Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:41, 3 January 2006

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:

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:

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]
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:

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]
I more or less aggree with Alabamaboy here. She may need to chill a bit, but a full Arbcom is, pardon me, bullshit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen others banned for less. 66.98.131.129 09:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like the edits you made to George Washington? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See ad hominem tu qoque[1] -Justforasecond 05:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So have I, but I doubt doing so advanced our project. We want to insist on courtesy, but don't want to drive away a promising editor. Fred Bauder 13:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen much promise. Each article I look into has a lot of prima facie evidence of wiki violations. -Justforasecond 05:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked by this tirade. Deeceevoice is a black supremacist who promotes policies which teach violent hatred against "white" people (a poorly defined category.) She has spurned cooperation and repeatedly violated Wikipedia NPOV policy. Yet in response to a reasonable attempt to follow the arbitration process, someone is now defending Deeceevoice by accusing everyone else of lynching a black woman? Let's not play games. That claim is racist hatespeech, with the intention of creating pity for Deeceevoice based solely on the color of her skin, and is a racist slander of anyone who disagrees with Deeceevoice, because such people have a skin color that (perhaps) differs from hers. Such statements in of themselves are bannable offenses. We cannot maintain a peaceful community working on encyclopedia articles while a handful of black supremacists attempt to use slander based on racist, anti-white stereotypes. 00:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)—the preceding unsigned comment is by RK (talk)

I'm sorry to hear that you are shocked. A number of us in the Wikipedia community are also shocked by the actions against Deeceevoice. While "lynch" may be a strong work, it is how I feel about the events that led up to this arbitration (and how others feel to0, as indicated by responses to my choice of words). That said, the use of the word is not hate speech. I should also note that you are under an arbitration ruling which says you are not to make personal attacks or accuse others of anti-Semitism or Nazi sympathy. Obviously this means you have felt the need to say that there is anti-Semitism at times here at Wikipedia. By using the word "lynch" I am trying to make a similar point that there is also strong racism here at times (although this doesn't mean that everyone against Deeceevoice is racist or that the arbitrators are racist for doing their job). Anyway, I assume this means we will just disagree about the use of the word. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the users that find this offensive, it would be entirely reasonable of you to withdraw it. -Justforasecond 05:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find your persecution of deeceevoice and harrassment of other non-white editors offensive. Please withdraw your offensive actions as a sign of good faith, and then others might consider doing the same. Guettarda 05:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found both deeceevoice's and Alabamaboy's use of "lynching" incredibly inappropriate. Lynching is illegal execution -- murder. An RfAr couldn't be further from a lynching, there is a huge amount of evidence and process that goes into making a case and the penalty is, at the worst, disallowing a person from editing an encyclopedia. Deeceevoice's imagery was particularly disgusting, comparing an RfAr to a lynch "party", complete with picnic basket "'Join in: "Let's have a lynch party! Martha, you bring the picnic basket, Tommy 'll get the kerosene, and Dickie 'll bring the camera."'" -Justforasecond 05:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They strike me as an appropriate characterisation of your actions. Guettarda 05:41, 3 January 2006 (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:

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:

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:

Don't bite the newcomers

3) Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think this is covered under personal attacks and incivility. Bottom line, don't bite folks. Fred Bauder 14:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 Miss Manners, 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:

But see context [2] of [3] 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 [4]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Socialization in progress Fred Bauder 15:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

DCV cited two works. She bought the one by Thompson. The other she cites, "Birth Of The Cool : Beat, Bebop, and the American Avant Garde (Hardcover)" includes in its synopsis "Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning, and Arshile Gorky and the beginnings of modern art are examined. ...The lives of Burroughs, Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, and Neal Cassady are returned to in later chapters that cover the introduction and adoption of Zen and the final blending of bebop and Beat into one inseparable cultural unit."[5] I haven't read the book, but amazon is usually fairly accurate. Odd how DCV missed these details. ~~Perhaps pre-emptively, she says of "The Birth of Cool" in the citation "This is not intended as a scholarly work, and is reported to have many (relatively minor) inaccuracies.".~~ DCV often uses the criticism that sourcs are not "scholarly", though her own work is frequently void of useful references -- the hallmark of a "scholarly" work. -Justforasecond 16:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Her comment that "Cool is, indeed an African philosophy" does not reflect a NPOV and "Have you read Thompson? Unless and until you do, please refrain from such ill-informed commentary." is unproductive and discourages others from editing. Thompson is not required reading for any article, and presumably, DCV had not read him when she began the article (she's just purchased his books, after all). -Justforasecond 16:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Her lack of sources goes far beyond the "Cool (African philosophy)" article. Keep in mind that skipping sources goes hand in hand with original research and NPOV violations. If you're putting in original information, you won't have a reference. However, its not enough to just leave citations off POV and original research, an effective POV/NOR-pusher needs to leave citations off all edits, or those without citations will stand out. -Justforasecond 19:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

On Justforasecond's #1 above: The Birth of the Cool reference, and the characterization that it is "not intended as a scholarly work, and is reported to have many (relatively minor) inaccuracies" was originally added to Cool by User:CSTAR on June 29 and 30, 2004[6]. Deeceevoice merely transplanted it to the article now called Cool (African philosophy) on March 6 of this year when she created the latter page.[7][8] It hardly seems fair to hold a contributor responsible for reference sources others have added. --phh 22:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On Justforasecond's #2 above: There's certainly nothing wrong with expressing a point of view or belief on an article talk page, although demanding that someone read a particular author before they can comment is inappropriate and can be taken as intimidating. Also, although I don't think it's particularly germane, Deeceevoice clarified that she's had one of Thompson's books for more than 30 years.[9] --phh 22:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
it's impossible to say shes good with source. check out the Cool (African philosophy) article and the way she relied on secondary sources-- her main source was an academic who interprets art, and is respectable, but not a scientist, and yet the source'sobservations are treated as the gospel truth. upon telling her this, i was treated to double reverts. she explicitly refers to me as a newcomer(on a discussion on user talk pages), but she bit me on this article completely, despite my efforts for objectivity. This isnt just me who thinks she cant source properly, the wikipedia community agrees: i dont know any of these people and they all carry the same objection about her use of non-primary sources in the vFd of the Cool (African philosophy) page. I respect some of what she brings to wikipedia, but don't defend her on issues like sourcing and biting the newcomers. She just fails in these regards.--Urthogie 07:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also i'd like to say that her edits on that article, and the edit-battle(not quite a war) that insued enraged me enough to email the source himself. He replied that cool in african culture was centrally about dignity, and that the idea of it involving dignity is the only thing scientifically replicatable about his work(and even this he didn't prove). This article was a disgrace because of her way in approaching everyone who tried to reach NPOV-- she simply reverted and condescended. --Urthogie 07:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 is to be placed on revert parole

1) Deeceevoice should not be allowed to make multiple reverts for the period of [feel free to insert reasonable time frame here] except in cases of obvious vandalism, as her current sense of POV has been shown to be inaccurate. This would also force her to be a cooperative wikipedian who discusses issues before making up her mind about people because they haven't read "her" sources.--Urthogie 07:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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:

This doesn't make any sense Fred Bauder 19:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I'm trying to stay out of this, but this suggestion vastly expands the scope of the arbitration and increases the feeling that this is a racist lynching. The issue has been that Deeceevoice is not civil and nice. Keep the focus on this. Expanding the arbitration to such a large ban as editing "any African American related article for one year" is ridiculous when the issue all along is that she isn't "nice."--Alabamaboy 18:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good start, but I don't think this is strong enough. Deeceevoice turns other articles INTO African-American articles, such as the Janis Joplin article. The personal attacks alone seem grounds for stronger remedies. Similar evidence from a different user's case: [10]—the preceding unsigned comment is by Justforasecond (talk • contribs) 14:35, 27 December 2005
Absurd. - FrancisTyers 14:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See comments on Cool (African philosophy) for an example of an ordinary article becoming African-American after DCV started working on it. -Justforasecond 02:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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]
It is especially important that she acknowledge her circumstance of being african-american does not entitle her to any special rights or notability. If that were done, I feel this might become an uneccessary provision. Sam Spade 18:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is prohibiting her from where she's been most useful, most productive, and most helpful to Wikipedia. It would be far less hypocritical to simply ban her completely. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is going too far. You're cutting out one of our best contributors in that field, I'm afraid. 86.133.53.111 03:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that this is going waaayyyyy too far. Even if she is extremely abrasive and not always NPOV, DC's contrabutions have been extremely valuable, and User:Jmabel said it best when he said "...with her we get the whole package or we get nothing" [11]. Whether you agree with all of her edits or not, she has done a great deal of work (if not the bulk) on articles about African Americans — a topic that would otherwise be somewhat neglected given WP's demographic — and it would be a tragedy to lose that. And if that means tolerating behavior that would not be tolerated on a run-of-the-mill edit war on a well covered topic like say, George W Bush, then so be it. --Bletch 22:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a bit misdirected. The issue is that Deeceevoice is rude, hostile, and intimidating to other contributors; her contributions on African-American topics have themselves been generally valuable, and although some of her edits have proved controversial she seems mostly willing to work with others to produce language that's acceptable to all, rather than truculently insisting that her versions always carry the day. I would think the proposed personal attack parole would be sufficient; given her history it seems unlikely that she'll be able to live up to its terms, but if she can I don't see any reason why she shouldn't be allowed to continue contributing to any and all topics on which she is knowledgeable. --PHenry 23:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to discuss this, please provide evidence of these "generally valuable" contributions. There's a lot of uncited original research, to be sure. -Justforasecond 03:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fred said it best. This RfAr isn't about Deeceevoice's contributions, it's about her behaviour. --King of All the Franks 14:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd. Why shoot ourselves in the foot? This is about behaviour, if it is about anything at all, not her editing, which is exemplary and contributes towards our goal...we're an encyclopedia, remember? Rob Church ^Talk 03:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, its absurd. Doing this would turn it into a real intellectual lynching.--Urthogie 07:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack parole

2) Deeceevoice is placed on personal attack parole. 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. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Our usual language Fred Bauder 13:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Edits to Cool (African philosophy)

"I've removed the secondary source tag -- again -- because I believe it was affixed in bad faith, given that it was not fully discussed on the talk page before it was slapped on the article. Also, please see my comments above. In subject matter such as this which treat third-world cultural/anthropological matters, primary sources often are not available. It is, in a way, saying no article treating San culture has credibility unless we can find an authoritative text written by a Bushman. Ridiculously eurocentric and absurd. deeceevoice 04:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)"[12]

She calls the rule about primary sourcing "eurocentric", thus showing her view that it doesn't need to be followed by removing it. It really wasn't put up in bad faith, and she reverted me twice so she could break wikipedia policy through her opinions.--Urthogie 07:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I believe it was affixed in bad faith" -- the wiki policy is assume good faith. -Justforasecond 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One first assumes good faith until bad faith is shown. One does not assume good faith thereafter. She said, "I believe it was bad faith because XXX". We get to do that. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to insert into evidence what the "bad faith" is here, please do. Someone placed a tag on an article, that, in itself, is not bad faith. There is an entire section on the talk page labeled "Source"[13] which DCV did not participate in. -Justforasecond 20:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to do so. You are accusing her of not assuming good faith. I simply said that she stated that she did not believe good faith had been shown. Whether or not I agree with her is irrelevant; the very fact that she made the reference to good faith means she understands exactly what the policy is. She may have been wrong about something not being in good faith, but that's not because of any violation of WP:AGF. As I said, WP:AGF is a starting point; and a rebuttable assumption at that. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic, there can be no effective AGF policy. All an editor would need to say is "because..." and then they're in the clear, regardless of the believability of the justification. -Justforasecond 22:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There can be no ironclad AGF policy, certainly. I assume good faith until it's demonstrated otherwise. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd encourage everyone, especially those who consider DCV to be a valuable editor, to read "Cool (African philosophy)". See below -Justforasecond 22:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional West African ontology does not devalue one fundamental aspect of existence in relation to another. It is an intuitively existential acknowledgement and acceptance of the duality of nature and the balance of forces—of, for example, feminine and masculine, physical and spiritual, seen and unseen, of the living and the ancestors. These forces are not separated, but conjoined; and, in fact, interact continuously and with fluidity in aspects of everyday life— in the natural world, in religion and philosophy, in visual art, in folklore, in music and dance. ...

Apparent opposites, or countervailing constructs, not only meet— as with the Kalunga line, a sacred, underwater line of demarcation where the worlds of the living and of those passed on reconnect and interact— but can and often do inhabit the same space, conceptually or literally. Sometimes, one element inhabits the interstices of another in time and space. This latter principle is evident in the syncopation and polyrhythmic complexity of West African music and some Afro-Cuban music (and, to some extent, in African American music), and is an essential characteristic of an element of jazz: swing. This is in marked contrast to the traditional European approach to music, which is structurally linear and rhythmically regimented. In this sense, the traditional African ontological approach is the opposite of that of, for example, Zoroastrianism, where Light and Darkness are warring concepts. In the African understanding, there is no struggle, no antagonism; there is cohabitation, balance and communion. ...

This dualistic ontological perspective, of motion and stasis, of tension and tranquility, of juxtaposition and coexistence, of heat and cool, grounded in the interplay of opposites, helps form the framework of the mask of the cool. ....

Cool is feminine energy; it is stillness, calm and strength. Cool is composure, dignity in being and comportment and a practiced stoicism. It is a way of being, a way of walking in the world. Cool abides. Heat is masculine energy, strength and movement; it acts. Both elements assume co-equal values in African movement and dance, in African music and art. ...

Yes, and read the talk pages too. I showed no bad faith at all. I had never met DCV before that cool(african philosophy) article, but she really gave me my first bad editing experience, despite my efforts to be kind. The assume good faith policy exists so that we discuss things with people instead of arrogantly assuming we know more and reverting them.--Urthogie 02:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Nigger

Karmosin (talk · contribs) made an edit to Nigger which was unsourced, commenting "Fairly exclusive male usage, no?" [14]. Reverted by Deeceevoice with the comment "Reverted. Change was inaccurate." Karmosin then began edit warring [15] requesting "better motivation." Deeceevoice again reverted [16] 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:

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]
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 [17] 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* "[18] [19].

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The Wareware RfAR and oversights on ArbCom's part

[1.] Having accepted the Wareware RfAR (5/0/0/0 – not to be confused with this case's 5/0/0/0), [2.] the Committee failed to pursue the case, citing it impertinent in relation to their backlog (which, indeed, had become prohibitive at that time), [3.] with this dismissal taking place after DCV has provided her evidence as instructed. [4.] The Committee failed to notify DCV (or anyone whatsoever, for that matter) of this, and clarification needed to be sought (by El_C) as to why the case was closed prematurely. As a consequence of this: [a.] The Committee should issue a public apology to DCV for this shortcoming and easily-percieved insensitivity for the manner of the removal, esp. lack of notification, [b.] which therefore should be reflected both in the final decision and remedies as it undoubtedly underlines some of DCV's deep misgivings and skepticism with regards to the integrity of Wikipedia's institutions. [c.] A discussion of whether this case should be merged (and what this entails) with the accepted-cum-abandoned Wareware Arbitration case, should be be undertaken prior to any motions to close being passed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It's simple enough, he was gone, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wareware/Proposed_decision#Motion_to_close. As to not notifying Deeceevoice, as she brought the case, I guess everyone assumed she was monitoring it. I do wonder if some of the anonymous hassling is not from him though; however, a remedy banning him would not put us in any better position. Fred Bauder 14:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as opening it again, no. We still don't have the time to go over evidence of a dispute when one person is no longer editing. Fred Bauder 14:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another matter, you ask extreme courtesy and sensitivity from us, while Deeceevoice takes a standoffish critical attitude, presents no evidence, engages in no dialogue and we are left guessing as to what reaction she has if any to what we are doing. Fred Bauder 14:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We welcome all feedback. I was not involved in closing the case, but my not being involved was undoubtedly due to the heavy caseload we labor under. Being overworked results in a loss of both courtesy and thoughtfulness. One gets distracted and what is really important slips away. Fred Bauder 17:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This case is about deeceevoice, not Wareware or the Arbcom -Justforasecond 17:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I am the author of the above (as an aside, I never really understood why one has to look through the history to find out who proposed what, rather than having that noted clearly as I'm doing now; perhaps Fred, in particular, could respond to that, though noting again that it is merely an aside), and I should stress that I am not implying (nor at any time have I implied) malice, underhandedness, moral failings, etc., on the part of any of the arbitrators involved, directly or indirectly, in that case. On the contrary, I do note favourably that all of whom expressed shock and dismay at the unacceptable conduct DCV has endured from Wareware. And, of course, no one had a crystal ball to make any predictions on future cases involving DCV —and I can appreciate that this is difficult, largely tedius and ultimately at best thankless work, and that time constraint is a key factor. Nevertheless, inadvertantly, oversights do happen, and in this case, I maintain that these are (now, especially) fundamental oversights; ones which, in turn, warrant a serious re-examination by the Committee. And, yes, likely self-criticism, too. Note also, that while I speak of the "Committee" generically, only the Epopt and Fred Bauder were arbitrators in that case (both are also arbitrators in this case). I am stating this in the interest clarity per se., and I imply nothing further by that (i.e. if I thought further implications were warranted, I'd be airing them). El_C 11:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in day one of the RfAr, the chances that Ww would be back were rather unlikely; and I specifically made the point of requesting that, in that event, the case should be heard in his absence. No one objected to that; on the contrary. Furthermore, people's scheduales vary, but what I consider key is that she had, at this point in time, provided the evidence as instructed. El_C 14:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You (the Committee) failed to issue any statement at all (a close reading would have revealed, was what she sought – meaning a sentence or two); thus, she undoubtedly felt compiling the evidence after the case was accepted ended up being for naught. El_C 14:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do expect esp. high standards (in terms of exercizing sensitivity, issuing pertinent notices, etc.) from the Committee. El_C 14:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, I appreciate that, Fred. Therefore, I appreciate any consideration given to my description and proposals. El_C 23:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 :::::I find your persecution of deeceevoice and harrassment of other non-white editors offensive.  Please withdraw ''your'' offensive actions as a sign of good faith, and then others might consider doing the same.  [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 05:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 :#I found both deeceevoice's and Alabamaboy's use of "lynching" incredibly inappropriate.  Lynching is illegal execution -- murder.   An RfAr couldn't be further from a lynching, there is a huge amount of evidence and process that goes into making a case and the penalty is, at the worst, disallowing a person from editing an encyclopedia.   Deeceevoice's imagery was particularly disgusting, comparing an RfAr to a lynch "party", complete with picnic basket "'Join in: "Let's have a lynch party! Martha, you bring the picnic basket, Tommy 'll get the kerosene, and Dickie 'll bring the camera."'" -[[User:Justforasecond|Justforasecond]] 05:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
+:#:They strike me as an appropriate characterisation of your actions.  [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 05:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 ===Template===