Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Francespeabody

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 with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. 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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC).

Francespeabody (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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."

18. Characterized RFC process as "public lynching" (complete with photograph of actual lynching) with "'Elkevbo' and his new pet censor: 'Getaway'" as the "Event Trustees."

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

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

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[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

ElKevbo 04:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dystopos 04:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fsotrain09 04:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BballJones 12:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isopropyl 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getaway 23:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mmx1 05:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

—Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ. I have not been directly involved with or talked to anyone involved, but after reading the discussion and evidence here I am thoroughly disgusted with Frances. Wikipedia is not censored, is not racist, and some of the personal attacks he made were completely out of line, especially the various 'Roman Catholic censor' and racism ones. I'm not sure if he's an avid conspiracy theorist or someone looking for attention, but this is most certainly NOT the place for him either way.

I'm sorry Vanderdecken, but I don't think the above comments are helpful to this rfc and could consitute a personal attack in itself. The wider issues Frances raised were universally agreed to be valid and it is his/her right to voice them and continue voicing them at Wikipedia. It was his personal attacks against other editors that were against policy, should be reviewed and I hope have now been curtailed. Please reconsider your comments on this page.--Zleitzen 11:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wow, having the integrity to boldly state my position in what I am offering to the "discussion" is viewed as unthinkable by the looks of it. Each one of you offering a critical remark here lacks the courage of the conviction it would take to simply say what you are. Hiding like children behind the geneneral anonymity of the web. I simply said, lets act like adults and call a spade a spade! If every edit you make is "PRO CONDI" you are not Neutral. If you write purely form that POV, you clearly have an agenda and I have asked that in our "Discussion" we come clean about it so we can have a mature discourse.

Since most are happy to "pretend" to be scientfically disposed in all their dealings with Wikipedia I have limited my discussion and have just gone back to reverts, edits, and updates. No point in future conversations with folks who can't be honest with themselves let alone the larger goal of getting them to be honest in this public forum.

The scary truth about each party here is the articles they contribute to are generally right winged, conservative, America is Good the rest of the world is bad propaganda so to masquarade as anything but right-wingnut is just silly. Anyway, I will stop wasting my time in the discussion section and just go about neutralizing Wiki as a good citizen. --Francespeabody 05:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view[edit]

Outside view by Zleitzen[edit]

Francespeabody alleges that the viewpoint of the African American community is underpresented in the article. He/she is correct. I've also tried to explain this on the talk page page of this article with little response. Though Francespeabody's responses have been extremely confrontational - and counterproductive in many ways - the issue of African American under-representation in the media and broader society is a very emotive and serious one. Frances has provided verifiable sources which he/she believes are being stifled and has reacted in a certain way. This could have been avoided if other users respected the inherent problems surrounding the lack of African American representation, and allowed for more discourse in the article concerning African American views of Dr Rice. At present this area of the page is unsatisfactory. "She has also been criticised by some members of the African American community" is not good enough.

I recommend that Frances take a step back from commenting on other editors as that is not helpful to the article or the case he/she is attempting to make - but I strongly recommend that other users take good look at this article and allow for more substantial African American viewpoints in the relevant area of the page. To undervalue this is wrong.

Users who endorse this summary:

--Zleitzen 10:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--SB Johnny 21:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Isopropyl[edit]

I have closely monitored this dispute from the very beginning; while other editors have worked to constructively integrate both the criticism and response into the article, Francespeabody (talk · contribs) has actively sought to quell any attempt to deviate from his/her accepted version of the article ([1],[2], etc.), even committing a grievous violation of the three-revert rule. The user has insisted on maintaining a poorly formatted and very POV introductory paragraph whose citations do not support the assertions (see Talk:Condoleezza Rice#Introduction) while at the same time removing large sections of properly cited material from the "criticism" section.

It has been extremely difficult to work with Francespeabody (talk · contribs), as the user has an admitted political agenda (see [3]). I can attest that several editors (myself included) have tried to placate the user by compromise, such as the retitling of the "criticism" section to "criticism and response". However, we have been met with ad hominem attacks that allege (among other things) blanket racism, conspiracy to silence the black community [4], questioning of the intelligence/race/motivation of other editors [5], and oddball suggestions referring to circles jerks and Steve-O. The various character attacks that I and other has been beset by produce a chilling effect on the article, where editors are intimidated or frightened by accusations of racism and become unwilling to edit. Policies such as no legal threats aim to prevent this suspension of free editing.

The filing of this RfC saddens me, as Francespeabody (talk · contribs) is obviously a very well-read and intelligent contributor. I sincerely hope that as a result of this RfC the above user is able to work constructively with other editors, as I believe that he/she would make a fine Wikipedian once these few issues can be settled. Isopropyl 14:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary:

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BballJones 15:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Dmeranda[edit]

Francespeabody (talk · contribs) has been an editor for about a month, during which time he has contributed substantially to about five articles. His initial editing history appears relatively civil. He has (at least before his disruptive behavior took over) raised several noteworthy concerns and arguments over the Rice article's content and neutrality. After a series of edit wars though, the article was submitted to the RfC process[6] on 12 July to help resolve the content dispute. Frances' behavior though quickly worsened to the point that any possible discussion solicited by that RfC could not be properly conducted. His personal, racial, regligious, and political attacks and accusations made toward other editors are unfortunate and clearly indicate an unwillingness to be civil and to respect Wikipedia policy and guidelines. He has also attempted to intimidate and/or discredit other editors by performing "private investigations" into editors' real personas, private backgrounds and histories, and other activities unrelated to this article. In summary his behavior is very disruptive and no progress is being made on dispute resolution. His behavior is unacceptable and inexcusable.

Frances does have some history of adding disputed material to other articles, seemingly in an attempt to push a particular point of view. The problem I see is not that such references shouldn't be added or that he chooses only to add material that is agreeable to his viewpoint, but instead the manner in which they are mis-characterized in the text with not only disregard for accuracy or using reliable sources, but in a manner that blatently pushes a contriversial point of view or makes false claims which are never even mentioned by those cited references. For example, on the Laura Bush article he references an ABC News article[7], but in his corresponding prose[8] he writes Larua Bush has been long criticized as being "Completely Detached From Reality"...'. His statement is completely unsubstantiated by the referenced article; and furthermore the quoted portion of the sentence was in its entirety ficticiously fabricated. Note that this phrasing, "completely detached from reality", was also added by Frances to this Rice article, also disputed as being a fabrication.

However, on his behalf, during roughly the same time period while the dispute over this article continued, it does appear as if Frances was quite capable of carrying on a civil and useful discussion on the Hillary Rodham Clinton talk page[9]. Although he makes his own political views well known and at times makes claims of a right-wing Wikipedia editorial conspiracy, it seems he made a good faith attempt at an NPOV series of discussions and edits on the Clinton page [I am not endorsing his opinions or reasoning, but just that he appeared to do so civily and in good faith with other editors to reach consensus].

Taken as a whole though his edits to both Rice's and Clinton's articles, combined with his many direct statements he has made regarding his intent to use Wikipedia as a voice to push his particular point of view (racially and politically) and to use Wikipedia to affect a political outcome is disturbing. Furthermore there seems to be no end to his continued disruptions. It is my hope that Francespeabody realize that his behavior has not only been extremely offensive and disruptive as well as eroding his own honor and perceived editorial trustworthiness, but has also been counterproductive to addressing the deficiencies in the article's content that he initially raised or in fairly addressing the behavior of other editors also involved in the article's dispute. Dmeranda 19:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary:

Wasted Time R 20:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC) I'll partially endorse this. I was the editor Frances was engaged with on Hillary Rodham Clinton. I am not sure whether Frances was making a good faith effort there to rework a section he/she found unfair, or whether Frances was there just to make a (invalid, in my view) point about Republicans getting easier treatment than Democrats on Wikipedia. And, the issue has not yet been resolved, pending some reference work I need to do. On the other hand, the HRC engagement was free of the kind of personal attacks and charges that cropped up on the Condi article.[reply]

Outside view by Mmx1[edit]

While I have only observed the Condoleeza Rice dispute, I have been involved in a dispute with the editor on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth page, where Frances has been repeatedly replacing neutral descriptive content with the POV of the group founder. He does not understand WP:NPOV nor WP:AUTO in outlining the neutral language required of articles, and additionally does not engage in discussions on the article talk page. Mmx1 05:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

As of 9 August, Frances is continuing to unilaterally reinsert, en bloc, a piece written by Mr. Fetzer in this article, skirting 3rr (so far)[10][11][12]. Frances has repeadedly added these verbatim entries under the misleading edit summary of "citation", even when it has been pointed out on the talk page that copying extensive, multi-paragraph statements is not a "citation". Additionally, the user has engaged in personal attacks [13] and has claimed that as a Marine I have motives for perpetuating censorship:

You are not Neutral and clearly your commitment to "United States Marine Corps" (Articles I've created) colors your opinion and exposes your motives for censorship

[14]

While I am not in fact a Marine, I do take offense to this uncivil blanket accusation.

Other users who endorse this summary:

Mmx1 02:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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.