Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wareware

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 01:29, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

The subject has been stalking me from forum to forum over a period of months. I've warned him repeatedly and simply finally decided to report him. There should be absolutely no place on Wikipedia for this kind of blatantly racist vitriol. In the past, I have at times lost patience with him and responded angrily. In the last several weeks, however, I have maintained my composure, admonishing him to stop such behavior -- without success. Interestingly, when I've lost my temper with him (or with other Wikipedians who have engaged in unfortunate behavior directed toward me) other Wikipedians have admonished only me. Keep in mind that the posts that follow are only some of exchanges that have taken place between this user and me. Not once has anyone in these forums reproached this person about his behavior -- not once. This kind of selective treatment and the repeated overlooking of such despicable behavior on the part of a member of the Wiki community is unacceptable. I can only regard such behavior on Wareware's part as a manifestation of his own virulent racism. It's time for Wikipedia to do something about this individual, and it's time for other Wikipedia members to clean up their act as well in this regard. deeceevoice 13:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC

Description[edit]

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 01:29, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC).

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

It starts at Talk:Race/Archive 14, beginning here [[1]]: a disagreement between User:Wareware and User:Deeceevoice regarding whether ancient Egyptians were black.

  • 22:16, 14 Dec 2004, first racist innuendo from User:Wareware, who incorrectly assumes deeceevoice is a man:
It's wrong to say that people always cared about color when talking about Egypt. True egyptian researchers don't, but white supremacists do. (google white history if you're too dumb to differentiate between the two) ... Anyway, I guess your favorite site is this [2] Buddha, the earliest Chinese, Egyptians, Indians, and Beethoven were all "negroid". Must make your balls feel big :) [3]
  • 22:54, 14 Dec 2004, User:Deeceevoice goes along with Wareware's mistaken assumption and responds by "signifyin'" (see definition below):
Man, you better stop talkin' from up under my clothes! LOL! You're an ASIAN, and you wanna talk about the size of someone's balls? ROFLMBAO.... I think you'd better leave THAT one alone, my misguided Asian brother. This "discussion" has reached a new low. I'mma do you a favor and pretend we never had this exchange. [4]
Main Entry: sig·ni·fy·ing
Pronunciation: 'sig-n&-"fI-i[ng]
Function: noun
Date: 1959
- a good-natured needling or goading especially among urban blacks by means of indirect gibes and clever often preposterous put-downs; also : DOZENS - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Also, I've read that blacks like to show off their presumed virility because of an inferiority complex that they got nothing "man-made" (civilization, architecture, literature, philosophy...etc) that can rival those of other "races." Hey, at least the asian balls don't smell as bad as apes' right? Oooops, was that racist? [5]
Aw-w-w-w, I know, I know. There, there (patting this tortured soul on the head). You're just showin' your true colors, aincha, bwoi? But you can't really expect me to be offended by such hackneyed crap! I've been called far worse by far better than you, child ... You ain't stoo-pid; you're simply mentally and spiritually crippled. Better tend to yasself! [6]
If you truly are the more educated representative of your race, then I'm not really surprised that african-americans still generate the worst statistics than any other group in america.[7]
Wareware, you've demonstrated yourself all along to be a mental cretin and a low-minded racist; you just finally came out and said what has been on your mind all along. So, now there's no need for me to be civil any longer. I got nothin' else to say to you. Stay obstinately ignorant and lost, you pathetically hateful fool. I will not address you again; as far as I'm concerned, you don't exist. You're not worthy of my attention, not even my contempt -- and certainly not of a single additional nanosecond of my time. (whistlin' as I show u my back) [8]
Wow, you just labelled me a racist right after I said you might do so and I don't think you can prove my point any better. [9]
Come on, you can at least make one "yo mama" response to show your quick wit, no? Or did that really hit you, and you can't think of anything logical, and then said I'm not worthy of your attention? Calling people racists and then shut them out while "whistlin' away" really seem to be in the vogue nowadays. [10]

After Deeceevoice leaves the Race article and discussion, Wareware also leaves. From Dec 16 until Feb 10, Wareware posts only 54 times. Then on Feb 10, he starts up the dispute with Deeceevoice again, by putting the "totally disputed" tag on Afrocentrism, an article he has not edited before, and which DC started editing on Feb 7. [11]; then he tries to engage DC on the talk page.

  • 11:17, 11 Feb 2005, she refuses to discuss with him:
Wareware, you're the epitome of opinionated ignorance. You already know full well I have no intention of engaging you in dialogue ... [12]

About the time of the exchange between Wareware and deeceevoice on melanin, Wareware surfaces for the first time on another talk page where deeceevoice is a participant. This time, the subject is African American. Under discussion is whether someone's insertion of crime statistics has a place in the article and, if so, in what context. This discussion thread is particularly pertinent in that Wareware displays a pronounced anti-black animus totally outside the context of any interaction whatsoever with user deeceevoice. Here, the two never exchange words; yet Wareware is antagonistic and sarcastic.

  • 03:20, 18 Feb 2005
Insitutional racism? Why not just add a section on "blame whitey"? [13]

Participation in this discussion thread is open-minded and diverse. Wareware's comment is treated dismissively. He responds:

  • 20:47, 18 Feb 2005
Oh really? I'd rather listen to what Ward Connely and Bill Cosby have to say about it than some liberal PC-police who like to taut the culture of dependent victimhood. Oh look, we're all really poor and innocent victims exploited by the system have a laugh [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1340801/posts] [14] and [15]

Another participant, User: Jmabel, responds with a link to an article by Camille Cosby on "Prejudice Permeates American Culture." Wareware:

  • 00:04, 19 Feb 2005
Yeah I'm sure America teaches ppl to kill blacks (http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2884) Really ludicrous. And yes I brought up Cosby because he said something the liberals wouldnt say, like stop portraying black criminals as "political prisoners." [16]

The same forum participant responds, "Wareware's choice of source speaks for itself." Apparently, seeing other participants will challenge him, Wareware moves on.

  • 05:41, 14 Feb 2005, Wareware turns up at Talk:Melanin, an article he hasn't edited before, and comments on additions by deeceevoice regarding the role of melanin in social and race bias. He truncates it drastically, stating:
  • Did a clean up of this "verbal diarrhea". [17]
Don't bother arguing with deeceevoice. Just look at his discussions and edits on Afrocentrism and you'll know that you can't get anything "un-racist" through his glued head. [18]
  • 18:41, 8 Mar 2005, Talk:Melanin: A previous user (the author of the phrase "verbal diarrhea," and who later apologizes for his "rant") has written, "The section on social and rase bias is psychotic. It's about as relevant to an article on melanin as a lengthy discussion of the biochemical properties of melanin." Wareware follows suit:
Why the hell would we need to have a lengthy description of what racism, racialism, black supremacy, white supremacy, all sorts of "caste" system on a page on melanin the biological molecule? What's this crap? [19]

deeceevoice responds that the article is about melanin, generally -- not just as a "biological molecule" -- and that brief mention of the role of melanin-based color bias in human societies in a meaningful way that directs users to other related subjects is pertinent. Wareware continues to disagree and makes a number of reverts without carefully reading the text and in some cases simply automatically repeatedly reverts self-edits by deeceevoice, including her correction of a typo. Deeceevoice reverts Wareware's edits; this is now an edit war focusing primarily on WW's objections to inclusion of material in a section on melanin in social and race bias. He repeatedly complains of other articles to which deeceevoice has contributed on matters of race.

  • 03:40, 9 Mar 2005, Wareware:
I don't think anything can get through your thick skull that's so preoccupied with race, racism, racialism, and all sorts of related crap. [20]
  • 07:11, 9 Mar 2005, Wareware:
Hear that deeceevoice? Oh my god! Big Black Momma is coming to report me for suspension! Holy jesus I'd better run. [21]
  • 11:31, 9 Mar 2005, Deeceevoice asks him to focus on content:
I could bring up all kinds of garbage here about your conduct and your racist remarks. But I won't. Try to focus, Wareware ... [22]
  • 16:56, 9 Mar 2005, Wareware:
The only remotely racist remark I've made so far is the one on africans and apes, and that's after you made a fool of yourself by saying Asians have small penises [a mischaracterization of Deeceevoice's actual comment] ... That was a long time ago and you're kidding yourself if you say you can bring up all kinds of my purported racist conduct. [23]
  • 19:19, 10 Mar 2005, Wareware requests mediation regarding Melanin [24]
... unless you tell me that blacks are discriminated against because they have thick lips ... Really, why is your skull so thick? Why insist on inserting so many references to racism? Are you on a crusade or something? This is not black-o-pedia ... [25]
  • 19:00, 11 March 2005, Wareware drops user Jiang a note, requesting protection for Melanin:
hiya Jiang, I've been in a revert war with a pathetic Afrocentrist for quite a while.... This person is a total nutcase preoccupied with race.... [26]

User:Jiang complies, the article is protected from further edits and remains protected as of this writing. The version that is sustained is Wareware's.

  • Deeceevoice makes her first contribution to Black supremacy, and Wareware follows. March 13, Wareware turns up at Black supremacy, an article he has not edited before. At 00:58, March 2005:
He makes an extensive, somewhat clumsy edit, remarking in the edit summary: "npoved a bit and streamlined the pseudoscience crap in this pile of an article." [27]
  • In another edit which immediately follows, he all but completely deletes a substantive examination of the nature of black supremacy contrasted with white supremacy, including a quote by celebrated author and social commentator author bell hooks (contributed long before by another user), calling it variously "apologist drivel," "meaningless drivel." At 01:22, 13 Mar 2005:
Wareware remarks in the edit summary, "deleted meaningless drivel"

[28]

Still stalking me, eh? ... I won't have any other comment on your response on this matter, or on any other matter, until you learn to engage in civil discourse. [29]
  • 05:48, 13 Mar 2005, Wareware:
Teach me civil discourse will you, eh? Try looking into a mirror and see if you can see a savage yourself. [30]
  • 01:21, 14 Mar 2005, Deeceevoice:
I do not presume to teach you anything; frankly, I've begun to doubt that you are even marginally trainable. "Savage"? I have responded, civilly and with specific information ... [31]
  • 04:59, 14 Mar 2005, Wareware:
Is your reading comprehension way below average or do you need somebody to take the jungle out of you? [32]
The very idea that black folks -- the "lowest of the low" -- to whom racist, soul-sick, pathetic mental cretins like Wareware refer using "ape," "savage" and "jungle" references would consider themselves superior to white folks just enrages and outrages them ... it really pulls the sheets off. 'S crackin' me up ... [34]
  • 19:00, 17 Mar 2005, Wareware:
Give me a break, you pathetic louse. Black supremacy, just like any kind of supremacy, should enrage people and not to be diminished by reverse racism and whitewashing. You gotta be a fucking racist if you think otherwise. [35]
  • 08:55, 18 Mar 2005, User:Deglr6328 joins in with a snide comment directed at Deeceevoice:
Thanks but I'll pass on taking advice on methods of scientific inquiry from civil rights era grandmas, no offence. :) [36]
  • 09:05, 18 March 2005, and Wareware follows up with:
LOL delgre that's a good one.... [37]
  • 18:12, 18 Mar 2005, Deeceevoice:
"Ape." "Savage." "Jungle." "Big black momma." Blatantly racist comments. And the pathetic thing is you [haven't] even the good sense/common decency to be ashamed. Most animals who feel as you do at least have the good sense to say such things in private. ROTFLMBAO. What a sorry, sick, foolish, little excuse for a human being you are ... [38]
  • 19:03, 18 Mar 2005, Wareware:
... Here, have a banana, it'll make you feel better :) [39]
  • 20:00, 18 Mar 2005, Wareware:
You're dumber than an ape really. [40]
  • 07:37, 19 Mar 2005, Wareware:
Talk:Race_(Archive_15), everyone go on a have a laugh at the ape (scroll to the one about egyptians). [41]

Wareware later feigns an apology laced with insults, at the end of which he sarcastically throws in another simian reference for good measure:

  • 12:02, 20 Mar 2005, in [[Black supremacy], Wareware writes:
Sorry about mocking you with racial slurs, deecee. I think next time I'll have to come up with more creative and more PC ways to address your intelligence and conduct. I suppose a bag of shit or a cockroach nincompoop is better than apes or savages for the more sensitive. I'm not really acquainted with yo mama jokes and the dozens to come up with original insults like you do all the time, so I just took the lazy way and called you an ape directly. ...a single mention of ape is going to get me labelled a racist. Just remember kids, it's okay to insult people if you're creative and don't jump into using racial slurs like I did, and make sure you don't ever call black people apes or else they'll go monkey on you. [42]

WW then pursues DC to Talk:African American Vernacular English, but DC won't engage:

  • 02:51, 24 Mar 2005, Wareware:
I see that you're having fun ridiculing other folks again, pretty much illustrating what I wrote in the black supremacy discussion page. You're living proof no kidding. [43]
  • 05:49, 24 Mar 2005, Deeceevoice:
Re: Wareware's post: I have absolutely no intention of engaging this racist mental cretin who uses words like "ape," "savage," "jungle," "monkey" when referring to black folks in a discussion on AAVE. Period. [44]

Finally, in an exchange in talk: Black supremacy, Wareware and deeceevoice are engaged in a discussion on the applicability of the phrase "liberation theology" to the dogma of the Nation of Islam, wherein Wareware repeatedly misunderstands the connection. He erroneously repeats the charge that she is equating black supremacy with liberation theology. deeceevoice patiently and repeatedly attempts to explain; but Wareware becomes increasingly agitated.

  • 02:54, 24 March 2005
You're not answering the question.... Can you read? [45]
  • 06:41, March 24
This is getting stupid. Can you even read?[46]

Mindful of the pattern of Wareware's abuse, deeceevoice suspects his verbal attacks will escalate in short order. She advises him, "And change your tone." It is at this point that she decides to search for some resolution to her ongoing problems with user Wareware -- which leads us here.

Applicable policies[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

Not applicable. These were racist attacks; not an issue that can be resolved. As the evidence above shows, User:Deeceevoice tried several times to disengage, but User:Wareware pursued her.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

  1. deeceevoice 16:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. El_C 12:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. SlimVirgin 00:54, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  2. El_C 01:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Binadot 03:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Calton 04:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 03:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. RickK 22:49, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  7. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 11:30, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Babajobu 11:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. Jmabel | Talk 20:17, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  10. JCarriker 23:05, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 17:56, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Mothperson 12:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

  • It's really pathetic for deeceevoice to have me RfCed. Look, the fact is I'm not a racist, but deeceevoice likes to pin that label if you don't agree with him. A few quotes here and there make me look bad for sure, but that doesn't really cut it. If you want, go take a look and actually read every sentence on talk pages starting with Afrocentrism and find out what the arguments were about, and you'll know what the hell was going on. Deeceevoice was there and got into arguments with all of us who don't believe in afrocentrism and was the only one who got warned for civility from a sysop. And no, I haven't had any arguments with any other users, because all of them are on my side, especially on edit contents. El C, JBarlow, delgre, pharlap and some others I forgot to mention can vouch for this. On AAVE talk page it was deeceevoice who refused to provide source and got into more sarcastic and biting attacks on Quill and Marmen, not me. It's always been deeceevoice who started using abusive and disparaging languages (again, you'll have to actually read the talk page to find the whole story). The only difference between us is that he is pretty creative in making personal insults, and I took the shortcut and said the ape word (check black supremacy talk page). Now I know I probably shouldn't have used that particular word to describe an african, but why is it deeecee can go around spouting even more disgusting insults when one mention of ape gets me RfCed? And on deecee's claim that I stalk him, I could care less about him. I care about npov and factual content on wikipedia. Wikipedia can be a great source of disinformation, especially if the content is POV and factually incorrect. When I stumbled upon the fact that wikipedia's entry on Afrocentrism was on the 1st page of google search [47], I figure that as contributors we have a mission to present factual and npov content, otherwise people who google for it and read the wiki article are going to learn severly biased and incorrect information. The article was a piece of crap before I added the totally-disputed tag and actually changed a great deal of it, thanx to lots of other contributors. I don't stalk deeceevoice since it's not worth my time. But I strive for NPOV and correct content, which, sadly, deecee has very little mental grasp of. Bottom line is, go read the talk pages in totality and see who is the flamer in all those pages. Wareware 20:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

This may not be the right place on the page for this, but I'd like to make a comment on Wareware's version of the story. Wareware, many of us have, at one time or another, gotten frustrated with Deeceevoice or strongly disagreed with statements she's made. We may even have felt she was jeopardizing NPOV. But those things have absolutely nothing to do with this. At issue, at least for me, is your persistent use of outrageous, offensive allusions to animals, jungles, et cetera when arguing with Deeceevoice. For all I know you may have just been intensely frustrated with Deeceevoice, and struck out with the type of language you hoped was most likely to wound her; and thus maybe racism, per se, is not what motivated you. But that's really immaterial. The language you used was classic, vintage racist trash, and that kind of junk has absolutely no place in Wikipedia (or anywhere else). It's appropriate and important that you be called out on it. Babajobu 12:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Jmabel | Talk 20:24, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) (I'm not familiar with DC's edits but I endorse the view that frustration doesn't justify Wareware's racist language.)
  3. RickK 21:52, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Binadot 22:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Like SlimVirgin, I haven't known Deeceevoice for long and am mostly unfamiliar with her edits, but regardless, Wareware's behavior is utterly unacceptable and an embarassment to Wikipedia.)
  5. --FuriousFreddy 17:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC). (I'm pretty familiar with DC and her edits, and she's brought a lot of good work to a number of articles. Attacks like these should NOT be tolerated. The Wikipedia often feels like a less than comfortable environment for certain ethnicities, and people like Wareware make it difficult to want to continue working on the project).
  6. JCarriker 23:03, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) I'm not very familiar with Deecee, and I am rather frustrated with her right now myself. I have taken the time to review the pages and I endorse this summarry. As a side note I ashamed that our community allowed this to go on for as long as it has. A hard ban should strongly be consider against Wareware. An addendum: To clarify and elaborate on my above comments: I am not very familiar with deecee I've only met her recently and can't attest to any accusations of her pushing POV, in my encounter with her I found the opposite to be true. In saying that I am frustrated with deecee the frustration is mutual in that I have also frustrated her. It is normal for users to become annoyed with each other occasionally, and it is never a justification for the cowardly and ignorant way in which Wareware responded to those frustrations. Furthermore, any speculation of deecee's conduct, as is going on the talk page, is irrelevant after Wareware made his intial comments-- he should consider himself lucky she managed to remain as composed for as long as she did. I know I wouldn't have if I had been in her postion. This type of behavior is unacceptable, we should be standing with her not trying to find ways to pass judgement on her. -JCarriker 01:03, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  7. GRider 23:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) Racism is one thing that should never be tolerated on Wikipedia, ever.
  8. Calton | Talk 05:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. Thryduulf 15:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC). There is never a place for racism, anywhere, ever.
  10. --SqueakBox 17:02, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) Really dislike WareWare's disparagement of illiteracy comments-this guy seems plain prejudiced, probably against lots of different types of people. Hope deeceevoice doesn't decide to leave as a result of this rascist attack against her as I personally think there aren't enough black people working here. I am not endorsing deeceevoice's view because I haven't studied the case enough, just read some of WareWare's comments, but as I have no experience of her edits I don't endorse Babajobu either about her being frustrating, possibly POV etc, though I do agree one should be judged on one's edits and not on how other's perceive one as a person, or even of how one is as a person.
  11. Jeremiah Cook 00:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) Discussion is good, but not when it follows one topic alone and includes racial slurs or the like. I can disagree with someone else without having to call them names like I saw in this RfC.
  12. Mothperson 12:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) I know nothing about Deecee except what I read here, and I am astounded WareWare's behavior was allowed to continue for so long. Funny - his statement that he "could care less" - which means, of course, he cares immensely, even if he thinks he said the opposite. Freudian slip (and fall - ouch!) or illiteracy?
Addendum: I idiotically just took up WareWare's challenge to read all the talk pages of Afrocentrism. You've got to be kidding, kiddo, if you seriously think deecee's behavior is in any way equivalent to yours. I checked my thesaurus. Rude and racist are so not the same thing. Aspirin, must find... --Mothperson 23:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. P0M 21:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC) I agree that Wareware should be censured. DCV has ruffled my feathers occasionally, but I never thought anything she said was done out of malice. I think some of the problem may be due to "culture shock" kinds of elements. I interpret things that DCV says differently because I understand what she describes as "signifying." When I see "WareWare", however, my mind inserts a "read as Beware! Beware!." I have had some contact with him before, too. I do not think his behavior is appropriate. I've written a little about the way the same thing can mean different things depending on cultural background at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Wareware/Evidence -- maybe it should have gone here. I get lost trying to get from here to there anyway.[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wareware.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wareware&oldid=1064222440"