Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice/Workshop

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | Deeceevoice

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Karmafist (talk | contribs) at 17:58, 26 December 2005 (→Proposed enforcement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Delay for the holidays

1) I'm not sure how long this evidence phase usually lasts, but being during the holidays this stands a chance of a) not getting enough evidence b) taking away from time with our families. I'd like to make a motion to put this on hold till mid-January -Justforasecond 21:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. I don't see this as that complicated. In any event, if there is a real problem, evidence will be forthcoming from others. Fred Bauder 00:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Simply finish this lynching and be done with it

1) I'm sure my use of this word will bother some people, but I say that the arbitrators should simply finish this lynching of Deeceevoice. Yes, she can be abrupt and, at times, insulting in her comments. However, any number of Wikipedians fall into this category. What separates them from Deeceevoice is that she edits an area (African American issues) which attempts to balance out the Wikipedia's systemic bias. As a result, she has been marked with a vendetta by those she's argued with over various racist statements and now these racists have perverted the arbitration process to get back at her. Anyway, do as you will. A number of editors (including myself from this point on) will not be taking part in this because we see this arbitration for what it is--a lynching. While the Arbitrators are not to blame for starting this (and I don't see them as racist), they are to blame for allowing it to continue. And yes, I'm aware that all users should be civil and that this applies to Deeceevoice. But when a supposedly new user like Justforasecond is able to push a personal attack like this, devoting the majority of total edits to harassing and punishing a user, then there is something wrong with this system. Anyway, lynch away. To me (and others) this arbitration is not valid. --Alabamaboy 15:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. You say, "And yes, I'm aware that all users should be civil and that this applies to Deeceevoice." Fred Bauder 15:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. With respect to hurrying, as Deeceevoice has taken a holiday break, we have no need to do anything quickly. She will probably be back and give input. We can wait for that. Fred Bauder 16:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. Justforasecond is just the one who started the RfAr. More than enough evidence has been presented from many other users showing that deeceevoice has abused plenty of people without due provocation or any other reasonable justifications. And I find the comparison of this minor, routine wiki-internal disciplinary procedure to a lynching in extremely poor taste. / Peter Isotalo 13:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Discourtesy and personal attacks

1) Users are expected to be courteous to others and avoid personal attacks, even in the face of provocation, see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. There is no special exception Fred Bauder 01:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Reliable sources

2) Information added should have a reliable source, be verifiable and not be original research, or simply based on personal knowledge and experience.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. There is some leeway, especially regarding subjects on which there are few published references, but the general rule should be kept in mind.
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Deeceevoice has been discourteous and made personal attacks

1) Deeceevoice (talk · contribs) has frequently been discourteous and has made personal attacks Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Workshop#I_don.27t_do_nice, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence#Racial_slurs, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence#Personal_attacks and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence#Attempts_to_.22shut_up.22_other_editors_.2F_discouraging_other_editors_from_editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. But see context [1] of [2] Fred Bauder 23:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Deeceevoice's use of sources

3) Despite some bad talk, Deeceevoice seems to be consulting sources [3]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Socialization in progress Fred Bauder 15:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Deeceevoice cannot edit in any African American related article for one year

1) Deeceevoice cannot edit any article having to do with African American topics for one year after the closure of this arbitration. If found to be doing so, a block of one week is deemed appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. This seems to be the most disruptive part of her experience on Wikipedia. She can't be trusted to edit here in a civil and neutral manner at the present time from the looks of things.karmafist 17:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Edits to Nigger

Karmosin (talk · contribs) made an edit to Nigger which was unsourced, commenting "Fairly exclusive male usage, no?" [4]. Reverted by Deeceevoice with the comment "Reverted. Change was inaccurate." Karmosin then began edit warring [5] requesting "better motivation." Deeceevoice again reverted [6] with the comment "I'm an African-American, and I KNOW. Hell, you're the one making the erroneous assertion. What's YOUR motivation? *x*". Discussion continued at User_talk:Deeceevoice#Male_youth_usage_of_nigger

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Unsourced material may be removed whether you are knowledgable or not. However one's personal knowledge is not an appropriate source. In any event courtesy is required. Repeatedly inserting unsourced information while demanding a reason for its removal is inappropriate. Fred Bauder 15:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The exchange on Deeceevoice's talk page is quite remarkable. Both, having encountered the tar baby, seem to get quite stuck. Fred Bauder 15:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deeceevoice

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

I don't do nice

In response to a comment Matt Crypto by regarding courtesy [7] Deeceevoice responded with "Lookahere. When you've been subjected to half the shyt (check my page; the vandalism you see here is just a taste) that I have on this website, when you've walked in my shoes, then and only then should you ever dare to presume to come to my place and school me on comportment. When I need a lesson on playing nicey-nice to someone's irksome, naive bullcrap, I'll be sure to look you up. I don't do nice. In the meantime, kindly go to hell. *x* "[8] [9].

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Users are required by Wikipedia policy to "do nice" Fred Bauder 16:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Workshop&oldid=32781187"