Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive332

Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently blocked for one year under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice. This block may or may not mature into a ban. The user may appeal the block/ban by the normal procedures. As such, there seems no need to continue this discussion. Physchim62 (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice, please check out for background and context.

Today I banned this user from Afrocentrism and its talk page for tendentious talkpage time-wasting, incivility, edit-warring, and POV-pushing (see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] (you need to read the article and see how bad it is to get that one)). Please also check some of her contributions to other articles to get the full flavour of her/his POV-pushing. From the user talk we get such gems as this:

Directed at User:Wikidudeman, I believe. In response to my banning this user from Afrocentrism, I get told my actions are "unresponsive, high-handed, arrogant and totally off the wall" on my user talk. Reviews? Opinions on further action? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the discussion exchange (this was not a "discussion"; you blew me off) on this matter on your talk page here[8] and the amazingly flimsy excuses you've offered for your completely over-the-top action, I'd say my assessment of your behavior is dead-on accurate. I stand by it. deeceevoice (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And, no. The comments were referring to DBachmann. And my assessment of his animus and motivations appears to be shared by others who've noted that he's frequently incivil and antagonistic toward editors who contribute in good faith, but who do not share his views. Just check out his RfC,[9] which at this point has 13 signatories. Finally, lest there be any misunderstanding, this appeared on a user talk page, and not in the article talk space. deeceevoice (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on Deecee's edits on Afrocentism per se, but I do believe she is guilty of multiple, repeated, and unapologetic violations of civility. Long as her block log is, I'm surprised it isn't longer given that she’s basically thumbed her nose at the arbcom ruling. She's been around since 2004--I'm not sure there's a way to reach her, though as I've seen people I respect say she's a good contributor, it'd be nice if there were an effective way to get her attention.

IronDuke

22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The block log and history here seem amazingly similar to the Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) situation in the section directly a few sections above here, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action. Similar blocks, similar long-term incivility, just a different POV is being similarly furiously promoted, for better or worse. Haizum was just blocked indefinitely (and then appears upgraded to an indefinite ban, afterwards). EDIT: Actually, Deeceevoice's block log looks worse than User:Haizum's. • Lawrence Cohen 22:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that block log, I am inclined to indef and be done with it. She has had every chance in the world to reform and hasnt taken it. Good writer or not, we don't need people with her failings here. Viridae^Talk 22:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many editors and admins who will vigorously defend DCV's rights to slander other editors, create tension, soapbox, ignore the arbcom ruling, poison every article she works on with POV and accuse anyone who calls her on it of racism. I think it's about preventing systemic bias. Somehow. I don't see the logic myself.

☎

23:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of personal attack blocks logged on the arbitration page, and the extent of the block log for the same. Is there two other admins who will support a year long block per remedy seven of the arbitration case: "She may be banned from Wikipedia for up to one year by any three administrators for good cause.". I consider a failure to abide by the personal attacks policy repeatedly sufficient cause and the recent edits for which she has now been banned from that article. Viridae^Talk 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ban. We're finally winning the encyclopedia back from the trolls, so we shouldn't stop with this one. While it maybe a personal attack, you have to call a spade a spade, and with multiple blocks, ANI threads and an RfAr, it's not getting through. Will ^(talk) 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would probably support a ban of some period. She's not here to improve the encyclopedia, she's here to fight some kind of race war. We don't need this nonsense here. Friday (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, although I don't oppose a block like the one you gave her, did you get the support of two other admins? Corvus cornix 23:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Both Neil and Friday are admins and are supporting the block. I have enacted it. Viridae^Talk 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, can you log the block on the Arbitration case, pretty please? And have it endorsed by two admins who agree to the one year ban as required. (Neil and Friday's endorsement of a ban of "some period" is not necessarily support for a one year ban as required at

Thatcher131

00:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Logged. I may have been a bit hasty in enacting that block, but I think it will stick given that everyone appears to be sick of her behaviour - wouldnt have done it otherwise. Viridae^Talk 00:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a month would have been better. This would show her what will happen if she continues to use Wikipedia as a battleground, but will give her one last chance to reform all the same. If she continues after my proposed shortening to one month, then I would have no objection to re-extending it to a year. While I see this year block as better than nothing, it nevertheless does not strike me as the ideal sanction at this time. Picaroon (t) 02:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I simply feel that she has had ample chance. The block log is 28 items long, almost a third of which are since the arbcom case... Viridae^Talk 03:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, look at this another way: her last block, according to her arbitration case, is over a year old; to me that says she's generally reformed of whatever problems she was deemed to have back then (I was unaware of this editor back then, so I can't say). I'd say that's worth investing a little good faith in it.--Ramdrake 03:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Moreschi is the same user who called my requests for civility from

Have you actually SEEN the block log? Its as long as my arm. I am incredibly surprised she has lasted this long. Viridae^Talk 01:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

28 separate items in the block log, in fact. For all I know, that might be some sort of a record. John Carter 01:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that's SPUI (talk · contribs) by a mile. Hell of an editor all the same. Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• How EliminatorJR conceived that comment as an attack on Moreschi, I don't know. It is perfectly acceptable to comment on a user's involvedness. Picaroon (t) 02:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I want to comment on your own involvedness then. You kind of have this pattern of defending and giving support to abusive users if they are pushing some pro-black or Afrocentrist biased opinion on Wikipedia. I'm also pretty sure that that other administrator EL C what's his name will soon get all Che and "heroic" on this valid block. Make yourselves less predictable, or this place will turn into a complete joke to the outside world. 82.208.193.150 03:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Pattern of defending "pro-black" editors? Like when I warned Jeeny and Taharqa about incivility towards their allegedly "pro-white" opponents? Or when I blocked Jeeny for edit-warring on
  Race of ancient Egyptians, and protected the article on her opponent's version? Or when I supported a month-long block of Deeceevoice? That's hardly a pattern of support, my proxy-using friend. Care to comment under your main account, or are you banned? Wait, don't answer. Picaroon (t)
  00:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• C'mon everybody knows this is all an act, feigning neutrality to cover your back. You block Jeeny knowing the cabal would be all over it in no time. Nobody is fooled. 222.231.8.175 (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, if you keep blocking people who have a lot of blocks then it's not a surprise that they have a lot of blocks. Second, I'm sorry if it comes across as if I'm attacking anyone. That's not my intention here. It is just that I saw the events that happened on the page Afrocentrism in a different way. Dbachmann, was the driving force behind the "edit war" and lack of civility on the talk page that got that paged blocked. Wikidudeman came up with an idea for a "truce" to get it unblocked. Deeceevoice and Dbachmann did not want to do it. They both refused. I don't understand Dbachmann's reasons, he seems to feel that he should not have to enter in to such agreements because it makes it hard for him to "fight trolls" (?) I don't know... (see his talk page to read it in his own words...)

Deeceevoice refused, possibly because she does not trust Wikidudeman, after all, he's the one who tried to get her user page deleted a few weeks ago. They seem to have had some issues in the past. Deeceevoice has not been the only aggressor in this.

So, if this quote, which isn't a personal attack as much as it shows that Deeceevoice is not assuming good faith (and if someone tried to get my user page deleted I don't know if I'd assume good faith...) is all that you have as the reason for this block then I think a block is way to harsh and unfair. futurebird 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as Deeceevoice is one of our best editors. Thanks,

SqueakBox

02:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I took a closer look at the diffs listed above and I don't understand how they support the charge?

• This link here, which is given as evidence as to why deeceevioce should be blocked, seems to just be her responding to my question about a citation tag she added to one of my sentences in the article. I found her response helpful. (I don't agree with all of it, and will respond after looking at some sources) But, it's not POV "editing."
• this isn't a "POV edit" either it's an explanation for a lack of trust. I hope that the context I provided makes this clear.
• this is not a POV edit. If you read it in context it's something I agreed with. It's called "systemic bias" there's a whole project devoted to fighting it.
• This is not a "POV edit" either.

I agree that her tone is at times harsh, a warning will do for that, But it's not like she is an admin and saying these kinds of things. None of this makes any sense to me. futurebird 02:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

One question that I'd like to ask, is how much more scrutiny would have gone in that call to admin action if Deeceevoice's record had been spotless? I may be wrong, but I feel she's been summarily declared guilty of all charges in good part because of her past record, and I don't think this should happen, as it is the practical application of the logical fallacy of Begging the question, namely she must be guilty; just look at the number of previous blocks she has. Yes, her exchanges show that she had problems assuming good faith in the situation reported, but it should be clear by just looking at histories from Talk:Afrocentrism, User talk:Dbachmann and User talk:Deeceevoice that she wasn't the only one, at the very least. Look, one of the exchanges that are linked in the list of offenses she purportedly committed was directed at me, and I took no offense, especially in this extremely tense situation (and again, it should be obvious from looking at the Afrocentrism talk page that another editor actually started the tenseness. So, in summation, I must agree with Futurebird here that the sanction was totally out of proportion with the purported offense.--Ramdrake 03:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to question the one-year ban also on the basis that it is customary at Wikipedia to escalate the length of blocks when offenses are repeated often, and when users stop offending for a long time, the blocks usually de-escalate. Based on this, I'd like to point out again that Deeceevoice's last block was in October 2006, was for 24 hours only, and that she's made litterally thousands of constructive edits since then. So, a one-year ban for repeating an offense one year after the offense garnered the offender a mere 24 hours is totally out of justifiable proportions. I say, if people feel she needs to be blocked, anything from one day to one week would be more appropriate, or possibly the time served so far on this block may even suffice.--Ramdrake 13:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I seriously question a one-year block. For the record i seldome have agreed with DCvoice's comments or edits though it has been a long time since I have worked on the same articles. I know DCV can be conentious and have no doubt that s/he can use some cooling down right now - a few days, maybe a week at most. But I think that systematic bias at Wikipedia is a serious problem and DCV's POV is no more extreme and no less valuable that that of many active editors. Perhaps DCV can benefit from some mentoring. perhaps DCV and Dbachman need mediation. My point is, we MUST have better mechanisms for these kinds of problems than one year bans. I believe if anyone wants to ban DCV for more than a week that they file an ArbCom complaint and ensure that due process is provided. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Couple points.. first, yes, a year is probably excessive. Why not start with a month? Also, I agree that the case of POV editing has not been made well on this page. I assumed it was true because it's historically been a problem with this editor, and I assumed that the admin who banned her from Afrocentrism exercised due diligence in determining that it was warranted. If she's not still making unconstructive biased edits and being generally impossible to work with, that's another story. Mentoring is not an option in my view- if she cared about feedback from other editors, we wouldn't be having this problem. She's a racist with a chip on her shoulder, and if someone disagrees with her, she assumes they're part of the White Conspiracy Against The Truth. Does this sound like a mentorable editor? No, the solution is to keep her in a box where she can't hurt anything. Friday (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I'll vouch that her edits were pretty much in line with majority consensus on the article page, and this situation got escalated through the one dissenting user (Dbachmann); this should help explain some of the angry reactions to this user's block. I can provide diffs to demonstrate if needed.---- Ramdrake (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The incivility is over the line, and this is a long-term problem, so I think a block of some length is necessary to make clear that this won't be tolerated, but I'm also hesitant to support such a long-term block. Why not a week or month, with a longer term block if more incivility follows? -- Everyking (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is evidence to justify a block of any-kind. I think a warning is all that is required in this case. Also, Friday, you tone is rather condececeding, and I don't think it's very professional to talk about keeping any user "in a box where she can't hurt anything." I think your tone is too harsh, in the same way that deeceevoice's tone is often too harsh. -- futurebird (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's sometimes necessary to attempt damage control here at Wikipedia. Maybe it's not nice, but it's what the encyclopedia needs. Friday (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How many warnings does Deeceevoice need? How many has she had? Don't you think those multitudes of previous blocks would count as warnings? -- Corvus cornix (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why she is being blocked this time? -- futurebird (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to Physchim62, but I'm unarchiving this for a little while, because I believe this could do with more time for scrutiny. (Closing the discussion less than 24 hours after it began is not really good for those of us who do not have the ability to live and breathe Wikipedia 24/7...) If you look at her block log, you'll observe that I'm not Deeceevoice's greatest fan, and have myself been the target of no small amount of her invective. However, I do feel somewhat that a year's block may be a little disproportionate to her actual recent conduct. Let's accrue some collective opinions about this for a little longer, before we declare this topic closed. There's no need to be hasty. — Matt Crypto 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved here, but I've seen Deeceevoice get a free pass on civil/npa like no other editor I can think of over the years. I've always been a little amazed how she gets away with it...I doubt very many other editors would have gotten as much slack as she has gotten since 2004. But having said that, a year long block is ramping things up a little fast. The ArbCom result aside, her block log isn't outrageous over the last year...I think a shorter block might be more appropriate for starters. A week or two maybe?

talk

) 06:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

After multiple suggestions, I am willing to reduce it to a month, only because she has been better (not perfect, just hasnt got a block out of it) recently. Viridae^Talk 10:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at the six or seven edits p0rovided above as evidence justifying the ban, and I do not see how they justify any ban. If you are looking for a community ban, you need consensus and you do not have it. Ramdrake, Futurebird, and I obviously feel strongly about this. Several of the edits provided as evidencts of tendentious incivility and edit-warring are anything of the sort - the first edito for example is very reasonable and just what we would want contributors to post to talk pages. I see an conflict between DCV on the one hand and Dbachman on the other. If one merits a ban, so does the other. I see this whole proceeding as an attempt to side-step ArbCom because the evidence provided simply would not stand up under ArbCom scrutiny, or other editors who have been in conflict with DCV would end up being blocked or banned as well. I have seen a lot of crap at Wikipedia and the evidence offered above simply doesn't raise to a bannable standard (unless we have a racist double-standard that holds people we think are black or women to a higher standard of behavior than white men). Some of the edits presented as evidence are DCV simply registering dissent. If that were a bannable offence we would all be banned. Even a one month ban is not justified in this case. Am I wrong? take it to ArbCom and see how the so-called evidence stands up to a rigorous due process. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Easily. We know what we'll get if we unban this person. We'll get the same old use of WP as a blog, blatant contempt for other editors, same old POV editing (did people see what DCV was condoning on Afrocentrism?), same old time-wasting drama. Do we really want to? And yes, the same people protesting here are the ones who were quite happy to let screamingly bad POV content stand on Afrocentrism, along with DCV (thank heavens for this edit!) Either DCV appeals to the ArbCom or this ban stands. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Easily? Then take it to Arb-Com - I mean, take your complaint to ArbCom. Wikipedia insists that people with diverse points of view work together. DCV represents an extreme - but notable point of view. It is clear to me that some people cannot work with DCV, but it is also clear to me that other people can work with DCV. DCV's behavior is not more extreme or tendentious than many other editors, and oftentimes less so. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We've already been to ArbCom. They gave us measures to stop DCV from troublemaking in the future. Now we're enacting those measures. You also fail to understand that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is our most important policy. DCV's deviations from this policy cannot be tolerated, we simply can't accomodate them. If a user is POV-pushing we kick them out. This is obvious, so I should hope. DCV does not even attempt to edit in a spirit of neutrality, as the diffs and quotes presented show. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Slurbenstein, it has been to Arbcom. DCV was told to cease using her user page as a soapbox, and warned to respect our boundaries on civility and avoiding personal attacks. Not only does she ignore these enjoinders, editors like you passively encourage and perpetuate the behaviour by describing her poisonous, hysterical, self-martyring and aggressive ranting and rabid POV warring as "having a diverse point of view". Those who defend that kind of behaviour are no better than those who carry it out.

☎

11:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. A "diverse point of view" is the last thing we want. We need one point of view - the neutral one. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Man, do you misunderstand NPOV:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly .... As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".

Diverse views (use the plural please, when using the word diverse) is precisely what we want, and your attempt to ban a view you do not like is a violation of NPOV. Moreschi, I think you have revealed your true colors here. As for the ArbCom decision, DCV's parole does not mention his/her own user-page as a soap-box. It does as Neil suggests refer to disruptive edits. And this AN/I report provides seven examples none of which rise to any fair standard of "disruptive editing." On the contrary, I see Deeceevoice trying to comply with the ArbCom decision i.e. taking their counsel to heart. You should be encouraging that rather than look for ways to twist the ArbCom ruling to support your own POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is no neutral point of view in the sense you are referring to it. NPOV is an amalgamation and a balance of various point of views in conformity with consensus. Why else do you think we are witnessing these conflicts and arguments on the talk pages of the articles. DCV might be uncivil, but the same problem plagues the other side as well. It is consternating to watch people label somebody as "uncivil" and "racist" without checking the entire facts. Given that DCV is prone to making comments that might be perceived as racist, she has also one of the long-standing and good-faith contributors to the project. What we need is a proper reform programme, otherwise we can only wonder how Wikipedia would sustain itself in the coming years – as both the number of articles and users increase on this website. Banning productive, but occassionaly disruptive editors is not the answer. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, that is completely not the point. We don't allow people to fervently push their own POV in the vague hope that someone else will push their counterbalancing POV as hard as they can, and so we get a decent article - it doesn't work that way. You have to strive for neutrality within your own editing, and not rely on other people arguing with you for neutrality to be achieved. DCV doesn't even make a pretence of editing neutrally. If you don't even bother, what's the point. For you two to fundamentally reject the concept of neutral editing makes me sick at heart. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not internally consistent. As the numbers of users increase, the fact that some disruptive editors make some productive edits should weigh less with us, not more. Relata refero (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Also in

WP:WFTE, then I don't see how her presence would help the project. Relata refero (talk

) 13:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I can't help but be very concerned that admins would say that there should be only one POV (the neutral one) (who decides it? based on what? who has a voice in the process?), and that those who disagree, and even those who support these dissidents, should be shown the way out of WP. Can everyone here stop and just ponder exactly what that sounds like??? Pretty please? Also, I think it is best if some admin uninvolved in the dispute is the judge of this and SLR just started taking interest in the talk page of Afroncetrism this morning, after the cause of all this commotion was over. Not sure what is being aimed at here.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I have refactored the above comment, which probably better addresses my concerns. as for NPOV, the policy page

ELIMINATORJR

12:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Eliminator, I fully agree with you that it is aggressive and disruptive pushing of a particular POV that will lead to sanctions. Now, keeping that in mind, please take another look at the history of the Afrocentrism page on November 15, and ask yourself again: where was the consensus, and if disruption can be considered to be in part pushing POV against consensus (or however you wish to define it, in the end), who was being the most aggressive in reverting without explanation and against talk page consensus?--Ramdrake (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently we're going to have a war over this one as well - and an unhelppful block comment to boot.[10]. More than one person feels there's a problem here and the length was being discussed. Removing the block wasn't the solution. Shell ^babelfish 14:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The evidence provided (40 -46) simply does not provide enough evidence of "tendentious talkpage time-wasting, incivility, edit-warring, and POV-pushing" to justify banning an editor. What is the solution? How about isolating a few major conflicts over content and one by one seeking to resolve these conflicts over content in ways that satisfy concerned parties and complies with core content policies? I have looked over the recent talk on the Afrocentrism page and it is not clear to me what the major "problems" ae that need "solution" - but I do see a number of editors including Deeceevoice who are talking to one another, trying to explain their views, in constructive ways. Perhaps that discussion does not get to the core problems, but neither is it evidence of a major breakdown in communication and collaboration. Again, I see no cause for banning one editor who has a strong point of view. And to be clear: it is not a point of view I share. Which is exactly why it is important to me that this view be represented at Wikipedia. If that doesn't make any sense to any of you, then i suggest you completely miss the point of our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

While there's no real consensus for a year long block, there's none at all for this unblock. Please reinstate it, at whatever length of time you feel this discussion justifies and we can go from there. You don't get to unilaterally decide these things. Another option is for someone to reblock at a length of time based on this discussion...at this point that would be supported I think. But the preferred outcome would be for you to take care of this yourself I think.

talk

) 15:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the unblock was a bad call. DCV is a disruptive racist and we don't need that kind of garbage here. Yes, the evidence presented here is weak, but if you're not familiar with the situation, why are you overriding the block of someone who is? You should at least note your unblock in the log on the arbitration case. I'm willing to believe she edits in good faith, but good faith alone is not enough. Editors must also be reasonably competent at following core content policies, and she's not. She doesn't even try. Send her off to Deeceepedia and let her do what she wants. She has no place here, where we expect neutrality and verifiability. Friday (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose unblock - the block was arbitration enforcement. Simple as. What use is AC when the decisions aren't binding? Will ^(talk) 16:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

To Friday: not sure if you're aware of this, but your latest intervention looks very much like an ad hominem attack. "She edits in good faith, but she's a racist, so let's block her anyway?" How about we calmly continue this discussion until a consensus is arrived at as to whether to block her, and for how long? I don't see that she's edited anything since her unblock, let alone disrupted anything, so it isn't like there is a clear and imminent danger to the project.

To Will: yes, there is an ArbComruling,and if we suspect a breach of conditions, how about we present the facts to ArbComand let them decide whatever sanctions are appropriate?--Ramdrake (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I almost never try to describe the mindset of another editor (because how can I really know?) but in this case it's relevant. It looks to me like people are calmly discussing. If an editor cannot be reasonably competent in editing according to policy, yes, we need to show them the door even if they're a nice person and are really trying very hard. A bull in a china shop may have good intentions, but he's still bad for business. Friday (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not all of the editors were calmly discussing. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The unblock by Slrubenstein was staggeringly against consensus. Based on the above, there seem to be a minority calling for a long term / indefinite block, and a minority of one (Slrubenstein) for nothing at all. Somewhere between the two extremes would seem appropriate, say a month. I won't do it myself, as I personally feel a month is not long enough, but it's a fair compromise.

☎

16:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may interject, I don't see that there is a consensus around any specific sanction,so I don't see how unblocking the user while asking her not to edit mainspace articles while we try to arrive at a consensus (which we don't have so far) isn't the correct thing to do.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and also that unblocking the user at such a juncture would have sent the wrong message. But it would only be pragmatic to wait a while and let DCV comment here. Let's not take this decision in haste. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

To Ramdrake - did you actually read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Deeceevoice_placed_on_probation?

Deeceevoice is placed on

Wikipedia:Probation

. She may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article or talk page which she disrupts. She may be banned from Wikipedia for up to one year by any three administrators for good cause.

Arbcom have already passed a verdict on this. There shouldn't be a need for further process wonkery.

☎

16:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The decision was given more than one and a half years ago. Since then DCV has improved greatly and tried to productively contribute to the project. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? I invite everyone to read this and decide whether this is the attitude of constructive contributor, or someone who's using the 'pedia to fight some race war. Friday (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It was rude, obviously, and this kind of attitude is not to be condoned. DCV has also had borderline personal attacks on her user-page in the past, which had to be removed after tedious discussions on the noticeboard. However, it must be noted that you had been an involved party in the arbitration case against DCV. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the threshold before years of ongoing, low-grade or outright incivility becomes cause for a long-term block or banning? 5 blocks? 10 blocks? 1 ArbCom? 5 ArbComs? Does the threshold reduce or increase if the person also manages to create some good content? Does being able to create a variety of quality articles excuse perpetually acting monstrous or racist towards your peers? • Lawrence Cohen 17:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's no secret that I've been critical of her conduct for a couple years now. I still think it's a problem. I will freely admit I'm very biased against racism. Friday (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom decisions are binding until ArbCom say they're not. So if no time limit is set on the decision, it's indefinite. Will ^(talk) 17:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom exists for the 'pedia, not the other way around. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the merit of her contributions, she's still on probation. Will ^(talk) 17:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If Zscout was desysop-ed (even temporarily) for unblocking Miltopia, then certainly Rubenstein's rash action deserves consideration for the same. Not only was there no consensus to unblock, there was overwhelming consensus against doing so. If we go by 1RR=wheel war when unblocking without consensus (or in this case, against consensus), then Rubenstein is certainly guilty of this. K. Scott Bailey (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, there was no discernible consensus around any specific block length that I'm aware, so I don't see the harm of unblocking while we try to attain a consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw not one admin other than Rubenstein argue that this user should be unblocked. Thus the block, as status quo, should have remained, until consensus formed around a set time frame. This unblock is so far outside of policy that it's not on the same continent. And, as Jeff said below, how many chances does this user get? The probation statement by ArbCom was very clear on what happens if she becomes disruptive. It happened. Rubenstein undid it. Admittedly, I don't check in at AN/I all that much, but I'm here enough to know that going against a direct ruling from ArbCom is "desysop-able", that's for sure. K. Scott Bailey (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought decisions here were attained by community consensus rather than just admin consensus, and there were numerous editors who disagreed strongly with the original sentence. Slrubenstein raised the point that the evidence presented couldn't be construed as a breach of ArbCom conditions, and that should be reason enough to suspend the sentence until consensus is reached (which I don't think has happened). If several of the editors questioned that there was good cause in the evidence presented for a year-long block, I don't see that the ArbCom ruling was ignored, merely that the evidence wasn't found sufficient to invoke the strictest possible sanction in the ArbCom ruling. Moreover, I seem to remember at least one editor calling for a ban in furtherance of the one-year block, and that is distinctly not in the ArbCom ruling.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is of course one of the administrators who cozy up with the Pro-Afrocentist cabal on Wikipedia [11] [12] [13] [14], helping to push this agenda. Let the pretense charade continue. 200.64.191.49 (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is just one more example of people taking WP:AGF to the extreme. This project will collapse on itself if this sort of user is allowed to continually disrupt encyclopedia. How many times does one have to say "maybe next time she'll do better"? 28 blocks (I think I counted correctly) should prove to even the most naive Pollyanna that this user is not prepared to fundamentally change. I endorse a block of whatever length the original blocking admin wants to give, and I completely disapprove of Rubenstein's unblock. This uneven enforcement of policy and these free passes to certain users simply has to stop. The time wasted fixing POV edits and debating one user's actions is not compensated for by either the quality or quantity of the edits. Jeffpw (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you don't count the unblock line items, or the blocks that got reversed, the count drops down to 14 (which is still a lot admittedly, but I've seen worse). Also,the fact that this user had been blocked only once in the last 13 months would, on the contrary, strongly suggests to me she's trying hard to amend her ways.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The one thing I have no confidence she'll ever try to do is change her behavior. She doesn't want to be neutral- she thinks there are "white articles" and "black articles" and she doesn't think white people are qualified to edit "black articles". Again, we don't need this racist nonsense here. Friday (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the example of the user revert warring on the Afrocentrism article. It isn't a 3rr but it's edit warring nonetheless. Here: 1, 2, 3. Reverting another users edit more than once is edit warring pure and simple, even if it's not a 3rr violation. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

WDM, with all due respect, if you will take a look at the edit history, you will see that she is not the editor who started this edit war (it was another, and there is currently an open RfC regarding this editor's actions), and the discernible pattern is rather that this other user was edit-warring against editor consensus at the page, even though he was invited by several editors to explain his objections on the talk page. But you're right in the sense that it takes two to tango, and she probably shouldn't have let herself be involved in the edit warring. But in this case, considering everything, I would say if one wants to mete out sanctions, they should be handed out on both sides of the dispute. Here's hoping this makes sense.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been released at least temporarily from an outrageous one-year block to comment here, but, unfortunately, I have no time at the moment. I'm trying to clear my desk to get away for the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday. I'll address this when I return. I haven't had much of an inclination or opportunity to read this matter here, but I'll say this. The charges of POV pushing at Afrocentrism are absurd and, as the post by futurebird clearly shows are totally without merit. I wonder if anyone posting in support of the actions taken against me have even bothered to investigate the talk page. It seems to me people saw my name and assumed Bachmann's charges were true -- including the admins who took precipitous and wholly unjustified actions against me. "Incivility"? That, too, is, IMO, baseless. I've been direct -- very direct -- in expecting/demanding that an admin justify his edits, that another justify her precipitous banning of me from contributing to an article. In both cases, I've gotten nothing worthwhile, just a kind of "tell it to the hand" response. Not good. I demanded that they produce diffs to substantiate their edits/actions -- and got nothing. And the diffs presented here are pretty sorry "evidence." Finally, Friday, you've repeatedly called me a racist here, and in your last post here you said I am "here to fight some kind of race war." Clearly, you have no clue who I am or what I am here for. Kindly refrain from such inappropriate, over-the-top, inflammatory and wholly inaccurate characterizations. They only feed this feeding frenzy -- precipitated by dBachmann's inrresponsible and unjustified charges (if you'll check his RfC, you'll find he makes a habit of such conduct). Those things said, I'm done here for now. deeceevoice (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the diffs, as well as your block log. The above admins are not incorrect in their assessments. You have blatantly violated the terms of ArbCom's decision. A friendly admin unblocked you against both consensus and the ArbCom ruling. Hopefully, you return from your break to a long, well-deserved block. K. Scott Bailey (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, Scott, just re-reading this AN/I should be proof enough that there is no consensus for the one-year block that was given to DCV; in fact, if there is any consensus at all emerging, it is that the one-year term is unjustifiably long. Secondly, I believe the hostility in your tone isn't really appropriate here.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. There is clear consensus that this is a problem user, who needs a long block. There was NO consensus to unblock this problem user. The only real discussion was whether there should be a 1-month or 1-year block. That she has violated the ArbCom decision is beyond debate. As for your assessment of my tone, that matters to me not at all. The facts of this discussion are about the user in question, not me. Stop trying to deflect attention from that fact. K. Scott Bailey (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do remember several editors besides myself say something to the effect that there wasn't really cause for a block, and several others say that there might be cause for a short block (around a week), and yet others for a medium block (a week to a month). So, no I don't see that there is a consensus that "this is a problem user, who needs a long block". And I wasn't trying to draw attention to you, just telling you you don't need to come across as angry or hostile, which unfortunately and by the way, you still do.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

section break

My opinion is if he is making personal attacks and acting incivil, he disserves a block. However a year is a bit harsh. It might be better if we started with a week (considering all of his other blocks were a day- otherwise I'd say a day). Yahel Guhan 01:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that Steve's unblock was correct. Arbcomm rulings are not meant to be read as legal documents - the fact that DCV has contributed productively since the arbcomm case must be taken into account when trying to interpret the ruling. Reading a year old ruling as if it happened yesterday is inappropriate wikilawyering.

To begin with, the "ban from Afrocentrism" is nonsense. The links given show absolutely no evidence of "tendentious talkpage time-wasting, incivility, edit-warring, and POV-pushing". On the contrary, I see productive editing:

1. [15] - in response to a question, she responses, in depth and at length. This is the sort of behaviour we want from editors. It's mind-boggling that this could be cited as evidence of any sort of "misbehaviour".
2. [16] - there's nothing wrong with saying "based on your past actions, I don't trust you". Ridiculous.
3. [17] - again, not trusting the process isn't grounds for a ban. Failure to believe that matters will get a fair hearing at ANI isn't grounds for a ban.
4. [18] - explaining the basis for not trusting someone isn't grounds for a ban.
5. [19] - deeceevoice rejects Ramdrake's suggestion that "we could also agree not to remove anything that looks unsourced until the editor who put it there has a chance to fish up a proper source", based on her distrust of dab. Quite frankly, based on complaints here, dab is a far more controversial editor than deecee. You can't add unsourced statements to a controversial page and expect people not to revert your additions.
6. [20] - snarky edit summaries aren't a crime.
7. [21] - removing unwarranted tags is the correct course of action.

So she was banned from the article for one snarky edit summary? And that by an editor who obviously by his own admission does not accept our core policy of NPOV? Dear God. Quite frankly, Viridae deserves to be blocked for disruption, and Friday strongly cautioned for repeated personal attacks. Guettarda (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

you make a good point. Based on the above, I support the unblock. Yahel Guhan 03:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Guettarda's analysis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeceevoice (talk • contribs) 05:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your analysis, Guettarda, of the flimsy "evidence" brought to bear in this ANI. Just a couple of comments. Actually, I wasn't rejecting Ramdrake's suggestion that "fact" tags be slapped on unsourced material, thus giving the contributor of that information a chance to substantiate it. That is precisely what I told Wikidudeman earlier in response to his rather precipitous deletion of two photos, which he incorrectly labeled "POV." See the exchange regarding this matter here.[22]

And with regard to your characterization of my edit note as "snarky," that's not the spirit in which it was offered. I guess it depends on the reading. The notion that Alek Wek is somehow "Caucasoid" is such a patently absurd one, I figured it made perfect sense to simply illustrate how blatantly wrong-headed it is. An emphatic edit note doesn't equal a "snarky" one. The edit note is "snarky" only when viewed in the contentious atmosphere introduced when DBachmann inserted himself into the situation with obnoxious revert warring and equally obnoxious/nasty talk page commentary -- to which, incidentally, I never responded in kind. I simply repeatedly demanded that he produce evidence of "POV pushing" and "trolling" on my part. I restored both photos, with ample justification -- and this was called POV pushing. Read my comments on these two edits at my talk page here.[23] deeceevoice (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Guettarda's analysis. Too often users are blocked due to some admin looking at their past block log, rather than looking at the facts as they stand in an ongoing situation. It gets to the point that anyone who happens to have been blocked in the past is automatically assumed to be "wrong" in any dispute that is ongoing. I know admins are often busy and don't always have the time to check the facts of specific cases, but I've seen it time and again, that established users are warned (or blocked) for trying to keep consensus versions of articles against pov-pushing, often ban evading, sockpuppets. The admin sees the "edit war" and the "clean" history of the sock account, and assumes that the established user is either "biting a newbie" or is a "tendentious pov-pusher" (because established editors are more likely to have been blocked at some point in time). A more thorough investigation by an admin would often produce the sort of analysis that Guettarda has provided. Clearly Deeceevoice is being banned for having been a supposedly disruptive user in the past, and not for the contributions they have made recently. Editors are not supposed to get banned over content disputes, which is effectively what is happening here. Alun (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

simple question

Let me ask a simple, discrete question so that I can get a simple answer. How is this edit by deeceevoive, POV pushing or incivility? Can someone please tell me, because it's part of the evidence here and I want to know why? Can someone just explain this to me because I'm mystified? futurebird (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

U 2? lol deeceevoice (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

None of Morechi's diffs point to much, and none of them point to a year long block, a block that, reading this whole post, came out of close to nowhere. Admins here seem to be acting on a two year old arbcom probation and a block log that has been clean for over a year, which seems hard to justify. This user's probation ended in October. Is, then, the user blocked for a year for incivility to wikidudeman? That is unsupportable also.

Viridae's action was out of all process. And unless there were unmentioned off-wiki discussions, his/her claim that it was supported by Neil and Friday was, frankly, a lie. 86.44.4.103 (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• So a user under Arbcom personal attack parole (among numerous other Arbcom restrictions) is going to get off scott-free for making comments like this and this? Shameful. - Merzbow (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt somehow this user will get off scott-free; for one thing I'd imagine the loss of face that would entail would prove hard to swallow. Besides, I don't really know what the standards are for blocking and levels of incivility. There is a something to discuss there, but there is a difference between getting tough with problematic editors and making a complete mess of things. Or is there?

Moving on: the arbcom ruling is so ancient that the concept of parole seems to have been done away with since. The page concerning it was tagged "historical" 1 July 2006.

Even if we take the highly unlikely view that parole was intended to outlast probation, the arbcom ruling on that was "She may be briefly blocked if she engages in personal attacks or racially-related incivility, up to a week in the case of repeat violations."

Just a personal reaction, re: your diffs, it's weird to me that you find that so outrageous. "my dear woman" is a patronizing taunt, after all, in that context, after which she calls the editor a hypocrite on the user page. I didn't look into it to see if he was or not...I suppose it's incivility on a user page. She'd already been called a troll it seems? The second diff doesn't seem like a personal attack at all to me, it's just challenges bedecked with winking emoticons with their tongues out, you know what I mean? Anyway, funny how we see it so different, I don't know who's right. No doubt all these things will be looked at by those who can block and ban.

(You're not the Merzbow, I suppose?) 86.44.4.103 (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that it seems to completely escape Merzbow's attention that my comments are in reaction to repeated requests that dBachmann substantiate his reckless, utterly groundless charges of POV pushing and trolling and other snide remarks (which he directs not only at me, but at other editors). With each request Bachmann becomes more antagonistic, attempting to hide his revert warring with ad hominem attacks. This irrespondible, arrogant, abusive behavior is amply in evidence on his talk page as well when responding to me and other involved editors. Finally, at one point, Bachmann even tampers with the talk page record, tacking on a weakly worded "justification" to an earlier, nasty edit made 11 minutes before -- in an apparent attempt to make it seem he had responded to my repeated requests for justification. That is the only thing I did: demanded that DBachmann finally "put up or shut up," that he make some attempt to justify his edits, back up his charges of "trolling" and "POV pushing," cease his disruptive antics, revert warring - and against talk page consensus -- and his nastiness. As has been demonstrated at his still-open RfC by several different commentators, DBachmann has an ugly habit of slinging around invective and throwing around labels like "troll" and "POV pusher", targeting contributors who edit in good faith, but who have a different perspective than he does on the matter at hand.

Any objective reading of the talk page record will clearly reveal who is the aggressor here, and that none of the other editors returned his utterly unwarranted nastiness, arrogance and condescension, or his personal attacks -- myself included -- in any way, shape or form. All I did was stand my ground. That's what you do with a bully. The talk page record also clearly points out that the tone on the article talk page was calm, civil and constructive before DBachmann arrived on the scene -- and that it changed, with his insertion of himself into the matter, very shortly thereafter.

This entire matter has been a shamefully transparent put-up job from start to finish -- from DBachmann's red-herring charges as a smokescreen for his own appalling conduct, to alerting another admin (Moreschi) who habitually backs him in such matters and regularly excuses his offensive conduct, who wasn't "in the mood" to justify his (her?) egregiously irresponsible decision to ban me from editing an article on black subject matter -- which is an important part of the "get Deeceevoice" agenda among certain editors, to the feeding frenzy among editors who seemingly have arguably an axe to grind, or who have based their assumptions in this matter on an almost two-year-old Arb Comm case (it was opened in December 2005), and who have completely ignored the elephant in the room -- the paucity of evidence presented in this matter -- to join what is, IMO, little more than a lynch mob. And what have I actually done?

I have edited/acted responsibly and in good faith, and that is far more than I can say for my primary accusers, DBachmann; Moreschi; what's-his-face, the admin who enacted the year-long block; and then let me not forget Friday, who doesn't seem to have enough self-control to refrain from ridiculous, over-the-top name-calling and hyperbole, even on the ANI, charging me with racism and trying to start a "race war" on Wikipedia (whatever the hell that means). And I have very directly and persistently demanded answers when falsely accused of not doing so. deeceevoice (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)