Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wareware

message: This isn't structured like an RfC. That's going to make it a bit hard to separate out who is actually involved in a dispute and who is an outside observer. In particular, there is nowhere here for people to sign on and indicate that they have tried to work this through.
On a quick read, assuming this is accurate, Wareware's behavior is, to say the least, in appropriate: this looks to me like someone who is a detriment to Wikipedia. Deeceevoice, I know this is stupid in this case, but is there a second person who can sign on as having intervened to try to get Wareware to stop this behavior? If not, I will approach him, and doubtless incur his wrath, oh well, so that I may legitimately sign on as that second person. 
Meanwhile, it would help a lot if you would reformat this like a normal RfC, so that the process can proceed sanely, with clarity as to what is evidence, what is outside comment, what is defense, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:45, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
*I appreciate the time you've taken to address this matter.  I've taken a look at the RfC form and find it a bit daunting.  I'm under a couple of fairly tight deadlines and am dealing with some hardware problems which also require my attention.  But I'll get to it as soon as I can.  I think, however, that I've provided much of the information required.  And, no.  No one has intervened in the past with regard to Wareware's despicable conduct.  I have been the only one to remonstrate with him -- and he has responded with a snide "apology" laced with more blatantly racist allusions.  What have other Wikipedians done?  They've criticized me.  And that has been the problem.  The silence of others has given Wareware license to spew racist venom at will, with impunity.  Not one individual on Wikipedia -- until now -- has said a single, solitary mumblin' word.  deeceevoice 10:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

message: It occured to me that even though I did not know of Ww's abuse (or the RFC would have been filed right there and then), I was involved extensively (even if this was limited to one article: see Afrocentrism talk pages and archives) in the dispute between the two. And while I did not understand the extent or nature of the antipathy, I did attempt to help resolve the dispute. That I can only qualify the nature and scope of it now is, indeed, somewhat problematic, still, I believe it meets the burden of proof for certification. Additionally, Ww himself attempted to get me involved again in the dispute between himself and DC sometime later, for a completely different article in a comment which read:
------
hiya El C, third party opinion needed (RfC) on melanin. I'm engaged in a revert war with the Afrocentrist, so you know how it goes. It might not be your specialty but any help is appreciated. Thanx  Wareware 19:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Addendum: 2nding

message: I've refactored the page in line with the RfC template, which says that all comments not being offered in evidence should be left on this page. I copied DC's summary onto the RfC page, and also Wareware's response, but otherwise I'm posting the rest below. I'll leave it to others to decide whether they want to offer their comments in evidence. I also wrote up what I saw as the relevant diffs and have posted these as evidence, as Deeceevoice said she had some computer issues, but she should decide which of the diffs should stay or go. SlimVirgin 01:00, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Posted by User:Deeceevoice:
*From talk: black supremacy
1. Gawd, at least I wasn't the one having all those arguments with other contributors and the one being requested to act with civility from sysops. Teach me civil discourse will you, eh? Try looking into a mirror and see if you can see a savage yourself. Are you gonna respond or just blanket revert and adding all those pointless rant in the article? Wareware 05:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not presume to teach you anything; frankly, I've begun to doubt that you are even marginally trainable. "Savage"? I have responded, civilly and with specific information -- which is far more than you have done. deeceevoice 01:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: [Note:  The user who introduced this phrase later admitted he was only "ranting" and essentially apologized.]
2.  ...Give me a break, you pathetic louse. Black supremacy, just like any kind of supremacy, should enrage people and not to be diminished by reverse racism and whitewashing. You gotta be a fucking racist if you think otherwise. Wareware 19:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Wareware, keep in mind that the average Wiki user doesn't follow me from article to article to read my contributions. Each article to which I contribute should be viewed separately and the merits of my contributions judged as one would judge those of any other contributor. My interest is my interest, and my intent is my intent. I am no different from a music aficionado following his or her interest to articles related to that broad subject. Wareware, you keep harping on my "preoccupation" with matters of race. My stated intent is to bring a black perspective to Wiki articles -- which is sorely lacking on this website. And you seem to have a problem with that. Not my problem. The preoccupation, in fact, is yours; because you repeatedly follow me around Wikipedia like some lap dog to snipe at my contributions, becoming increasingly belligerent with each post. Get some common sense, some self-respect. Get a life. deeceevoice 09:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from RfC page

message: * Wareware seems to have a serious problem with racism and personal attacks. Has he been harassing any other users? Binadot 16:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wareware, keep in mind that the average Wiki user doesn't follow me from article to article to read my contributions. Each article to which I contribute should be viewed separately and the merits of my contributions judged as one would judge those of any other contributor. My interest is my interest, and my intent is my intent. I am no different from a music aficionado following his or her interest to articles related to that broad subject. Wareware, you keep harping on my "preoccupation" with matters of race. My stated intent is to bring a black perspective to Wiki articles -- which is sorely lacking on this website. And you seem to have a problem with that. Not my problem. The preoccupation, in fact, is yours; because you repeatedly follow me around Wikipedia like some lap dog to snipe at my contributions, becoming increasingly belligerent with each post. Get some common sense, some self-respect. Get a life. deeceevoice 09:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments of other editors moved from RfC page

message: deeceevoice
[NOTE:  I awaken this a.m. to find Pharlap has inserted inaccurate comments in my post, which is unacceptable.  As a result, I have once again deleted the second incarnation of this section and reinserted my own words.  If anyone wishes to comment on anything I have written, please do so at the close of my comments, maintaining this text intact.] deeceevoice 16:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aw, get over it, Pharlap! What? And I suppose you haven't noticed all the racist crap around here? I suppose we should all ignore it and pretend everything's just hunky-dory, eh? I see openly addressing the race bias on Wiki as being constructive. Besides, what I have to say about Wiki on my personal page has nothing to do with this discussion -- speaking of "spend[ing] our energies on more constructive discussions." And speaking of this discussion, would you care to explain to me why someone like Wareware continues to spew racial slurs with complete impunity? Why people like you see fit to criticize me for calling attention to a very real problem, yet you have absolutely nothing to say in the way of reproval or criticism about or to a Wiki member who uses words like "ape," "savage" and "jungle" when referring to a black person? And you think when you criticize me you have some kind of credibility? Hypocrites like you are really laughable. Credibility? You got none. Criticism from someone like you reads like glowing praise. Thanks for the compliment. *x* deeceevoice 10:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  All talk pages with your contributions are still available. I would not only recommend, but urge that people read all of them in context before they come to a decision. Pharlap 16:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said earlier: all talk pages with your contributions are still available. I would not only recommend, but urge that people read all of them in context before they come to a decision. Pharlap 17:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Pharlap's charges against User:Deeceevoice 

message: * 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: refuses to provide sources or to get up evidence

message: * Glad that crap is gone. They were totally unnecessary from the git-go. But some white folks just have to have their freakin' say on every goddamned thing black folks do. deeceevoice  15:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: and rather claims to be a target of racism

message: * You probably don't know jack about the complexities of America's internal problems, so I'll overlook your ignorance about "diminishing returns" -- but not your presumptuous arrogance. Don't speak on what you don't know. deeceevoice  14:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: or claims that other contributers are simply arrogant and ill-informed

message: * Get over yourselves and get a clue! deeceevoice  17:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: or simply claims that other contributors are "clueless"

message: * What are you doing? (Other than being an arrogant ass.) deeceevoice 03:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal attacks

message: All in all, she is not very pleasant to deal with. Unfortunately, it seems that the two of us share the same interests, and unfortunately, those articles are most often spoilt by edit wars as soon as Deeceevoice participates, and since I like to keep my life drama-free (and since I don't want to be accused of "stalking" simply because I contribute to the same articles like she does), I refrain most of the time from contributing. 
While I'm well aware that Warewares over-reaction should not be tolerated, I can see how and why it could come so far. 
Maybe this dispute could be settled by giving both, Deeceevoice and Wareware, a warning and a "watchdog", to make sure that both behave in the future. Pharlap 00:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: I just got around to skimming the above.  Pharlap, you should be ashamed.  Such selective editing!  Nothing short of cynical and truly sinister.  This is, frankly, just garbage.  deeceevoice 16:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said earlier: all talk pages with your contributions are still available. I would not only recommend, but urge that people read all of them in context before they come to a decision. Pharlap 17:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Pharlap, I urge you to provide diffs for each of your quotation of DC. Without these, the evidence is one-sided as we are not able to observe whom and to what the passages cited were in response to. El_C 13:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Individual diffs, again

message: I picked one heated quote cited by Pharlap randomally. What Pharlap cites actually features DC's response to an unpleasent Anon. Oh, and –unlike Pharlap– I am making this privy to everyone here with a diff  (ctrl.F "arrogant ass").
----
Anon says to DC, this being his very first comment on the page:
  
If you're so ignorant of your heritage that you don't even know what ethnic group you're from then you don't deserve to call yourself by one! -- ark
The very next editor directly following this says to the Anon, rather mildly if I may add [Ad. On closer read, I misread this comment], in his very first sentence:
ark, perhaps you misunderstand the neature [sic.] of an encyclopedia.
  
DC's comment follows that (what was partially cited by Pharlac is in italics):
I am bringing up the sides of the issue the article never talks about. And in so doing I am helping in the construction of an NPOV article. What are you doing? (Other than being an arrogant ass.)
----  
Not too harsh, I would think, for someone who tells you if you don't even know what ethnic[ity] you're from then you don't deserve to call yourself by one! And this is all he says, he does not participate in the discussion at all save that one insult. And this is a (randomally picked!) quote Pharlap submitts to this RFC in order to accuse DC of personal attacks(!) So, Pharlap, who directed the first personal attack towards the other here? Was it DC or the Anon? How do you account for this? Weigh your words carefuly. El_C 15:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is weak.  Still no explanation for why my comments (in this and your other examples) were completely divorced from their context.  Why?  Because the way you've deliberately and deceptively edited discussion thread excerpts is utterly indefensible.  deeceevoice 03:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pharlap's questionable tactics: examined

message: First of all, let me offer my deepest apologies for my absence from  this discussion. It was ignorant of me to forget that this Deeceevoice vs. Wareware trial should have top priority in my life. My decision to spend the holiday with my family and friends is inexcusable. I will try hard to keep my priorities straight in future.
I planned to contribute some additional facts, more detailed diffs, and a complete and correct "Evidence of disputed behavior", but decided otherwise because of several reasons.
I realize now that it was incredible arrogant of me to think that the mere fact that I was part of several edit teams in question, and that I wasted my time to read all of deeceevoice and wareware's contributions on other talk pages and their corresponding edit histories as well, qualified me to offer an outside view. I see now how this was an erronous assumption and understand that this is not the place to add anything which could compromise deeceevoice's reputation, that my statements were incriminatory and therefore rightfully labeled creative or  outrageous, and removed.
I realize now that I have held innumerable resentments against myself, caused by my confused upbringing which screwed my head sideways and made me believe I'm human first. I promise to better myself, and will in future  start to embrace paranoid conspiracy theories, will do my best to support all kinds of supremacist doctrines to prove my blackness, will fight fiercely against all opponents of supremacist thought, will refrain from any attempts to reveal circumstances that lead to certain behavoir and/or simply shut up.
I humbly accept all verbal attacks against me, because I understand that playing the devils advocate must be punished by all means necessary, which naturally includes the attempts of character assassination against me on personal talk pages. 
With trust that this trial will be closed in a satisfactory manner, I leave it to wareware to fend for himself and withdraw myself with respect from this discussion. Pharlap 23:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, Deecee's line that someone of mixed ancestry can only demonstrate their mental "health" by conforming to the simplistic racial categories favored by racists--"I'm black because racists think I am!"--well, it's weak and lame, IMO. But this isn't about Deecee's ideas, Pharlap. It's about whether Wareware's comments were appropriate in any context. And they weren't. Babajobu 00:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Babajobu, I share the opinion that Warewares behavior can't be tolerated. I clarified my position here  Pharlap 23:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it, Pharlap. I guess I would just say that if Deecee's behavior has been negative, then that should be considered separately from any discussion of the racist language to which Deecee was subjected. The former doesn't excuse the latter in any way. Babajobu 08:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I view Pharlap's above comments as intransigent and contemptive of this RFC. That he has yet to provide diffs, that he has yet to address the would-be personal attack I cited above, I find rather appaling. If Pharlap wishes to discredit himself with such a one-sided presentation of the evidence (which seemingly includes outright fabrication), that is his prerogative. I find his justifications utterly unconvincing. Considering the length of his one-sided, un-diff'd evidence, one would think that he would see it fit to issue this RFC with some sort of notice of forthcoming absence. Instead, we get the above diatribe which is nothing short of an insult and reflects very poorly on him. Babajobu's makes an important point in so far that: whether I would, generally, agree with Pharlap's science and disagree with that of Deeceevoice's (which seems likely), should not have —cannot have— any bearing on this case whatsoever. ed. El_C 01:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, Deecee, my apologies. I was responding to one particular paragraph, the one that finished with a comment about Halle Berry. If I missed the context, my bad. Anyway, it's all neither here nor there as regards the main issue of this page, which is Wareware's comments. BTW, people, what is a "diff"? Everyone keeps asking for them, and I don't know what they are. And what's the upshot here? So there are nine people vouching for Wareware's unacceptable behavior. What happens next? Babajobu 14:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I am also new to the dispute resolution process, and this is the first RFC I have ever endorsed or certified (I somehow managed to do both). That said, I am certainly not recommending Mediation in this case. I am hopeful that this RFC will be used as evidence brought before the Arbitration Committee, and that their findings will reflect Deecee's position as stated above, which I share. And, when everything is finally concluded and archived, we can note that with one, giant diff. :p El_C 03:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, this RfC is about a particular episode involving Deecee and Wareware, but several people (including Deecee) have alluded to a second and larger issue: how the hell did this go on for so long, with numerous people criticizing Deecee's behavior, but no one EVER taking a moment to tell Wareware not to talk like a racist freak? I'm generally very slow to shout "racism!", and far slower to shout "systematic, institutional racism!" but clearly something was going very wrong here. Somebody on the other page mentioned the idea of a site-wide ban on this sort of thing. That might present some "slippery slope" concerns. But the whole issue should certainly give Wikipedians pause. Things like this shouldn't ever have to make it to RfC...they're too blunt, too ridiculous, not to have been addressed much earlier in the whole process. Babajobu 10:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: It's just my opinion, and I don't feel the need to justify it as this page is not to do with writing an encyclopedia article, though of those who offer relevant info about themselves here the great majority are white, --SqueakBox 22:01, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
I've moved the above comments here for obvious reasons.  Focus, Spade.  Whatever your beef or question is with regard to what I've written on my user page, it is absolutely irrelevant to the matter at hand.  deeceevoice 08:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually I've never read your user page, I'll go do so now and see what I think ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Final comment from Pahrlap

message: : For what it's worth, Deecee's line that someone of mixed ancestry can only demonstrate their mental "health" by conforming to the simplistic racial categories favored by racists--"I'm black because racists think I am!"--well, it's weak and lame, IMO. But this isn't about Deecee's ideas, Pharlap. It's about whether Wareware's comments were appropriate in any context. And they weren't. Babajobu 00:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Babajobu, I share the opinion that Warewares behavior can't be tolerated. I clarified my position here  Pharlap 23:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it, Pharlap. I guess I would just say that if Deecee's behavior has been negative, then that should be considered separately from any discussion of the racist language to which Deecee was subjected. The former doesn't excuse the latter in any way. Babajobu 08:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I view Pharlap's above comments as intransigent and contemptive of this RFC. That he has yet to provide diffs, that he has yet to address the would-be personal attack I cited above, I find rather appaling. If Pharlap wishes to discredit himself with such a one-sided presentation of the evidence (which seemingly includes outright fabrication), that is his prerogative. I find his justifications utterly unconvincing. Considering the length of his one-sided, un-diff'd evidence, one would think that he would see it fit to issue this RFC with some sort of notice of forthcoming absence. Instead, we get the above diatribe which is nothing short of an insult and reflects very poorly on him. Babajobu's makes an important point in so far that: whether I would, generally, agree with Pharlap's science and disagree with that of Deeceevoice's (which seems likely), should not have —cannot have— any bearing on this case whatsoever. ed. El_C 01:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, Deecee, my apologies. I was responding to one particular paragraph, the one that finished with a comment about Halle Berry. If I missed the context, my bad. Anyway, it's all neither here nor there as regards the main issue of this page, which is Wareware's comments. BTW, people, what is a "diff"? Everyone keeps asking for them, and I don't know what they are. And what's the upshot here? So there are nine people vouching for Wareware's unacceptable behavior. What happens next? Babajobu 14:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I am also new to the dispute resolution process, and this is the first RFC I have ever endorsed or certified (I somehow managed to do both). That said, I am certainly not recommending Mediation in this case. I am hopeful that this RFC will be used as evidence brought before the Arbitration Committee, and that their findings will reflect Deecee's position as stated above, which I share. And, when everything is finally concluded and archived, we can note that with one, giant diff. :p El_C 03:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, this RfC is about a particular episode involving Deecee and Wareware, but several people (including Deecee) have alluded to a second and larger issue: how the hell did this go on for so long, with numerous people criticizing Deecee's behavior, but no one EVER taking a moment to tell Wareware not to talk like a racist freak? I'm generally very slow to shout "racism!", and far slower to shout "systematic, institutional racism!" but clearly something was going very wrong here. Somebody on the other page mentioned the idea of a site-wide ban on this sort of thing. That might present some "slippery slope" concerns. But the whole issue should certainly give Wikipedians pause. Things like this shouldn't ever have to make it to RfC...they're too blunt, too ridiculous, not to have been addressed much earlier in the whole process. Babajobu 10:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response:

message: I can see a RfC being filed about all of this, but surely User:Deeceevoice, who seems to have been fighting fire with fire thruout, can't claim clean hands in this case. I don't care what name you call it, the   "signifyin'" doesn't help DC's case w me, and while it doesn't excuse the initial statement by WW, it does minimize later statements in my eyes as a tradeoff back and forth. Frankly, I think alot of apologies need to be made, and proclamations that in the future the participants here won't stoop to such a level. If such conduct continues, I would favor arbitration for either one or both of them. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck? 

message: Than why do you "personally think there aren't enough black people working here"? How do you know how many we have? Maybe we are majority black, for all I know, who cares? "one should be judged on one's edits and not on how other's perceive one as a person, or even of how one is as a person". (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:47, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just my opinion, and I don't feel the need to justify it as this page is not to do with writing an encyclopedia article, though of those who offer relevant info about themselves here the great majority are white, --SqueakBox 22:01, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
I've moved the above comments here for obvious reasons.  Focus, Spade.  Whatever your beef or question is with regard to what I've written on my user page, it is absolutely irrelevant to the matter at hand.  deeceevoice 08:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually I've never read your user page, I'll go do so now and see what I think ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Extraneous comments moved from RfC project page