Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Deeceevoice

message: Unfortunately, this RfC has turned into a rather emotive and poisonous mess, rather than the civil and sober discussion I was hoping for. Therefore, and at the suggestion of JCarriker, I am delisting and closing this RfC, and moving it to my User space. While I still believe there are issues that need addressing, this current RfC is generating much more heat than light. JCarriker has suggested an alternative approach which I would seem to me to be more profitable. — Matt Crypto 03:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

message: All I can say is that I will support Deeceevoice in all that she does, I have nothing but love! εγκυκλοπαίδεια*  (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment.   I hope you don't support EVERYTHING deecee does, but to each his own.  -155.91.28.231 02:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmmm

message: Isn't the fact that there are personal attacks on the request for comment be regarded as in some way objectionable?
: Yes. One would hope that both sides would be willing to argue their cases rationally and with civility. — Matt Crypto 17:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attacks 

message: I mean, what DCV does on her talk page doesn't matter as much as PoV or civility issues in articles, does it? I'd think that'd be the real issue. --Edward Wakelin 19:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the focus of the RfC is on civility issues, not POV, and the civility policies are applicable everywhere. I thought there was enough on her talk page to make the point, and I didn't think there was a need to further. — Matt Crypto 22:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why's the focus on the talk page?  

message: This whole RfC could be done with a simple response from Deecee that "I will try my best to be more civil in the future." I know that's what I'd like to see and I'd bet that's what the vast majority of other editors on this RfC want. 
I'd fully agree with wiping the slate clean and putting aside any past incivility of Deecee. But it's completely unreasonable to expect that future incidents should be ignored. There's a very quick and easy way to close this RfC. All it will take is a promise from a Deecee to try her best. Carbonite | Talk 16:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even see the point of arguing anymore, so I will entertain myself with real world activities while you all debate what someone should do with their life and their time here. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*  (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ...And have a Merry Christmas . εγκυκλοπαίδεια*  (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am through arguing by the way, all of what can be said has been said. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*  (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's end this 

message: This account seems to exist only for the purpose of pursuing this case and spamming talk pages.  Are there any positive contributions from this user to the project?  Guettarda 22:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked his/her contributions (see here). The vast majority for the past week or so are directly related to this RfC, so I can see how you'd get that impression. However, Justforasecond has also made edits to Woody Allen, Yoko Ono, credit score, and others. So I don't think it's an account that was specifically created to harass Deeceevoice, if that's what you mean. I think that JfaS just had a bad interaction with her and has since become a bit obsessed with this RfC. Hopefully (but perhaps unlikely) the whole thing will blow over soon. --Amcaja 22:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, over half of all the user's edits since coming to Wikipedia are related to this RfC. Still, I'm assuming Justforasecond is acting in good faith. However, spamming user pages with accusations of policy violation because these users disagreed with Justforasecond is not the best way to convince others of this RfC's merits. --Alabamaboy 01:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also important to remember that Justforasecond is still fairly new and should be given some grace as he is still learning community norms. Please also keep in mind that this has been a very emotional and stressful debate, and that there are probably users on both sides who are not thinking logically (don't expect me to point fingers). -JCarriker 02:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Justforasecond strikes me also as quite a nice gal/guy who's just gotten overly wrapped up in this (for example, after a mildly heated exchange between us and some illconsidered words on my part, he still took the time to wish me luck on my finals.  =)).  I agree with JCarriker; there's some very experienced editors on both sides here who are still getting upset, so it's pretty understandable that a new guy/gal would get even more determined about it...  --Dvyost 03:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well thanks for the nice words (and no thanks for the unkind words), but, I don't see how its relevant.  Deeceevoice has committed numerous NPA and civility violations -- "F*** off", etc.  I have adhered to wikipedia policy, and in any case, I am not the topic of this RfC.      -Justforasecond 06:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User talk:Justforasecond]]