for calling Hitler a shithead (not in an article, mind you -- on a talk page.)  You also seem to assume, as apparently many in Wikipedia do, that reverse racism and racism are somehow equivalent, and that the epithet "white people!" is somehow a deadly insult along the lines of "nigger".  I don't hold this view myself, and think it's pretty pernicious.  (In the argument you refer to on White Supremacy, I found Sam Spade's dismissive tone and general demeanor more offensive than anything deeceevoice said -- though I think Sam, too, is a valuable editor; I believe he was acting in good faith, and I certainly bear him no ill will.)  As for the argument about whether the NOI is black supremacist; I believe it is; however, your assumption that no reasonable person could argue the contrary seems a little suspect.  Sam has argued, for example, that David Duke should not be called a white supremacist because he does not so self-identify; this view has, I think, prevailed on Wikipedia, more or less, and therefore it seems that the standards of proof for calling someone a black supremacist should be just as high.  As I noted earlier, I have looked at the evidence for this arb-case.  If deeceevoice was merely being censured for civility, I think I would be willing to go along with it.  But the additional charges of POV pushing, original research, etc., which do not seem to me to be very convincing, make me suspicious.  I feel like she is being censured as much for holding unpopular views as she is for the manner in which she presents them.  And that strikes me as problematic.  NoahB 19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noah, the first thing you said here was "at no time was she uncivil" and now you are supporting censuring her for incivility.  I don't get it, but its not worth arguing over.    Justforasecond 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry for barging in, Noah, but allow me to share my point of view.  DCV comes across as having no POV on any topic where racism is obvious-- racist presidents, blackface, etc.  However, when DCV is convinced that there is racism or a black cultural tradition where there isn't, she aims to portray it in a POV way.  Thats just how I've perceived it.--Urthogie 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Justforasecond,  I said (pretty clearly I think) that in my interactions with her she was at no time uncivil.  It does seem that she has been uncivil on other occasions -- I doubt I'd support censoring her for those, (largely for the reasons Jmabel listed in his statement above), but I wouldn't feel the need to weigh in as I do with the other charges added.   Again, your use of quotes out of context here just confirms me in my belief that this process should never have been started.  I'm not doubting your good intentions, but road to hell, paved with, etc.NoahB 19:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noah, you can register your approcal of censure on the incivility matters on the workshop page.  Check out the stuff on "Cool" in the evidence, workshop, and proposed decision pages for original research examples.  Justforasecond 20:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks...but I don't approve of censuring her on civility matters.  I said I might under other circumstances, specifically if this process didn't seem so corrupted.  But it does and I don't.  Sorry if I've been unclear.  NoahB 19:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No biggie.  Maybe less time they'll be less bumbling ;)  Justforasecond 21:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[NoahB]]

message: * This case is, of course, not yet concluded. Nonetheless, I think that Deeceevoice's recent attack on her talk page ("some ignorant, intellectually arrogant/obtuse adolescent") is a continuation of a pattern of disruptive personal attacks and so I've blocked her for 24 hours. I thought it appropriate to log this here. — Matt Crypto 15:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it acceptable under the policy for somebody to demand that a particular other user not post to her user talk page, as she did in this case?  It seems like a pretty rude thing to do. *Dan T.* 22:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, yes, it is somewhat rude, particularly when combined with abusive edit summaries  ("What the F*** don't you get? Do NOT post here -- or I'll open up an RfA. GET LOST."). It's considered the prerogative of editors to have the ultimate say over what comments to keep on their user talk page, so they can delete unwanted messages, and they can request that other users do not post there. Thereafter to keep pushing messages at a user who doesn't want to hear them is normally considered inappropriate. However, in Deeceevoice's case, it seems to be taken too far, in that she uses it as weapon to ignore any criticism about her behaviour. — Matt Crypto 08:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't have posted on her talk page if she wasn't making personal attacks and false statements about me on it.--Urthogie 11:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Block during arbitration

message: * I have blocked Deeceevoice for a week for personal attacks and incivility e.g. . — Matt Crypto 08:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense, but I don't see how she's making a personal attack there.  She's assuming bad faith, yes, but shes not making a personal attack.--Urthogie 09:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: She's being uncivil, but then so was Zoe, and no I don't think that it excuses it, but 1 week is a bit harsh. - FrancisTyers 09:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah.  She just has an in your face personality, and I don't think we should give her a week block on this, at most a day or two.--Urthogie 10:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A week would normally be seen as harsh -- but it's hardly the first time for Deeceevoice. Or the second. Or the third. (Etc.) Certainly at least one other admin thought it was a personal attack: . "Perhaps you should have considered the consequences of your actions before jumping the gun in such an oficious, high-handed manner. And then don't continue to abuse your admin privileges in the future. Speaking frankly, IMO, you're just another example of admin who shouldn't be one..." — I would view this as a personal attack, but I'm willing to accept the possibility that I'm wrong. I've reduced it to 24 hours. — Matt Crypto 13:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems reasonable to me.  I agree that the above post was somewhat mild- if done by a user in good standing, it wouldn't be a blocking offense IMO.  However, since she's a frequently disruptive editor who doesn't seem to be getting the message, I don't think it's out of line at all.  Heck, I'd probably advocate blocks of increasing length from now on.  Friday (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "Speaking frankly, IMO, you're just another example of admin who shouldn't be one..." is borderline, but not really a personal attack... discussing whether someone is doing a good job as an admin isn't really personal so much as a Wikipedia related comment.  A day seems fair to me.--Urthogie 14:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given Zoe's recent actions (out-of-process deletion, protecting pages upon which she was edit warring, reverting pages to her prefered version before protecting them, refusing to explain use of rollback when asked) I'd say the phrase U. quoted is pretty much spot-on accurate.  Guettarda 14:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent block