User:ElKevbo/FrancesRFC

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

Francespeabody has disrupted the Condoleezza Rice article and its Talk page with multiple personal attacks and uncivility with rampant accusations of racism and censorship. He alleges that the viewpoint of the African American community is not only underpresented in the article but that there are multiple editors actively censoring the article to prevent those viewpoints from being expressed and documented. The article is currently protected to allow for discussion of this issue and reign in an edit-war centered on this issue. Despite many requests to cease making personal attacks from multiple editors on both the Rice article's Talk page and his own Talk page, Francespeabody continues to make repeated and unsubstantiated allegations of racism and censorship.

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. His inaugural post to the Condoleezza Rice Talk page includes accusations of racism and censorship. Beginning with the creation of a subsection labeled "Cleansing of the Condi Article is getting out of Control," he goes on to declare the Rice article "a showcase of how White America operates at the propoganda level" and the Talk page "a Republican Love fest." He ends his post with a directive to the White editors to "pull Bushs @#$% out of your hand long enough to use it to write some truth instead of just censoring black contributions" and the comment "Censorship, bigotry, whitewashing, racism, elitism, classism, misquotes, all to keep this poor little negro from Alabama pure and her tale honest and non biased? Whatever!"

2. Francespeabody's second post on the Rice Talk page opens with an assertion that the article is being censored: "The Black voices are not being heard they are being deleted, censored, or softened for being too truthful."

3. He accuses Wikipedia editors (possibly just the White editors) of racism: "You have no idea how bad it is to be a minority and to think that there are groups organized to see you suffer. Despite that perspective, I ask you, what is it in the humanity of White men that allows this kind of supremacy to continue and thrive?"

4. He accuses Wikipedia editors of "guilt" (presumably due to their inherent racism): "I do think those editing this page regard themselves as White no matter what non-black group they hale from. That also makes the NPOV issue all the more relevant. I repeat, I proudly represent black opinions here, I don't hide behind my PC and the anonymity of the Internet the way almost all of you do. That is your choice but in my experience, silence is evidence of guilt."

5. Francespeabody not only accused other editors racism ("You don't know when you are being racist") but further stated that "[I]f you are a "Non-Black", you will not always understand the common view or even be in a position to be exposed to is as I am however, since you are not in the community either go into the community and find out for yourself, or trust that someone from that community posting public information from Black Leaders, is accurate." This "just trust me, I'm Black and you're not" attitude is not only offensive but also a firm rejection of the WP:V policy.

6. Personal attacks on other editors and accusations of racism by stating that "[Y]ou guys are acting like 8 year olds and just sticking in irrelevant citation..." and "I get it known that black views are not wanted, and if the "black community" can't find representation in the Government to speak for them, then they are not welcome here to do it individually." He also rejected the Wikipedia policies and ideals of seeking consensus by notifying other editors that, despite their objections and the ongoing conversation, "The section will be edited once again by me. The counter arguments will be removed from it. That is not vandalism, that is maintanence of the wiki policy."

7. Accusations of racism and censorship:

"You are teaming up to censor ideas you don't share but that the majority of the Black community does."
"Oh, but wait, you don't like that and that is the only motivation you have. YOU don't agree but that is irrelevant to what "Blacks" agree to."

8. In response to an editor who wondered why some previously-active editors had not participated in the Talk page since the article was semi-protected, Francespeabody asserted that "[Y]ou know you had my username "Banned" for reverting my previous edits to which you did not edit yourself so to pretend you don't know why "i (sic) have not heard anything from the opposition" is silly, stupid and is hereby called out for general cowardice." Francespeabody went on to once again accuse other editors of violating WP:NPOV and reject the discussion of disputed points as "Listing them here for the sake of discussion is not only redundant but clearly a tactic to try and hijact the POV yet again."

9. He engaged in prolonged personal attack on Ai.kefu by creating a subsection entitled "Why Ai.Kefu Should be banned for good!!!" wherein he posted the results of "research" he had conducted on this editor which supposedly revealed that he is a Rice supporter and of German descent (and thus not black). Based on this information, Francespeabody demanded that Ai.Kefu be banned.

10. Francespeabody accused ElKevbo of not holding to the WP:NPOV policy by stating that "The fact that you hold this pro Bush sentiment on multiple sites proves though that you don't and are not looking for a NPOV either." (Francespeabody is presumably referring to ElKevbo's contributions to other articles in Wikipedia, including the George W. Bush article, work for which multiple editors have awarded him barnstars.) In the same edit, Francespeabody rejects the WP:V policy by stating that "I stand by the assertion that "Truth" should be included even if it is unpopular." He once again accused of Wikipedia editors of engaging in censorship by stating that "None of you has the right to supress [my view], none of you."

11. Attacking Dystopos by creating a subsection entitled "Dystopos: Et to brutus?" and stating that:

"[It is] so typical of Whites to dismiss the concept "altogether" rather than investigate for truth. It is also typical to have either no understanding of what "racism" means let alone accepting culpability for engaging in it."
"If you are White and American, you have racism bread (sic) into you and if you do not admit or accept this basic notion, you are not worth debating."
"Until someone truly neutral can come into this conversation, I think all of you Red Stat, (sic) Bible thumping idiots ought to stay out of it. You have a 1000 other White Faced protectorates to work over in your "special" kind of white-washing way..."

12. Continued harassing Ai.kefu by creating a subsection entitled "Why Ai.Kefu Should be banned for still pretending to be black!!!" and telling Ai.kefu that he "respect[s] [his] commitment to stupidity."

13. In response to Fsotrain09's plea to "Please do not use the talk pages of articles as soapboxes, Frances. File an RfC, take this to mediation, or go elsewhere, but please allow other editors to get back to the task of working to improve this article." Francespeabody responded by:

Accused him or her of being a "Roman Catholic censor looking to dismiss and diminish the entire conversation"
Making a vague threat that "I will be black in the morning, blacks will still feel the way they do about Condi, and you will still be peering from under the covers until I dissapear." (Emphasis added)
Accused someone (Fsotrain09? All editors of the Rice article?) of being "White and Black, Liberal & Fag hating"
Stated that "Each one of you most in disagreement with me is either a Pro-Slavery wing-nut, Christian/Bush worshiper, or just authors of topics none of which qualify you to judge the POV presented by blacks. None of you are informed enough to make any opinion and a quick look at what you do, how you say it and your motives confirm this."

14. After one editor (Fsotrain09) asked Francespeabody to "Please stop making personal attacks," Francespeabody replied that "Each one of you has a right wing, and conservative bias in almost all of your wiki contributions yet think it ought not be considered in this discussion where race is the key issue. Don't be so full of yourselves. I know the truth hurts but stop trying to censor unpopular opinion with threats and either stay out of the conversation or contribute something of value to it."

15. Personal attack and accusation of racism (presumably) of User:Dystopos:

"It is the White Elitist attitude that you can even be neutral regarding an issue of race that I detest. The same neutrality you claim to have here is the same neutrality every white Juror claims to have before issuing a verdict on a black defendant." (This particular line of attack continues at User Talk:Francespeabody)

16. Assertion of racism in Wikipedia editors and censorship:

"...they keep removing it from the cite for random reasons. Well, not random, they don't like the message....The Whites do not want us to "Vote" let alone contribute to an article they seek control of."
"Trust me, they want control of her image and are charading as NPOV wiki contributors."

17. Personal attack on Ai.kefu:

"You cite some ignorant crap."
"Dude you are like 12 years old going on 19 and you are trying to take me to task over history. You have not lived enough to argue the points you are trying but while I would give others an credit for trying, you are a liar, and a Condiphile!!!!"
"Do not contribute to this conversation any further."

Applicable policies and guidelines

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Asked to cease personal attacks on his Talk page by BballJones
Comment on racist remark on his Talk page by Dystopos
Comment that slanders are not welcome and pointer to Village Pump to discuss Wikipedia policies in an appropriate place on his Talk page by Dystopos
Asked to not violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF on his Talk page by Fsotrain09
Request for Francespeabody to "calm down" and "negotiate" on his Talk page by DragonflySixtyseven
Request not to "throw around accusations of racism" on his Talk page by Dweller (a request made in relation to a different article)
Request to cease personal attacks and assuming other editors are white on Rice Talk page by BballJones
Request to cease personal attacks on Rice Talk page by ElKevbo
Another request to cease personal attacks and assumptions based on race on the Rice Talk page by BballJones
Yet another request to cease personal attacks on the Rice Talk page by BballJones
Request for Francespeabody to cooperate with other editors to avoid POV on the Rice Talk page by Ai.kefu
Request to AGF and "A little more compromise and discussion and a bit less name-calling and accusation" on the Rice Talk page by Ohnoitsjamie
Request for Francespeabody to abide by policies and a request for him to become more familiar with them, specifically:WP:3RR, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:SOCK, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox on the Rice Talk page by Isopropyl
Request to cease personal attacks on the Rice Talk page by Ohnoitsjamie
Request to not remove large sections of the article without discussion and consensus on the Rice Talk page by BballJones
Article content RFC filed asking "How best can we incorporate criticism of Rice from members of the African American community and responses to that criticism?"
Request for full protection for the Rice article to "enforce a cool-down period while an RFC can be written and filed to attempt to resolve the situation." Request was granted.
Request to not use Rice Talk page as "soapbox" and take non-article discussion elsewhere on Rice Talk page by Fsotrain09
Request to cease personal attacks on the Rice Talk page by Fsotrain09
Request to cease personal attacks on the Rice Talk page by Dystopos

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Please don't certify (sign) this draft RFC - it is in flux and subject to change; please post a message on my talk page if you'd like me to specifically notify you when this RFC is actually posted.

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.