Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice This case has closed, please do not make further edits to this page.

This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. The arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Split this RFA

1) This should be two separate RFAs.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Arbitration is explicitly a dispute resolution procedure, not a disciplinary one. We are here to consider this particular dispute, not to provide a forum for dredging up any conflic these editors may have been a party to. Kirill Lokshin 11:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Looking at the evidence to date, it seems that there is no great benefit in linking Certified.Gangsta and Ideogram in this RFA. The disputes each have had are wider than with just the other editor. I propose splitting this RFA into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ideogram. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree; there are problems with Certified.Gangsta's behavior, and there are problems with Ideogram's behavior. These problems are not linked. Kusma (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
In particular, CG has used the defence "but the guy I was edit warring with was a bad guy" very often. I am expecting that he will likewise turn the trolling by Ideogram on this RfAr to his advantage and again avoid any sanctions that would defend the community from his persistent and non-constructive behaviour. To split the RfAr would help identify the behavioural issues (most of the evidence against Ideogram is not related to CG). Kusma (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
This proposal likely has some merit. There are lots of incriminating diffs to continue discussing Ideogram's poor conduct without bringing CG into the picture. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • We are here to consider this particular dispute
Except that this isn't a single dispute. There is one dispute that centers around Certified. And there is a second dispute between Ideogram and Bishonen/Geogre/Giano, maybe others. As shown on the evidence page, Ideogram is only one of many people involved in the first dispute, certainly not the only one, just the only one prepared to put in the not inconsiderable effort needed to get this to an RFA. There are a great many people who have reverted and argued with Certified. That dispute is mainly, perhaps totally, about Certified's behaviour. And then there is the second dispute. I'm not across the details of that, though I know many of the parties and I did get involved in the Giano ban/unban dispute. But I'm pretty certain that it doesn't involve Certified in any way. If we have to present RFAs as two-way disputes, then what about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ideogram-Wikipedia or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ideogram-Bishonen,Geogre,Giano or something? Regards, Ben Aveling 21:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TingMing as a potential party

2) TingMing be added as a party to this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Looking at TingMing's contributions, I'm not sure, but there may be grounds to add TingMing as a party to this case. Just a thought. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Clerk note: A separate request for arbitration against TingMing is currently pending on WP:RfAr. Newyorkbrad 00:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Motion withdrawn. Has been rendered completely moot by the opening of the new arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/TingMing. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Questions to the parties

  • Questions from largely uninvolved Newyorkbrad to each of the parties (Certified.Gangsta and Ideogram):
1. If you are not sanctioned in this case, do you intend to change any aspects of your editing behavior that have been criticized or raised as concerns by other participants in this case?
As in past matters, I believe a warning to me would be sufficient to change my behaviour. If the ArbCom simply approves a recommendation that I not say "Giano is stupid and arrogant", I will comply. --Ideogram 23:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Are there are remedies you believe ArbCom could or should impose with respect to yourself that would help you to alleviate any of the concerns about your editing that have been raised by other participants in this case? Newyorkbrad 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't think of any necessary remedies for myself, perhaps not surprising. I want to mention here that I have accepted informal mentoring by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs). --Ideogram 23:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] The behavior of the parties in the arbitration is under scrutiny

1) The behavior of Ideogram and Certified.Gangsta is under scrutiny by the ArbCom, including their behavior during the arbitration. Declarations of intent to disrupt the project are not acceptable. Abusing the privileged Evidence page for the purpose of insulting uninvolved members of the community is not acceptable either. The Evidence page is intended for evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Let's try to keep one principle per proposal, shall we? --Ideogram 21:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Edit-warring unacceptable

2) Edit-warring is unacceptable. When an edit is reverted, editors should start a discussion. Reverting to one's own preferred version during discussion is unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. --Ideogram 21:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Edit warring is harmful

3) Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The [[WP:#3RR|three-revert rule]] should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. // Sean William 22:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)\
Endorse. LionheartX 20:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

4) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
If this is going to become an issue here we will need the examples of Giano's breathtaking incivility and personal attacks. I am perfectly capable of supplying them, but I will wait to see if that is necessary. --Ideogram 22:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW I am more than happy to be sanctioned for these comments provided Giano is also sanctioned for his past comments. No double standards here. But history suggests it won't happen. --Ideogram 22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed, after seeing Ideogram's personal attack against Giano on the evidence page: "Giano is stupid and arrogant and needs to think before posting." ([1]) // Sean William 22:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly this is not Ideogram's first time. He has blatantly called me a liar for no reason on his talk page when I tried peacefully to discuss with him. I was deeply distressed by his groundless insult and comment. I have tried to work constructively with him through dialogue but he refuses and resorts to insults and other name calling techniques. This behavior should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. We need to show him that by giving appropriate punishment. TingMing 04:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic reversions

5) Automatic reversion scripts such as the undo function or popups should be avoided when reverting good faith edits, because:

A.) Automatic reversion scripts provide no explanation when reverting
B.) Automatic reversion scripts give the impression that the edits were vandalism or in bad faith.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed, but grammatically awkward. Fix if needed. // Sean William 23:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Ideogram has persisted in using automatic scripts/programs to undo all my edits. He did not even look at them. He just sends the machine to undo all edits by TingMing. That is very counter productive to the Wikipedia environment. Ideogram makes no effort to discuss with others. He eliminates opposition by undoing everyone else's edits. This should be punished and the program revoked. I tried to revert to the original for article Chen Shui-bian because it was vandalized by an unregistered user. Ideogram reverted my edits multiple times, without even looking at the problem. This is something that should be reprimanded. TingMing 05:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for the reason that you still can edit the summary if you use the undo function. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

5.1) Good faith edits should not be reverted by automatic scripts. An explanation should be provided, the edits should not be labelled vandalism, and objectionable edits should be separated from acceptable ones.


Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. --Ideogram 23:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Sounds a lot better than mine. // Sean William 23:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
No. See my response to 5 for my explanation - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

5.2) Use of automatic scripts to revert edits en masse, without human input to examine the content of the edits and distinguish between vandalism and good-faith edits, is a violation of the bot policy (unless specific approval has been given to run an anti-vandalism bot).

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed --Random832 02:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
A lot better than 5 or 5.1, I say... - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Added some wording - obviously, AVB isn't against policy. --Random832 11:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LionHeartX's role considered

6) The arbcom considers the role of editors who attempt to influence the outcome of an arbitration case, even if such editors don't personally post to the arbitration pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Bishonen | talk 15:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Conduct of another editor

7) Giano II (talk · contribs)'s behaviour is relevant to this case. --Ideogram 01:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. --Ideogram 01:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
...because Giano has been edit warring on pages related to ROC/Taiwan so many times? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Point of View

8) Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. LionheartX 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith

9) Wikipedia:Assume good faith contemplates the extension of courtesy and good will to other editors on the assumption that they, like you, are here to build an information resource with a neutral point of view based on reliable, verifiable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. LionheartX 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

10) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users, to assume good faith, and to observe Wikiquette, civility, and avoid personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. LionheartX 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a soapbox

11) The use of Wikipedia for political propaganda is prohibited by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. LionheartX 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a battleground

12) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. LionheartX 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive editing

13) Users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. LionheartX 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canvassing and community bans

14) Due to the seriousness of community ban discussions, attempts to unduly influence the outcome are serious violations of the community's trust.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. A bit tardy but, in my opinion, the most important precedent that could be established in this case. DurovaCharge! 19:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
I appreciate the reasons for your concern about this issue, but the proposal is a bit too vague, and in any event unlikely to be addressed in this case given the /Proposed decision already posted. If this remains a concern it should be addressed on the appropriate talk or policy page(s). Newyorkbrad 20:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to reword as appropriate. On a process level I'd rather change the guideline language, but as things currently stand I'm quite concerned that the precedent (by default) would become: Q. What's the consequence if one editor tries to railroad another out of Wikipedia by abusing the community banning process? A.Not much...nothing to lose by trying. I consider that to be highly dangerous. Sitebanning the editor who attempts to manipulate that process is probably the appropriate response, in my opinion, and at the very least I'd like to see the Committee agree in principle that attempts to manipulate a siteban discussion are more serious than attempts to manipulate an article deletion discussion. DurovaCharge! 20:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

15) Incivility, accusations, and insulting editors on the lines of nationality, ethnicity, race, and political background anywhere on Wikipedia are serious violations of WP:NPA and cannot be tolerated.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. LionheartX 01:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed. Its unbelievable how an editor can get away with such blatant racism. --Sumple (Talk) 01:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Even if you're right, it's still edit warring

16) The measure of edit warring is not whether you are wrong or right; it is if you make a genuine attempt to explain the motivation for the changes you want, and a genuine attempt to understand the reasoning of the other parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. It seems to me that both sides are using "but I'm right" as an excuse for edit waring. My sense is that one can be 'right', and still be guilty of edit waring, and I'm raising this proposed principle to see if other people agree. Ben Aveling 07:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Note that Certified.Gangsta has continued to extensively edit warred during this arbitration. Certified.Gangsta has not made any contributions other than edit warring and personal attacks during this arbitration case. LionheartX 11:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a separate issue. Do you agree that reverting without discussing is edit warring? What if the preferred version is genuinely better? Is "Because I'm right" an excuse? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that reverting without discussing is edit warring. Users should follow policies such as WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS instead of persistently reverting several times a day as shown here. Regards, LionheartX 12:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ideogram, Gangsta, do either of you have a position on this? Ben Aveling 21:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

17) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

18) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Rudeness, especially towards uninvolved parties, is intolerable

1) Ideogram's declaration in his Evidence section that he intends to go on insulting Giano until he's banned ("I've said it before and I'll say it again until I get booted off of Wikipedia: Giano is stupid and arrogant and needs to think before posting") is not tolerable, especially in view of the fact that Giano has no connection with the case. What is Ideogram's statement supposed to be evidence of?

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
You supplied many diffs regarding my interaction with Giano. And aren't you the one who claims sanctions for personal attacks are unacceptable? I distinctly remember you claiming that during your defence of Ghirlandajo. Mere rudeness is a lesser offence. --Ideogram 21:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
This reads more like a principle then a finding of fact. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
This rude behavior is demonstrated consistently in Ideogram's personality and behavior. This is intolerable and hurts other Wikipedians. I urge the Wikipedia community to stand united to face any unprecedented rude/intolerable assaults by Ideogram. This cyber bullying is absolutely intolerable on Wikipedia. He has cyber bullied me out of nowhere. I can see now that his pattern is very consistent. TingMing 05:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certified.Gangsta edit-warring

2) Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) has edit-warred and failed to discuss productively with multiple editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. --Ideogram 21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Endorse. Ben Aveling 04:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems clear from the evidence page. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorse. LionheartX 22:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certified.Gangsta has no expertise and does not discuss in good faith

3) Certified.Gangsta has no expertise in the fields in which he edit-wars and has unshakeable views that never accord with consensus; Certified.Gangsta refuses to discuss in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed Sumple (Talk) 08:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced he has no expertise. But otherwise, agreed. Ben Aveling 04:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorse. LionheartX 21:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LionHeartX is involved in this case

4) User:LionheartX has campaigned for other users to make RFAR statements about Certified.gangsta (i. e. not on the case in general, nor on Ideogram). See diffs provided here.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Bishonen | talk 15:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Certain allegations against another editor

5) Giano II (talk · contribs) has engaged in incivility and personal attacks and established the precedent that such behavior is tolerated on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
What does this have to do with the streetcar running? Mackensen (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Evidence forthcoming. --Ideogram 01:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
To Sean William: Read what I wrote. I said it several times. If rules that apply to me don't apply to Giano, I'll be gone before you have a chance to sanction me. --Ideogram 01:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
To Newyorkbrad: If you value my contributions, listen to what I say. I don't give you my contributions for free, I demand certain things of my work environment, namely no hypocrisy or double standards. Don't overestimate the value of Wikipedia to me. --Ideogram 02:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
To Mackensen: You are perfectly free to choose expediency over principle. But if you do so, I do not belong here. --Ideogram 02:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

But I'll make it a messy fight first, so don't overestimate how expedient it will be. --Ideogram 02:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To Bishonen: Yeah, you wanted to keep Gangsta too. --Ideogram 03:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Expediency in the short term tends to be costly in the long term. You earned this fight when you let Giano off. Don't pretend shooting the messenger will solve your problem. --Ideogram 02:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I urge all interested parties to review my more than nine thousand edits in full to assess what I have given to Wikipedia, what I am giving, and what I am capable of giving. If it comes to cold calculation (which I do not disapprove of) you can decide who is better for this project, Giano or me. --Ideogram 02:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that if you impose the exact same sanction on both me and Giano, I will stay. He will probably leave. --Ideogram 02:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no truer measure of what is important to a man than what he is willing to die for. --Ideogram 02:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I now admit this was a mistake. I will not further discuss Giano in this RFAR. --Ideogram 17:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:
What does Giano have to do with this? This arbitration is about YOU and Certified.Gangsta. // Sean William 01:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Ideogram, you have useful contributions to make in mainspace, in a variety of subject areas. Why do you persist with raising these types of comments, in the face of a block from one arbitrator and the proposed decision now authored by another? I repeat, you do have worthwhile mainspace contributions to offer and that is where you should be focusing your attention. It is painful watching you self-destruct in this manner. Newyorkbrad 02:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
/me reviews Ideogram's and Giano's edits with cold calculation as instructed. Oh, what the hell, let's get rid of Giano, what good is he to the project? Bishonen | talk 03:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
Ideogram is clearly making a circus out of this arbitration case and it hurts other Wikipedians who are trying to find a compromise and a solution. This is seriously unacceptable and harmful to the Wikipedia community. Although you said Ideogram has knowledge to contribute, his behavior on Wikipedia is terrible. I am a victim of his personality/behavior. He does not know how to get along with others. He has asked another user to revert all my edits and after that user expressed reluctance, Ideogram asked him to game the system in order not to be banned. The notice was on Ideogram's talk page under Taiwan Province, Republic of China. The detrimental effects of Ideogram editing on wikipedia far out weigh his positive contributions by a million miles. I have seen him edit war and attack other users just in the course of the last few days. I am a relatively new user and absolutely shocked at what I am finding on Wikipedia. Strong action should be taken against Ideogram. TingMing 04:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this seems to have been added by Ideogram to reopen old wounds, and to widen the scope of this dispute. I fail to see how this is likely to be a productive means of resolving the issues between Ideogram and Certified.Gangsta. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks by Certified.Gangsta

6) Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has made personal attacks "Ching Chongz and Chinkz are like...man i'm gonna cuss 'em out..Get a life y'all. there ain't no hot chinese girlz. all of 'em ugly-ass b*tchez." [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. LionheartX 00:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certified.Gangsta has engaged in tendentious and aggressive editing

7) Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), has engaged in tendentious and aggressive editing, inserting original research and commentary, ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]). Certified.Gangsta has an extensive history of edit warring and personal attacks, with many blocks being due to personal attacks and edit-warring. [16] [17] [18].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. LionheartX 00:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certified.Gangsta's attack on other editors

8) Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has abused other editors ([19], [20], [21], [22]) Certified.Gangsta has perpetrated extensive personal attacks on the lines of nationality and race ([23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28])

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. LionheartX 00:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed. Repeated expressions of racism. Isn't there a law against it where he comes from? --Sumple (Talk) 01:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certified.Gangsta

9) Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has an extensive history of aggressive edit-warring (see block log [29] [30]) and attempting to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines ([31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]).

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. LionheartX 23:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certified.Gangsta violations

10) Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has violated WP:NPA, WP:EW, WP:POINT, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT, WP:DE, WP:OR, WP:AGF, WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, and WP:OWN.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. LionheartX 01:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certified.Gangsta has made no useful contributions to the encyclopedia

11) Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has used his editing privileges almost exclusively for soapboxing, POV pushing, trolling and personal attacks, and has not contributed to building an encyclopedia or a community that can do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Kusma (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed. Certified.Gangsta has done nothing but edit warring, soapboxing, POV pushing, trolling, and personal attacks since arriving at Wikipedia. His contributions speak for themselves. LionheartX 08:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Strongly endorsed. I call upon the arbitrators to note this statement and consider it in their final decision. --Sumple (Talk) 11:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ideogram has been a productive editor

12) Ideogram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has made many beneficial contributions to Wikipedia, helping others by his work at the Mediation Cabal, trying to fix naming conventions at WT:CHINA (this was eventually not successful, but a worthy good-faith attempt) and by doing maintenance work (cleanup) and editing at computer science and East Asia related topics.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. There is no symmetry between Certified.Gangsta and Ideogram in terms of their potential to be useful for Wikipedia. Kusma (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed. Ideogram has many good contributions. Even when edit waring, Ideogram was trying to be constructive. It's a great pity that Wikipedia doesn't have better ways of preventing content disputes turning personal. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed. Ideogram is not the most patient of editors, but he/she is a productive editor, as shown for example by his/her commitment to mundane administrative [not in the sysop sense] tasks. --Sumple (Talk) 11:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certified.Gangsta has edit warred more than Ideogram

13) Certified.Gangsta has edit warred more than Ideogram.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Both have edit warred, but from what I can see, Certified has warred with more people, on more pages, and unlike Ideogram, Certified has made no attempt to understand the viewpoint of the other parties, and made no real attempt to explain his own position. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed. The behavior of Ideogram and CG is in no way comparable. Ideogram is usually open to reasonable suggestions (unless when he's apparently in self-destruction mode as during this RfAr). Kusma (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed. --Sumple (Talk) 07:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freestyle.king/Bonafide.hustla/Certified.Gangsta

14) Freestyle.king (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) / Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) / Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) are all clearly the same person who has changed his username twice in an attempt to hide his block log and misrepresent his identity. Freestyle.king/Bonafide.hustla/Certified.Gangsta should all be treated as one individual. Freestyle.king/Bonafide.hustla/Certified.Gangsta have an extensive and substantial block log for vandalism, personal attacks, trolling, POV pushing, 3RR violations, edit warring, accusing established editors of vandalism, and disruptive behavior. [37] [38] [39]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Certified.Gangsta should not be allowed to repeatedly change his username because of his block history that would not be reattributed during the rename. See this user's block history [40] [41] [42]. LionheartX 00:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certified.Gangsta's sockpuppetry

15) Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has used sockpuppets abusively and created the attack account, N1u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) as admitted by Certified.Gangsta.[43] [44] [45]. User:N1u's contributions speaks for itself.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, especially to make personal attacks or vandalize is strictly forbidden. LionheartX 12:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

16) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

17) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] 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.

[edit] Ideogram booted off of the project

1) Ideogram has expressed a determination to be booted off of Wikipedia rather than stop insulting Giano. He should be appropriately indulged by the ArbCom: either encouraged to carry on with the insults, or booted off.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Ideogram seems determined to give cause. Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
If the arbitrators determine that stating the fact that Giano is stupid and arrogant is unacceptable, especially in light of Giano's comments, then I will cease. I suggest that would require a separate RFAR case however, as examination of Giano's comments might be relevant. --Ideogram 21:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This is kind of an amusing section header. Somehow I hoped this RFAR would be more dignified. --Ideogram 21:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom didn't do it to Giano, why should they do it to me? --Ideogram 01:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
If you can be patient with Giano, you can be patient with me. No double standards. --Ideogram 02:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
El_C, if you truly hope "this will be it" you'd do best to stop talking about it. --Ideogram 02:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
It's quite apparent that Ideogram is hurting the project. He is not only harassing me but many other users such as Giano, Bishonen, Georgre, etc. The only way to stop him is a permanent ban by the arbCom.--Certified.Gangsta 22:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
"If the arbitrators determine that stating the fact that Giano is stupid and arrogant is unacceptable, especially in light of Giano's comments, then I will cease." You've got to be kidding me. Does Ideogram wishes to be booted off of the project right now? S/he is certainly appears determined in testing our collective patience. El_C 02:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned that this doesn't exactly seem to be a remedy, in that it's fairly vague. Does it mean "Ideogram is strongly cautioned to stop insulting Giano, or he is liable to be banned by the committee"? Also, it would seem somewhat perverse for the committee to pass a remedy calling on itself to do something... David Mestel(Talk) 14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Reading Ideogram's comments and and looking at his/her recent actions makes it impossible for me to assume good faith here. Either Ideogram is actively trying to troll/bait Giano here or he/she is trying to distrupt the arbitration process by expanding it totally out of scope and causing further grief. Both things are entirely unacceptable and I think a prolonged vacation from Wikipedia should give Ideogram to reconsider his/her actions. CharonX/talk 22:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC) As Ideogram has shown insight and apologized maybe a mentorship would be of greater benefit - should he relapse into a bad edit style further steps should be taken of course. CharonX/talk 11:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certified.Gangsta limited to 1RR

2) Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) is limited to 1RR.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. --Ideogram 21:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Endorse. But prefer 3 and 3b. Ben Aveling 04:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certified.Gangsta limited to 1 revert per article per week

3) Certified.Gangsta is limited to 1 revert per article per week, except for obvious cases of vandalism. If he does not comply with this, any administrator may block him for up to one week. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I'm the one who frequently discuss in talkpages while Ideogram set unreasonable prerequisite to allow discussion to take place. For example, Ideogram often wanted his preferred version to stay before engaging in discussion.--Certified.Gangsta 22:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Just look at Culture of Taiwan. I have left your preferred version intact, (since I have not touched any of your edits since 10 April 2007) and my request for discussion is on the talk page, which you have not replied to. Do you know it when you are lying? --Ideogram 03:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed 3 as a more enforceable measure. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorse. But prefer 3b. Ben Aveling 04:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certified.Gangsta limited to 1 revert per article per week

3b) Certified.Gangsta is limited to 1 revert per article per week, excepting only his own user and talk pages. If he does not comply with this, any administrator may block him for up to one week. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed 3b. Gangsta doesn't seem able to distinguish vandalism. Ben Aveling 04:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree that 3b is better than 3, per reason above. --Sumple (Talk) 03:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Prefer stronger sanctions. See facts of finding. LionheartX 23:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ideogram limited to 1 Revert per article per week

4) Ideogram is limited to 1 revert per article per week, except for obvious cases of vandalism. If he does not comply with this, any administrator may block him for upto 1 week, after 5 such blocks, the block is extended to 1 year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Why are you trying to pretend there is some kind of symmetry between me and Gangsta in this case? Have you read any of the evidence? --Ideogram 03:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, the constant revert warring game that Ideogram likes to play is very tiring and counter productive. He consistently uses programs and scripts to revert with simple ease that its very sickening to other Wikipedians who toil day and night to make this encyclopedia better- only to find people like Ideogram reverting their hard work. TingMing 05:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
TingMing, you reverts Ideogram's and my edits a lot too, so I don't think you should be the one accusing Ideogram of being a revert-warrior.--Jerrypp772000 23:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Ideogram

5) Ideogram is advised not to say "Giano is stupid and arrogant" on Wikipedia, regardless of his actual opinion or the actual facts of the matter.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. --Ideogram 23:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
After a certain RFAR involving a user who will not be named, I realized there is no decorum in ArbCom cases. --Ideogram 01:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
This is disruptive and provocational. Also, you are a party, yet I notice all your statements/proposals are in the Comment by others field. Why don't you save the clerks the work and move them accordingly. And try to maintain minimal decorum in arbitration pages, not to mention your own arbitration case, please. El_C 01:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Strongly suggest a change in the header. Very inappropriate to be in the ToC, even with the quote marks. Daniel Bryant 03:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Header modified as suggested. For the record, the original header by Ideogram read "'Giano Is Stupid and Arrogant'" (in quotation marks). Newyorkbrad 12:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I modestly suggest rejecting this "remedy" altogether. Even after the careful rewording, it serves no purpose whatsoever other than creating unnecessary disruption. I can hardly imagine ArbCom even considering to "advice" an editor to refrain from hurling two specific insults at a particular peer. This proposal strikes me as absurd, and it only appears to be an attempt to abuse this venue as a forum for name-calling, something that should not be endorsed. Phaedriel - 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The revision of the header didn't mean I thought the rest was acceptable. I don't think you need to worry about this being adopted. Newyorkbrad 15:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Had it said "Ideogram is advised not to say "Giano is stupid and arrogant" regardless of his personal opinion" I might have supported. As is, this is a weasel way to falsely imply an untruth. I personally don't know if Giano is arrogant or not, but he certainly isn't stupid. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ideogram put on personal attack parole

6) Ideogram is placed on standard personal attack parole for six months. He may be blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for up to 24 hours.

Comment by Arbitrators:
You've made this an issue by making personal attacks against Giano on this very page and in the evidence. He's mentioned nowhere in the original request. You can't make personal attacks on somebody, then turn around and blame them and turn a sitting arbitration request into a referendum on his behaviour. Knock it off. Mackensen (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
If this is relevant, I demand the right to discuss Giano's behaviour. And add him as a party to this case. --Ideogram 02:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Bishonen supplied diffs of my interaction towards Giano as evidence. She was outraged at my choice of response to that evidence. El_C was outraged at my response to that. If everyone wants to stop discussing Giano, we can all drop it right now. --Ideogram 02:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
So I'm just supposed to swallow Bishonen attacking me by citing diffs of my interaction with Giano? --Ideogram 02:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Ideogram, nothing is really relevant until it's cited in a proposal. If there were a proposal "Ideogram is uncivil", and if it cited diffs related to Giano, then it would be appropriate to bring in Giano's comments to you as mitigating factors. If there was a proposal "Ideogram is uncivil to Certified.Gangsta" and Giano is never mentioned, then you don't need to mention it either. It is not unusual for arbitration participants to case a wide net. Thatcher131 13:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Since Geogre has repeatedly stated and demonstrated that he feels personal attacks and incivility are not blocking offences, I will expect him to defend me against this proposed remedy. Unless he's a hypocrite. --Ideogram 15:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
"personal attacks are indefinable" How lovely that Geogre defends the right of others to make personal attacks but refuses to speak for me. --Ideogram 23:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for posting here, Geogre. A tip of the hat to you for sticking up for your principles.
Of course, there are a few other things you said that require response from me. As is typical, you enjoy throwing accusations but can't be bothered to supply evidence supporting them. I am not and never have been a troll, and I can prove it to you in any extended debate, but since you don't have any evidence, I don't even need to waste the effort. I have never introduced you as a subject in an unrelated area, while you have certainly done me that favor. Did I mention I refuse to swallow hypocrisy?
I am glad you allow me to share this world with you. And yet, from your comment below, you don't want to share Wikipedia with me, for the next year at least. Can you explain that? --Ideogram 02:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. Ideogram hasn't been very nice to Giano lately, much less Certified.Gangsta. // Sean William 02:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Giano has NOTHING to do with this case. // Sean William 02:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that this is an attempt to make Giano involved. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but that's how I interpret it. I plea to ArbCom not to make this any more of a circus than it is becoming due to Ideogram - Blnguyen's block of Ideogram is a step in the right direction, IMO. Daniel Bryant 03:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Change that to "any uninvolved admin" and I'll endorse this. Just semantics I know, but still worth having. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
"Personal attacks" are no reason for blocking or banning Ideogram. Trolling is. I'm afraid that I do not have much incentive to fight for Ideogram, when he follows me about and tries to introduce me as a subject in unrelated areas, when I seem to be his favorite (or second favorite) bete noir. However, "personal attacks" are largely indefinable and should not be the basis of a block/ban action unless they are extreme and unrelenting. Ideogram is pestilential, in my personal opinion, but the world is large and cannot be limited to those persons I approve of or like. Geogre 02:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Some parole such as this one or possibly a general civility parole seem to me to be merited by Ideogram's behavior at this RFAr and by the evidence of his incivility presented at the evidence page (unless the arbitrators limit this case only to Ideogram's interactions with Certified.Gangsta). Heimstern Läufer 00:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The endless personal attacks that Ideogram has been making on Wikipedia has to end now. I cannot believe that someone will go through such great lengths to try to harm others and Wikipedia. I am a relatively new user but I have been harrassed by Ideogram for no apparent reason. In the course of a few days since I registered, I have seen Ideogram attack others relentlessly such as myself and make a circus out of this arbitration case. His manipulation is disturbing. We need to stand united to fight off any attack, such as this one, that will undermine Wikipedia. TingMing 04:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certified.Gangsta banned from editing China- and/or Taiwan-related pages

7) Certified.Gangsta is banned from editing China- and Taiwan-related articles in order to allow healthy discussion and proper editing by non-disruptive editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Gangsta's edit warring is not limited to these articles; he has edit-warred on Keely Hazell and Michelle Marsh (model) and every other page he has touched. --Ideogram 17:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Posted for Ideogram by Thatcher131 18:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that Sumple proposed this as his view is extremely similar to Ideogram on this matter. But again, consensus never trumps NPOV. Blocking a certain party from editing these articles while the others continue to insert POV edits is unacceptable and further proved the gang-patrolling nature of these articles by certain members of WikiProject: China. The only one who should be blocked from editing altogether is Ideogram himself. He shamelessly claimed that I edit war in Keeley Hazell and Michelle Marsh (model) when he was the one who stalked my contributions (revert everything I edited) to cause the edit war in these 2 articles and John Profumo and refused to follow the compromise in the relevant talkpage. I have provided all the diffs. under the evidence page.--Certified.Gangsta 22:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a claim Gangsta has made before, namely, that since HE is the ultimate arbiter of the NPOV policy, he doesn't need to respect consensus. Needless to say, his understanding of the NPOV policy is flawed. --Ideogram 03:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
(reply to Kusma below) Gangsta has not made any real content contributions anywhere. I invite anyone to go through his contributions and find any, because I certainly tried. I support the 1RR proposal because it wouldn't effectively ban him from the project; it would simply force him to seek consensus to achieve anything. I don't know if he can learn to do that, but it is worth trying. --Ideogram 08:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed Sumple (Talk) 08:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Changed wording per my talk. David Mestel(Talk) 14:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This would be very close to a total ban, apart from various topless models, Gangsta doesn't seem to have any main page interests that aren't somehow connected to Taiwan. I'd prefer to give 1RR a chance first. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
That would avoid a lot of the disruption Gangsta causes, with no harm to the project (I can't remember that he has made any real content contributions in these areas). Kusma (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
(reply to parties' comments above) WP:NPOV requires giving due recognition to and representaiton of all significant points of view. It does not demand recognition of extremely singular POV supported only by one (or even two) editors with no external sources to back it up with. --Sumple (Talk) 06:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a good point. He edits against evidence provided, without providing any contradicting evidence himself. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Prefer stronger sanctions. See facts of finding. LionheartX 22:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certified.Gangsta to be blocked from editing List of Chinese Americans and Taiwanese American

8) Certified.Gangsta to be blocked from editing List of Chinese Americans and Taiwanese American in order to allow healthy discussion and proper editing by non-disruptive editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Gangsta's edit warring is not limited to these articles; he has edit-warred on Keely Hazell and Michelle Marsh (model) and every other page he has touched. --Ideogram 17:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Posted for Ideogram by Thatcher131 18:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
See reply on previous remedy. The only one who edit-warred on every page he has touched is Ideogram. It's not an edit war on these articles from other scope, it's harassment. Bishonen had clearly pointed out that I have participated in a long list of discussion in List of Chinese Americans and Taiwanese American, while Ideogram refused to communicate in the relevant talkpage, instead using it to canvass and gather support for this RfA and the previous RfC.--Certified.Gangsta 22:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed. I do not find that Gangsta's talkpage discussion, however lengthy, was GF. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Prefer stronger sanctions. See facts of finding. LionheartX 22:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ideogram banned for 1 year

9) For edit warring and personal attacks, Ideogram is banned from editing for 1 year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Let me remind all the participants in this discussion that Wikipedia is a volunteer project. I do it for fun. Swallowing hypocrisy and double standards is not fun and I will happily leave if you try to make me do it. --Ideogram 03:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Too harsh. Newyorkbrad 15:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, it was late last night when I proposed this. I'll remove it shortly. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the proposal might serve a symbolic purpose by remaining on this page, because while I think it's too harsh as of now, such a ban is something this might ultimately happen if he doesn't change much of his approach to editing and relating to other Wikipedians. Newyorkbrad 15:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with NYB here: A one year ban is too harsh for both of the users, yet some sort of banning might be in order. // Sean William 20:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll be weird: I'm not sure this is too severe. Grudge porting from place to place and long memories of any indignities suffered and attempts to "get" people are pretty offensive and persistent. Geogre 14:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You love to make assertions without proof, don't you? Did you ever stop to think your interpretation of my actions might be wrong? --Ideogram 14:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
That Ideogram's antics have been tolerated for so long sort of discredits the project. I am one of those people who is slandered by this guy on a regular basis. I confess that he was one of the troublemakers who made my life in English Wikipedia miserable and induced me to move to Russian Wikipedia last year. Although I have not been really active in English Wikipedia since then and have not spoken with Ideogram during the period, scrolling up this page, I noticed that he could not help saying some rudeness about myself. I don't want to be harassed behind my back and I urge ArbCom to put an end to this torrent of incivil remarks and trolling against myself, Giano, Geogre, and others. I don't think we should be speaking about some sort of PA parole here. It is certified trolling and should be addressed as such. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I am told, I have not bothered to look, that he is, yet again, mentioning me as involved in this case, I long ago learnt to dismiss his comments with a pinch of salt, and a have made my views known here - before tha latest salvo [46]. I don't suppose for a second he will be banned for a year, but if that were to happen, life would be more tranquil for a great many editors. Giano 21:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Ideogram's antics range from editwarring to personal attacks to trolling and distruption (I cannot view the latest attempts to pull Giano into this case as anything else) Ideogram expressed contempt for the entire arbitration process by e.g. trying to widen the scope beyond any logical means (inclusion of Giano) and stating "If the ArbCom simply approves a recommendation that I not say "Giano is stupid and arrogant", I will comply." - I was not aware that ArbCom needs to reccommend anybody to heed WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA or otherwise they don't need to be followed. The continued threats by Ideogram that his/her distruptive behaviour will continue do not give me much hope here. Maybe it is truely time to send Ideogram on a compulsory 1 year vacation. CharonX/talk 22:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC) As Ideogram has shown insight and apologized for his behaviour I think this is too strong - blocks and bans should not be punitive. Instead a mentorship would probably help him keep a straight course. CharonX/talk 11:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certified.Gangsta banned for 1 year

10) For continuous edit warring, Certified.Gangsta is banned from editing for 1 year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I seriously don't know why I deserve a 1 year ban when Ideogram is harassing me and wikistalking me all over the place. In fact, I am the victim in these crazy episodes that Ideogram escalated.--Certified.Gangsta 22:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Too harsh. Newyorkbrad 15:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Too soon. Try other remedies first. Ben Aveling 04:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be the other way around, Ideogram banned for a year. I have also been harrassed by Ideogram and personlly know how it feels. TingMing 05:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed as next-best alternative to Proporsed Remedy 8. --Sumple (Talk) 08:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Endorse. Certified.Gangsta's disruptive activities have spread over a year. He has been extremely disruptive for a very long time. LionheartX 22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
As Certified's behaviour has not improved since Guanaco's indefinite block a year ago, I don't see why other remedies should help anything. Kusma (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ideogram placed on administrative parole

11) Ideogram is placed on administrative parole for a period of one year. If he commits any further personal attacks or edit wars, he may be blocked for up to one week. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed as alternative to 3. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Ideogram is not an administrator, so I am not sure what you mean by "administrative parole." Based on what I believe you are trying to say, I think this would usually be referred to one or more of civility parole, personal attack parole, or revert parole. Newyorkbrad 15:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess personal attack parole and revert parole have already been covered in earlier proposals, I was just trying to cover it all in 1 proposal, but guess I got confused with wording. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certified.Gangsta banned

12) Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. LionheartX 23:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Alphabet soup, much? Edited. (I don't know enough about the case to agree or not, but it hurt my eyes to look at this and I honestly didn't know what several of them were. --Random832 01:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Too severe. Try other remedies first. Heimstern Läufer 01:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see the findings of fact and the evidence page. In particular, note Certified.Gangsta's extensive block log [47] [48] [49]. He has been extremely disruptive for a very long time. LionheartX 02:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Note: Removed the policy/guideline quotes (this goes in Finding of fact section) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certified.Gangsta banned from Wikipedia:Changing username

13) Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from Wikipedia:Changing username.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Freestyle.king (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) / Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) / Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) are all clearly the same person who has changed his username twice in an attempt to hide his block log. Certified.Gangsta should not be allowed to repeatedly change his username because of his extensive block history that would not be reattributed during the rename. [50] [51] [52]. LionheartX 00:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certified.Gangsta placed on Probation

14) Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation indefinitely. Any administrator, in the exercise of judgement for reasonable cause may ban him from any article or talk page which he disrupt by inappropriate editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. LionheartX 13:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certified.Gangsta placed on general probation

15) Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is placed on general probation indefinitely. Any three administrators may, for good cause, ban him from the site. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. LionheartX 13:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

16) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

17) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

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

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others: