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

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration‎ | Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Sean William

Starting with the basics: Edit warring

Certified.Gangsta and Ideogram have engaged in edit wars over

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Talk:Culture of Taiwan

Certified.Gangsta has been edit-warring over the removal of a WikiProject tag for quite a while. The first removal of the tag [2] occured on October 18 of 2006.

  • At this point, the edit warring moves to the article (see below for diffs) and Ideogram steps in 19 February 2007
  • Nearly a month later, the two engaged in a lengthy discussion about a "Taiwan related articles" template. See the thread here.

Culture of Taiwan

  • No edits to the article by the parties until April 6

Michelle Marsh (model)

The edit warring here has been quite extensive as well, but I'll only document the edit war between Ideogram and Certified.Gangsta.

Yeah, so you get the picture. The parties have edit warred on multiple venues. // PTO 20:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Durova

Canvassing by Ideogram

Despite my brief attempts at coaching Certified.Gangsta last month and Ideogram's assertions of favoritism at WP:CN, I believe I am sufficiently neutral to offer an uninvolved statement. I did not give CG any advice about his interpersonal conflict with Ideogram, nor did he seek my advice on this matter until after I opened the arbitration request. What follows is no vindication of CG's mistakes; I offer this evidence because it is of primary importance to the community sanctions process.

Shortly before this request for arbitration opened Ideogram canvassed several article and list talk pages for supporters in his campaign to ban Certified.Gangsta from Wikipedia.

For example, at Talk:List of Chinese Americans:

  • WP:RFC canvass[3]
  • WP:CN canvass[4]
  • Canvassing removed by Certified.Gangsta with an edit summary request not to canvass[5]
  • Both canvassing posts restored by Ideogram[6]

The same pattern repeated at

Talk:Michelle Marsh (model).[8] Note that the canvassing took place before Ideogram downgraded the WP:CN thread to request 1RR instead of a siteban.[9]

This is a very serious precedent: an editor has attempted to manipulate the Community sanctions noticeboard and the community banning process to attempt to force another Wikipedian out of the site during an edit war. When I posted a request to open this case I was very concerned about the appearance of impropriety in Ideogram's prior disputes with Certified.Gangsta. Now there remains no room for doubt: Ideogram even restored these highly inappropriate requests at every page after Certified.Gangsta deleted them.

I urge the Committee to respond to these actions with the strongest remedies at its disposal in order to protect the integrity of the community sanctions process. DurovaCharge! 02:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unequal demands for recusal by Ideogram

Ideogram is aware of the principle of recusal. During the community sanctions discussion at WP:CN Ideogram repeatedly claimed that I ought to recuse myself from even commenting on the proposal.[10][11] Yet he did not consider his own history of edit warring with Certified.Gangsta grounds for recusing himself, nor did he raise an ethical objection to any post by involved parties who joined that thread in support of the ban or 1RR proposals - as naturally he wouldn't, since he had repeatedly solicited their comments. Although one of Ideogram's posts to that thread makes a vague insinuation that he and I have been in some sort of prior conflict, I have no recollection of such an thing. It should be obvious since I am one of the coauthors of the disruptive editing guideline and the editor who proposed the community sanctions noticeboard that my dedication to a fair and equitable community sanctions process overshadows any interest in the outcome of a particular case. DurovaCharge! 14:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Ideogram

Certified.Gangsta edit-wars and does not engage in productive discussion

I believe the documentation I provided at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Certified.Gangsta is sufficient. --Ideogram 03:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to emphasize Gangsta's extensive block log [12] [13] [14]; he has been a problem editor for a long time. --Ideogram 22:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminate reverting by Gangsta

Another example of Gangsta reverting a substantial amount of work by a third editor when enforcing his preferred version. --Ideogram 23:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bladestorm (talk · contribs)

This exchange has settled the matter. --Ideogram 01:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Bishonen

Bishonen has repeatedly labelled my posts "trolling" and her statement reflects this view. This view is the opposite of the truth: I do not "poke until an angry exchange gets going" and then "keep poking to maintain it". The fact is there is an angry exchange going (sometimes for weeks) before I get involved, and as soon as the conflict is over I stop. I defy Bishonen to supply diffs proving that I initiate conflict or perpetuate it. Bishonen and her friends need to learn that I am not trolling when I say things that make them mad. I do not say these things to prolong conflict, and I have every right to say them without being labelled a troll.

Blnguyen's block for disruption was overturned; there was no ongoing disruption. Note that whenever I am warned my behaviour is unacceptable I stop. The diffs supplied by Bishonen are not relevant to Blnguyen's block, as far as I can tell, which followed a brief edit war on Wikipedia:What is a troll.

I have a history of conflict with Giano, Geogre, and Bishonen, and the diffs Bishonen supplied need to be viewed in that light. They are not relevant to my conflict with Gangsta. I also work well with the other members of WPCHINA who have commented here.

The extensive diffs Bishonen supplied are a mix of good faith attempts to discuss differences and exasperated slams on Giano. Note that sarcasm in edit summaries is not against Wikipedia policy. 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.

Bishonen likes to apply the idea of "setting a good example". I do not subscribe to this philosophy. I allow other people to show me what rules they play by and then play by their rules. I believe that people should not revert others' comments off the page; but if other people do it to me I do it to them to see how they like it.

I am glad Bishonen references the block by Phroziac. As I stated before, my two sustained blocks were for edit-warring over removal of my comments, not article content. Anyone who tries to remove my comments will start an edit-war with me. I hope that the ArbCom will see fit to rule on whether removing other people's comments is acceptable.

I have no idea how Bishonen gets the idea I am saying Giano thinks he's God from that diff.

Four users supporting my statement is a pretty good record for an RFC, even though they did not take the time to make statements of their own. In any case the RFC is old history and many users have made extensive statements on this RFAR.

As Bishonen herself admits to being unsure about the scope of this case, it doesn't matter that she thinks Sumple's example is a poor one of interaction between me and Gangsta. The point of this example is that the Gangsta problem is not limited to his interaction with me. If Bishonen wants to supply evidence of my behaviour with other editors, others can certainly do the same for Gangsta.

Bishonen fails to understand that her friendship and strong defence of Gangsta will inevitably cause animosity towards her by people who dislike Gangsta. This is a fact of life.

As for Bishonen's comments on Taiwanese/Chinese ethnicity, this is not a content dispute and ArbCom would not rule on it if it was.

--Ideogram 17:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still edit-warring

Note that Gangsta is still edit-warring on multiple pages with multiple editors even though I have not touched any of his edits since 10 April 2007. --Ideogram 20:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Geogre

Geogre's contribution, as he himself admits, contains no evidence. It is personal, unsupported opinion. Geogre doesn't feel the need to prove anything he says. --Ideogram 17:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Posted for Ideogram by Thatcher131 18:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Heimstern

Guettarda didn't want a discussion, he wanted an apology, no more and no less. Since I wasn't going to give him one, there was no point talking to him. I explained my view of events in this exchange (be sure to read the whole thing carefully before passing judgement). Note that Guettarda appears not to have read or understood this exchange, since he didn't change his approach, not even understanding my statement that I am not a mediator.

It is just plain stupid to advocate that his right to "discuss" trumps my right to be left alone. I am perfectly capable of asserting my right to be left alone by leaving Wikipedia. How does that help anything? --Ideogram 03:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is preposterous for you to say I claimed my actions "should not be scrutinised" while Guettarda's should. I was asking for one thing, affirmation of my right to control my own user talk page, including asking other people not to post on it. This is a position that has been enforced by Ghirlandajo, Irpen, Giano, and most notably Certified.Gangsta himself. I was asserting that my actions should not be discussed on ANI because it wasn't the proper place for it. As you can see if you read the exchange I linked to (how on earth did you miss it?) I was perfectly willing to explain myself in a different forum. --Ideogram 03:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Kusma

Edit warring by Certified.Gangsta at Chinese

Certified.Gangsta has been edit warring at the disambiguation page

Republic of China currently administers Taiwan
, since he believes this to be relevant to the question whether Taiwanese are Chinese.

The page stays in that version for a while, until...

I will document more when I have time. For the moment, see the history and talk page history; there was some discussion of the issue in July-November. Kusma (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped documenting this; the issues haven't changed, and recent behaviour by CG is so similar that we don't need to look at all this ancient history. Wherever you look in Certified.Gangsta's contributions, there are mindless sterile edit wars and never a serious argument in favor of his position. Kusma (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certified.Gangsta still edit warring during this arbitration case

Certified.Gangsta's contributions since this arbitration case has started are still only edit warring and sterile reverts, with lies as his edit summaries.

  • WP:MOS against which he edits. Kusma (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Evidence presented by User:Sumple

Certified.Gangsta does not discuss in good faith

Certified.Gangsta is not interested in listening to facts, evidence, or logic. When other users put forth facts, evidence, or logical arguments, Gangsta simply ignores it, or retorts by repeating the same claim over and over again. As an example, the following was the course of discussion on Talk:List of Chinese Americans; note that this was occuring concurrently to edit warring on the main article page and the talk page as documented above and elsewhere:

(A little to-and-fro later)

(Intervening other discussion)

(Omitting an intervening discussion on other issues between Ran and Tim8)

(Some intervening discussion and edits, not involving Certified.Gangsta)

(Discussion between Sumple, HongQiGong, Ran, and Ben Aveling)

(some time later, after this RfArb has opened)

(He seems to be slightly changing his rhetoric in this edit, clearly inspired by Bishonen's characterisation here)

(So far, Certified.Gangsta has not replied. Yet, he has in the meantime continued to revert-war on the article page: [15], [16], [17], with his new favourite catchphrase "rv see talkpage", which is ironic since he evidently hasn't even looked at the talk page while he was making these reverts.)

Note that at no time did Certified.Gangsta directly address the evidence and sources cited by any other editor. Certified.Gangsta only supplied one source through the whole argument, and that source contradicted his own argument.

A closer reading will reveal that Certified.Gangsta had very little knowledge (but a very firm view) about what he was arguing about. Despite his firm view, he is unable to supply any sources at all backing up that opinion. Despite other editors' attempts to explain things to him (e.g. about different terms in both English and Chinese), and pointing him towards other sources of information such as other Wikipedia articles, Certified.Gangsta appears to have ignored all of that information. --Sumple (Talk) 04:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: contrary to Bishonen's contentions, this was not a dispute between "self-identification" and objective ethnography. Users advocating self-dentification were arguing against Certified.Gangsta. See, for example, comments by Ran, myself, and others. Users advociating an objective identification standard were also arguing against Certified.Gangsta. See, for example, Ben Aveling.

What Certified.Gangsta was advocating was "self"-identification in this sense only: Certified.Gangsta was imposing his own ethnic identification on the Taiwanese people. That is to say, his logic proceeded as "I think I'm not Chinese. I think I'm Taiwanese" --> "All Taiwanese are not Chinese". The implausidity of his logic is not, however, the issue here. The issue is his refusal to listen to evidence or to discuss in good faith. --Sumple (Talk) 01:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certified.Gangsta makes personal attakcs

Gangsta resorts to name-calling, ad hominim attacks, and other inappropriate tactics. Of particular concern is the way he makes baseless accusations in order to win support from other editors. See, for example:

See further below as to more-than-personal insults.

Response to Bishonen's evidence

Bishonen claims ([18]) that [19] is evidence for Certified.Gangsta's claim that I insulted her. I urge the committee and all others concerned to note that:

  • Bishonen claims my earlier comment that "the community" in Ideogram's comment meant the "Certified.Gangsta fanclub" was an insult. It was not an insult. I submit that the comment about the Certified.Gangsta fanclub is justified and reasonable, considering the way "the community" referenced in Ideogram's comment in the link above has supported Certified.Gangsta's activites, regardless of the legitimatcy. Furthermore, it was not personally directed at Bishonen, even if it (admittedly) implies that she speaks for this "community".
  • Bishonen tries to draw parallels between Certified.Gangsta's accusing me of "insulting" her on the one hand, with my evidence about Certified.Gangsta's comments about the "LionHeartX fanclub". There are several problems with this.
  1. I never said Certified.Gangsta's comment is an "insult", as Bishonen seems to think. I didn't say it is an insult, and I do not think it's an insult. It is an attempt to lump other editors together to create a mirage of a "conspiracy". I do not hold it to be an insult for Certified.Gangsta to say that I am a LionHeartX supporter - that is merely groundless. I also do not hold it to be an insult for Certified.Gagnsta to say that I am in league with the other editors - that is but a paranoid attack. What I do hold, however, is that that comment, considered together with Certified.Gangsta's other actions, demonstrates Certified.Gangsta's lack of good faith and deliberate trolling.
  2. If Bishonen thinks, as she seems to make clear, that it is an insult to say that she supported Certified.Gangsta... well, I guess that really speaks for what Bishonen really thinks about Certified.Gangsta, doesn't it?
  3. As stated above, I believe my comment about Bishonen in that context speaking for the "Certified.Gangsta fanclub" is fair and reasonable, whereas Certified.Gangsta's comment about me in relation to LionHeartX is not reasonable. Let the records show that LionHeartX is an editor I do not agree with, especially when (in my opinion) Wikipedia policy is concerned. See, for example, this almost-edit-war: [20], [21], [22]. In contrast to some other editors, I take a principled stance in dealing with any editor, including LionHeartX. See, for example, [23], in particular: "No, I don't agree with the approach of User:RevolverOcetlotX or whatever he's called this week".
  4. My actions are not the subject of this case. If Bishonen objects to my behaviour, that is a matter to be settled elsewhere.
  5. Certified.Gangsta never referenced this supposed "evidence" in his various accusations, in any way. We only have Bishonen's words that that was what Certified.Gangsta was referring to in his accusations. --Sumple (Talk) 12:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certified.Gangsta incites animosity among others users

Gangsta constantly makes claims about "conspiracies" and alliances of people set out to attack or destroy him, without addressing the reason that others do not agree with him. See, for example:

  • User talk:Bishonen#thank you
  • User talk:Certified.Gangsta#User:Ideogram timeline
    ("“LionHeartX fan-club community” (Sumple, Nic tan, Jiang, blueshirt, Ideogram, etc)").

Gangsta attempts to incite antagonism between users on the basis of a perceived "China vs Taiwan" war ("The number of Chinese editors on here seem to overwhelmingly outnumber the # of Taiwanese editors" - see

User talk:Certified.Gangsta#User:Ideogram timeline
).

There is no factual basis for Certified.Gangsta's claims. As far as can be discerned, his logic proceeds thus: 1. many other users disagree with him; 2. he sees himself as Taiwanese but not Chinese; 3. some (not all) of these users see themselves as Chinese, or as both Taiwanese and Chinese; 4. therefore this is a Taiwanese-versus-Chinese war.

Such an attitude, and the attendant accusations, are not conducive to harmonious editing.

More controversially, Gangsta maintains a section on his user page called "China=Shame". The contents of that section were originally highly pejorative and racist:

After numerous complaints, he has trimmed the racist content, but still maintains the section heading:

He should have been blocked at the first instance of that racist attack. That he persisted in it despite many complaints and disputes should have attracted the harshest penalties available. --Sumple (Talk) 05:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certified.Gangsta has no respect for the Wikipedian community

Certified.Gangsta has no regard for Wikipedia and the Wikipedian community.

In addition to the foregoing (and that's a pretty big foregoing, what with racism and all) , Certified.Gangsta continues to claim on his userpage that he is a lawyer and has a JD degree, when he is in fact a high school student.

On his user page, he also claims that he has significantly contributed to 5 featured articles. This is blatantly untrue, as can be seen from his edit history -- unless he interprets "significantly contribute" to include vandalism and edit-warring.

He persists in having this message on his user page -- a fake "You have new messages" tag designed to confuse other users and the software. Despite lengthy discussions and heavy objections, he persists in reinstating it.

All of these show utter disregard for other Wikipedia users and Wikipedia itself. This, added to his offensive, racist, edit-warring behaviour, the refusal to discuss in good faith, frequent vandalism, and edit-warring, makes out a case for outright and permanent ban. --Sumple (Talk) 11:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Anonymous Coward

I would just like to point out that the RFC was well advertised and has less then fifty edits to it with only four different people commenting. Ideogram's attempt to "file a community ban" [24] was roundly ignored.

This can't be more than a sideshow that doesn't even rise to the level of minor disruption. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.237.134.241 (talk • contribs).

Evidence presented by Wizardman

User:Certified.Gangsta's edit-warring on Keeley Hazell

Alas, I have seen Certified.Gangsta's edit war ideology, and it is not new. In fact there's diffs going back to November where he engaged in edit warring. In the case of model Keeley Hazell, he refuses to accept that Hazell is English, changing it to that she is British. What I'm trying to show is that this is a VERY long-standing problem with him.

September 2006

[25] September 21, changed her birth location to UK. [26][27][28], same reverts. [29] September 25, didn't put image back up this time but still reverted back to British. [30] September 25, same revert. [31] September 26, with incivility. [32] September 27, stopped for a while after that.

November 2006

[33] November 6, smaller revert this time. [34] November 8, coupled with personal attack. [35][36][37], November 8-11, even a compromise isn't acceptable to him.

  • Now, at this point he compromises on changing it to "Famous in the UK".

January 2007

Even after I try to compromise [38], only to be disowned by Certified [39]. He also has a thing for including fairuse images at this point, as evident here: [40][41]

April 2007

He finally gave on the article until just recently. He starts doing what he did back in September. [42][43][44]

What am I trying to show? That this is a long-standing problem for him, and that he will probably never quit edit-warring.--Wizardman 22:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Redcloud822

Certified.Gansta never replied to any discussion but kept reverting

Certified.Gansta so far never replied to any of my request for discussion in the Talk Page of Legal Status of Taiwan[45],and his own talk page[46]

He kept reverting my editing refuse to any rational discussion. [47] [48]

Evidence presented by Georgewilliamherbert

Certified.Gangsta removing talk page entries

I was requested by Ideogram (who I've been informally mentoring/assisting/something or other) to investigate article talk page removals by Certified.Gangsta. I located at least these: [49], [50], [51], all reverts related to removing Ideogram's notices of his filed user behavior RFC against C.G, and left C.G a talk page warning subsequently.

For those specific edits absent other context, I believe a simple warning was necessary and sufficient. I don't have any useful information related to the other issues raised here or the context of the Ideogram/Certified.Gangsta conflict.

Georgewilliamherbert 22:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideogram was using the article talkpages as a venue to win support in this arbitration case. I removed it because it was totally not relevant to the article.--Certified.Gangsta 18:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be confused about the dates and chronology. Those predate the Arbcom case. They were related to the user conduct RFC he started. As I stated earlier, you aren't allowed to just go remove them. Georgewilliamherbert 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by User:Certified.Gangsta

Firstly, I need to point out that

User:Dmcdevit. Here is what Dmcdevit said about one of the sock. [69] The reason users like LionheartX and Ideogram are allowed to edit freely is the "gang-patrolling" nature of Taiwan-China relation articles, which are overwhelmingly dominated by PRC editors who want to justify their claim over Taiwan. This makes NPOV-ing articles exponentially more difficult. Ideogram's and LionheartX's violations can be summed up into : wiki-stalking (because of personal vendetta), [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] and many more, wikilawyering, edit warring, talkpage/discussion page abuse [79] and a blatant lie [80] [81]. I strongly believe that ArbCom should sanction both LionheartX and Ideogram and that gang patrolling should stop in these articles.--Certified.Gangsta 08:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Ideogram wiki-stalking/harassment campaign due to personal vendetta

After encountering in dispute, Ideogram has a habit of stalking others' contributions and revert everything they edit.

John Profumo: [82] [83] [84] [85]

Keeley Hazell: [86]

Michelle Marsh: [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94]

Harassment campaign toward User:Bladestorm: When Bladestorm pointed out the double standard after I was blocked for 3RR for violating the "spirit" while Ideogram did not get blocked after self-reversion on this AN/I thread, he launched another campaign against Bladestorm. [95] Bladestom sums it up here [96], immediately removed by Ideogram [97].

Ideogram major warzones/violations summary

User_talk:Certified.Gangsta#User:Ideogram_timeline--Certified.Gangsta 08:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply to Georgewilliamherbert

Based on the diffs George had provided above, Ideogram is spamming article talkpages as a forum to gather support for his harassment campaign and bogus RfC against me. I removed his notes on those talkpages because the opening of a RfC concerning me have nothing to do with the relevant articles. After he re-introduced those inappropriate materials, I didn't remove them again.

Reply to BenAveling

BenAveling is hardly a neutral voice here. He has actively patronize

User:Dmcdevit (see my statement and diffs provided above) and actively campaigned for Lion's unblock despite obvious sockpuppetry, spamming (a quick example is right here on this page and the workshop page), trolling, personal attack, POV pushing, and other abuse. Here are some of Ben's support for Lion and his socks. The major problem with Ben is that he repeatedly claimed that LionheartX was indef. blocked not banned (when Dmcdevit clearly stated otherwise in the block log [98], therefore he should be unblocked. And he repeatedly wikilawyered over the same issue.[99] User talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's (whole page of chit-chat with banned user) [100] [101] [102]

Disrupting a request for page protection-[103]

stalking my contributions (supporting Lion and Ideogram)-[104] [105] [106] [107]

He also made his anti-Taiwanese position clear [108] [109] and especially this [110] ("Even if every Taiwanese citizen stopped speaking Chinese they would still be ethnically Chinese (aboriginies excluded). It's in the blood." represents his clear bias and POV in this matter and also explains his hostility toward me and support of Ideogram and LionheartX)--Certified.Gangsta 02:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Bishonen

Ideogram: battleground

I've seen a lot of anger and hostility in Ideogram's non-mainspace editing, which makes the editing experience disagreeable for people who encounter him. I've had this experience myself, and determined to stay out of the way of his characteristic pokes. I certainly don't mean to suggest that Ideogram is the only one to be hostile in these exchanges. But it seems to me that it's generally he who pokes, until an angry exchange gets going, and who then keeps poking to maintain it. Far be it from me to psychologize over this—I have absolutely no interest in Ideogram's thought processes, only in his conduct—but he reflects candidly on these processes himself on the Village Pump: "For some reason I am irrationally attracted to conflict". See for instance the way he gets a previously neutral editor worked up here.

The events leading up to Blnguyen's block of him for disruption in January 2007 may illustrate what I mean:

  • [111]
  • [112]
  • [113]
  • [114]
  • [115]
  • [116] ("I don't see any part of AGF that requires me to respect everyone or even pretend to respect everyone")
  • [117]
  • [118]
  • [119] (note the edit summary)
  • [120]
  • [121] (!! compare previous diffs)
  • [122] (note edit summary)
  • [123]
  • [124]
  • [125] (note the edit summary)
  • [126] (note the edit summary... no, note the whole thing)
  • [127]
  • [128] (note the edit summary, and note my previous post, also visible here)
  • [129] (TenOfAllTrades)
  • [130] (a fleeting resolution)
  • [131]
  • [132] ("for some reason I am irrationally attracted to conflict").

An easily accessible recent example of the Ideogram battleground in Wikipedia space is the talkpage of this evidence page, see sections "Canvassing" and "Durova's prejudice". His input on the InShaneee arbitration workshop is another example, which got him blocked by

User:Phroziac for "insane edit warring". Choice diff here. Once he's taken a shiner to someone, he'll tell them anything — that they need to use Preview (this for the crime of leaving two intead of one line between sections), that they're stupid and arrogant [133], that they think they're God[134] — anything. It would be an improvement of many respected editors' quality of wikilife if they could get on with their business without Ideogram's hostility. I don't know how best to achieve that. Bishonen | talk 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

Certified.Gangsta

Ideogram's claim that CG's block log is "extensive" is unusual. I have to presume it's offered in good faith. But hopefully the arbs will read the logs in question (as Freestyle.king, as Bonafide.hustla as Certified.Gangsta) carefully and note the incidence of real blocks on them, as opposed to this kind of thing. What CG's real blocks show is that CG's newbie account, Freestyle.King, had a substantial block log, February-April 2006. I regarded him as a problem editor, spoke against him, and once pagebanned him from ANI as a vexatious litigant and pest.[135] But I took his change of account name around May 2006 in good faith as turning over a new leaf,[136] [137] and I consider that he has come a long way since. Please look at the dates of the diffs offered on this page, because they show an encouraging development.

Ideogram's RFC on Gangsta is also unusual. I don't understand why it hasn't been deleted. It contains absolutely no "evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute", even though both Ideogram and Blueshirts sign as "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute". (Diffs, please, guys?) Only one outside view has been posted, and it's critical of Ideogram, not of Gangsta. Only four users besides Ideogram and Blueshirts have had any input whatsoever on the RFC, this in the form of appending their signatures to Ideogram's statement of the dispute. This meagre interest comes despite Ideogram's advertising on article talkpages, see Durova's evidence above. It's hard to believe that this is the RFC for a user that the community wants to get rid of, though it's obvious that a group does. Bishonen | talk 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Reply to Sumple about Certified.Gangsta

This Evidence page is currently a lot like a concerted anti-CG campaign, and I can hardly take on all the posts (or, in fact, the way my RL is, even click on all the links on it). But Sumple's example of

biological classification
."

I seem to be somewhat involved in Sumple's most recently added sections "Certified.Gangsta makes personal attacks" and "Certified.Gangsta incites animosity among others users". Sumple is an editor I've had no interaction with whatsoever, so I agree it does seem a little unlikely that he/she would insult me. Neverhteless it happened, following the strong lead of Ideogram: "Bish claiming to speak for the community is just laughable". --Ideogram 22:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC). "oh pfft "the community". Certified.Gangsta fanclub community, perhaps". --Sumple (Talk) 00:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[139] Please note the timestamps — that was back in March. More recently, Certified.Gangsta quoted Sumple's own words back at him/her—"“LionHeartX fan-club community” (Sumple, Nic tan, Jiang, blueshirt, Ideogram, etc)". This time apparently they hurt, roused indignation, and got posted on this page as evidence that CG "constantly" makes claims about conspiracies and alliances. Wow. (I notice Sumple's argument above, in response to my note here, that it wasn't an insult — though it was when CG said it — and also wasn't about me.<Coughing fit> That's... good, I suppose.)Bishonen | talk 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

LionheartX

See Certified.Gangsta's evidence for LionHeartX's behind-the-scenes activity in this case. I suppose the actions of LionheartX could be an over-literal application of

BenAveling's advice, when the community ban was lifted, to stay away from CG: "My advice is to please stay away from Certified Gangsta, and any and all pages he chooses to edit. It's not worth you getting in a fight with him. There are plenty of other people who will revert any mistakes he makes. Never revert anyone, never complain about anyone, never argue with anyone. If action is needed, come to me, talk to me, and I'll help you take it."[140] Note that I'm not supposing Ben meant for LionheartX to orchestrate an anti-CG campaign by proxy. Bishonen | talk 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

P.S. Reply to LionheartX 26 april

P.S.LionheartX, thanks for collecting and posting those diffs by me.[141] I see they're some of my best work.. Bishonen | talk 01:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Evidence presented by user: Giano

I'm not sure I'm allowed to say anything here as this is not really evidence, but I see Ideogram has mentioned me above. I am not involved in anyway in this case, I know nothing about it but as Ideogram is yet again insulting me (as is his norm - "Giano is stupid and arrogant") my observations on the subject are here [142] - which I think is the correct place for them. If this is not the correct place for me to respond to Ideogram's personal attack on me above, please someone move it to wherever is. Thanks

Giano 21:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Evidence presented by ElC

Answer to Bishonen (RE: the RfC)

In answer to Bishonen, I recreated the deleted RfC to give the noticeboards a reprieve and to stop the two parties from engaging each other directly, which was leading nowhere. The RfC's original format (upon restoration) was truly dismal. No diffs, one signatory, little if any attempts to resolve the dispute. After it was restored, Ideogram added diffs and Blueshirt became signatory, but failed to provide any efforts at resolving the dispute. After removing the RfC status as accepted, I told him he must do so or the RfC will be redeleted. He added one diff, which was barely satisfactory, but which I nontheless allowed, largely because CG did not bother to provide a response and to avoid further spillovers. El_C 02:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideogram conduct in this RfAr

As I mentioned to Mackenses, I am concerned with Ideogram's conduct in this very arbitration case (his response). Also, note my comment at the "Giano is stupid and arrogant" section on the workshop page (again, Mackensen's response). Hopefuly, this will be it. El_C 02:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that wasn't it. Ideogram continued to conduct himself disruptively and, in turn, was blocked by Blnguyen for 48 hours. El_C 06:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by user:Geogre

I do not have evidence, per se, as what Bishonen cites above would be sufficient. However, with Ideogram I tried rational explanation, patient reasoning, ignoring, and dismissing him, over the course of months, before getting to the sneering level that can be detected in the diffs above. I have found Ideogram to be really compulsive about conflicts. I do not mean the "I am attracted to conflict" thing, but a compulsion to continue, continue, and continue. This is a need to win, and that is utterly incompatible with Wikipedia. Coming back to add another comment, then another, then another (all to the same thing), deciding to use "(Outdent)" as a weapon, following previous conflict parties around to every page where they might be in conflict, and, essentially, behaving very much like a troll -- all show a person interested in winning by getting revenge and by inflicting suffering on others equal to what he seems to have suffered. That makes him annoying, but it also makes him a continuing disruption -- a disruption that moves from page to page to page. Geogre 10:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Heimstern

Incivility from Ideogram

This incident further shows Ideogram's incivility and, perhaps more importantly, unwillingness to work with others.

This discussion continued for quite some time with Guettarda posting comments and Ideogram removing them with the edit summary "rv". Both sides could probably have handled it better. My point of all this is that Ideogram showed a blatant unwillingness to discuss a matter with another user, which seems to me to be uncivil and against the basic premises of communication on a wiki. Ideogram later brought this to ANI [143]. The most telling post from this discussion is this one [144] in which Ideogram states that he will not discuss with Guettarda at all and is "within [his] rights to do so". Note that he had previously received a suggestion from JzG to apologise to Guettarda [145], and Ideogram's response was to insist this was not the place to discuss his interaction with Guettarda [146].

This discussion again shows Ideogram's unwillingness to discuss with others and to heed advice from others. He also seems to me to have insisted that his actions with Guettarda should not be scrutinised at ANI whilst he was asking for Guettarda's actions to scrutinised at the same board. Heimstern Läufer 22:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Ben Aveling

Gangsta

I've been watching this for some time, and feeling that I should make a comment without really knowing what to say. To me, the evidence that Gangsta does not play well with others is so strong, that adding more diffs would be gratuitous. He doesn't even seem to be defending himself, except by attacking other users.

Response to Bishonen

I agree with most of what people have said to date about the incidents I was involved in. I think the only exception is Bishonen's summary of the discussion at Talk:List of Chinese Americans :

"CG's opposite view of ethnicity is the dominant one today, when we don't talk so often about what is and isn't in the blood."

This isn't true. Gangsta hasn't always argued for self-identification:

"DNA testing ... shows Hoklo to be rather different from Chinese." --Certified.Gangsta 20:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

He was rebutted and has not yet responded to the rebuttal. His final word on the issue was "The only people who can automatically be classified as Chinese are Nationalist Chinese who were born in China." --Certified.Gangsta 06:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Contributions

I've been looking back through his last 1500+ edits. There are some good ones edits, nothing huge, just little contributions here and there. His edits at Magee Secondary School feel OK. I guess he's a student there? His edits in keeping borderline cases out of List of teen idols of the 2000s also feel OK. But the good contributions seem to have dried up, I don't know, perhaps late last year or early this year. For example, we could survive without his mamary fixation. And his english/british edit waring re various busty women we could do without. ([147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] (Not just busty women, eg [153], but mostly busty women.) He has always been pushing british/english, and taiwan/china, and large natural breasts, but he didn't used to war over it the way he has been lately. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Even with the decision nearly made, CG is still edit waring, this time at

Chinese reunification
.

  1. (cur) (last) 04:51, 29 April 2007 HongQiGong (Talk | contribs) (15,294 bytes) (rv. Please follow WP:MOS.)
  2. (cur) (last) 04:46, 29 April 2007 Certified.Gangsta (Talk | contribs) (15,115 bytes) (rv please follow jiang's version)
  3. (cur) (last) 17:02, 28 April 2007 HongQiGong (Talk | contribs) (15,294 bytes) (rv. Name of the article, per WP:MOS. Controversy on the topic is covered in the content of the article.)
  4. (cur) (last) 05:31, 28 April 2007 Certified.Gangsta (Talk | contribs) (15,115 bytes) (rv don't see how MOS is relevant)
  5. (cur) (last) 02:59, 26 April 2007 HongQiGong (Talk | contribs) (15,294 bytes) (Name of the article, per WP:MOS.)
  6. (cur) (last) 01:40, 26 April 2007 Certified.Gangsta (Talk | contribs) (15,115 bytes) (rv to latest version by jiang)
  7. (cur) (last) 18:06, 23 April 2007 HongQiGong (Talk | contribs) (15,294 bytes) (Name of the article, per WP:MOS.)
  8. (cur) (last) 17:23, 23 April 2007 Certified.Gangsta (Talk | contribs) (15,115 bytes) (rv to latest version by jiang agreed in talkpage)
  9. (cur) (last) 23:56, 22 April 2007 LionheartX (Talk | contribs) (15,294 bytes) (cat)
  10. (cur) (last) 23:00, 22 April 2007 HongQiGong (Talk | contribs) (15,101 bytes) (Name of the article, per WP:MOS.)
  11. (cur) (last) 21:20, 22 April 2007 Certified.Gangsta (Talk | contribs) (15,115 bytes) (rv to lastest version by Jiang)
  12. (cur) (last) 01:31, 22 April 2007 HongQiGong (Talk | contribs) (15,101 bytes) (Name of the article, per WP:MOS.)
  13. (cur) (last) 01:25, 22 April 2007 Certified.Gangsta (Talk | contribs) (15,115 bytes) (rv pov pushing)
  14. (cur) (last) 01:00, 21 April 2007 HongQiGong (Talk | contribs) (15,101 bytes) (Name of the article, per WP:MOS)
  15. (cur) (last) 23:13, 20 April 2007 R1es (Talk | contribs) (15,115 bytes) (→External links)
  16. (cur) (last) 22:32, 20 April 2007 Certified.Gangsta (Talk | contribs) (15,308 bytes) (rv to compromise version by jiang)
  17. (cur) (last) 22:18, 20 April 2007 Sky Divine (Talk | contribs) (15,390 bytes)
  18. 20:25, 18 April 2007 HongQiGong (Talk | contribs) (This is the name of the article and that's how the article should begin per WP:MOS. And this term is a common one in the media. Other views are presented in the body of the article.)
  19. (cur) (last) 08:27, 18 April 2007 Certified.Gangsta (Talk | contribs) (rv to latest version by Jiang)
  20. (cur) (last) 18:33, 17 April 2007 HongQiGong (Talk | contribs) m
  21. (cur) (last) 18:32, 17 April 2007 HongQiGong (Talk | contribs) (Please. This is the name of the article and that's how the article should begin per WP:MOS. And this term is a common one in the media. Other views are presented in the body of the article.)
  22. (cur) (last) 18:11, 17 April 2007 Certified.Gangsta (Talk | contribs) (remove pov pushing)
  23. (cur) (last) 17:46, 17 April 2007 HongQiGong (Talk | contribs) (name of the article.)
  24. (cur) (last) 02:19, 13 April 2007 Jiang (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Certified.Gangsta (talk) to last version by Jiang)
  25. (cur) (last) 00:18, 13 April 2007 Certified.Gangsta (Talk | contribs) (rvv)
  26. (cur) (last) 11:13, 12 April 2007 Jiang (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 124.243.160.98 (talk) to last version by Old Nol)
  27. (cur) (last) 06:58, 12 April 2007 124.243.160.98 (Talk)
  28. (cur) (last) 06:54, 12 April 2007 124.243.160.98 (Talk)
  29. (cur) (last) 12:03, 11 April 2007 Old Nol (Talk | contribs) m
  30. (cur) (last) 08:33, 11 April 2007 Sumple (Talk | contribs) m (Undid revision 121889972 by Certified.Gangsta (talk) rvv)
  31. (cur) (last) 07:44, 11 April 2007 Certified.Gangsta (Talk | contribs) (rv misleading edit summary)
  32. (cur) (last) 22:42, 10 April 2007 LionheartX (Talk | contribs) (→See also - rm redundant links)

I've highlighted a few particular cases where CG's talk page summary doesn't exactly describe his edits, as can be seen from the inconsistency in the size of the page and in the various edit comments.

CG's last edit to

Talk:Chinese reunification was Revision as of 05:08, 11 March 2007 and that wasn't a comment, just a revert of one Ideogram's edits. His previous attempt to talk, and it was a genuine attempt, was as far back as 28 September 2006
.

And for good measure here's another example of a failure to AGF, and a PA as well: [154]

Regards, Ben Aveling 22:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full Block Log

For technical reasons, displaying Certified.Gangsta's block log does not show blocks applied prior to his changing user name.

Freestyle.king block log

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Freestyle.king

  • 03:16, 17 April 2006 WikiLeon (Talk | contribs) unblocked Freestyle.king (contribs) (Indef is unwarranted)
  • 02:55, 11 April 2006 Guanaco (Talk | contribs) blocked "Freestyle.king (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (This user has done nothing but POV pushing, personal attacks, and vandalism since arriving at Wikipedia.)
  • 04:19, 15 March 2006 Nlu (Talk | contribs) blocked "Freestyle.king (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Personal attacks, trolling)
  • 06:40, 20 February 2006 Nlu (Talk | contribs) blocked "Freestyle.king (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (Personal attacks)
  • 04:33, 15 February 2006 Nlu (Talk | contribs) blocked "Freestyle.king (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism, personal attacks against User:Jiang)
Bonifide.Hustler block log

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Bonafide.hustla

  • 02:01, 31 July 2006 Kungfuadam (Talk | contribs) blocked "Bonafide.hustla (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (You and RevolverOcelotX have ended my patience with edit warring and attacks on one another)
  • 23:33, 9 July 2006 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) blocked "Bonafide.hustla (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 second (This is a technical block to put a notice that my previous block was to harsh and unjustified. I have put it by mistake)
  • 03:19, 26 June 2006 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) blocked "Bonafide.hustla (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr violations and removing warnings after the final warning)
Certified.Gangsta block log

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Certified.Gangsta

  • 01:10, 14 March 2007 Viridae (Talk | contribs) blocked "Certified.Gangsta (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Culture of Taiwan)
  • 22:29, 11 March 2007 Physicq210 (Talk | contribs) unblocked Certified.Gangsta (contribs) (mistaken block; no 3RR)
  • 22:26, 11 March 2007 Physicq210 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Certified.Gangsta (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Culture of Taiwan)
  • 09:28, 14 February 2007 David Levy (Talk | contribs) blocked "Certified.Gangsta (contribs)" (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 1 second (The user has requested that I apply a one-second block for the purpose of noting that my previous block was not met with community consensus.)
  • 03:15, 14 February 2007 David Levy (Talk | contribs) unblocked Certified.Gangsta (contribs) (User has agreed to cease disruptive behavior.)
  • 03:04, 14 February 2007 David Levy (Talk | contribs) blocked "Certified.Gangsta (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 hour (disruptive insertion of a phony software message following a block warning)
  • 23:18, 3 December 2006 Centrx (Talk | contribs) blocked "Certified.Gangsta (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 second (Administrative note (recording warning removed from talk page): This user's contribs appear to be almost exclusively revert warring and accusing established editors of vandalism.)

Regards, Ben Aveling 12:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Certified.Gangsta

BenAveling is hardly a neutral voice here. He has actively patronize
User:Dmcdevit (see my statement and diffs provided above) and actively campaigned for Lion's unblock despite obvious sockpuppetry, spamming (a quick example is right here on this page and the workshop page), trolling, personal attack, POV pushing, and other abuse. Here are some of Ben's support for Lion and his socks. The major problem with Ben is that he repeatedly claimed that LionheartX was indef. blocked not banned (when Dmcdevit clearly stated otherwise in the block log [155], therefore he should be unblocked. And he repeatedly wikilawyered over the same issue.[156] User talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's (whole page of chit-chat with banned user) [157] [158] [159]
Disrupting a request for page protection-[160]
stalking my contributions (supporting Lion and Ideogram)-[161] [162] [163] [164]
He also made his anti-Taiwanese position clear [165] [166] and especially this [167] ("Even if every Taiwanese citizen stopped speaking Chinese they would still be ethnically Chinese (aboriginies excluded). It's in the blood." represents his clear bias and POV in this matter and also explains his hostility toward me and support of Ideogram and LionheartX)--Certified.Gangsta 02:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that I supported LionheartX's attempt to be unblocked. I felt that, while not blameless, he had received extremely harsh treatment for sins that would normally only incur a wikivacation in the order of hours or days. And I will point out that many others (not all) ultimately agreed with that position and that LionheartX has, so far, avoided trouble since being unblocked.

It is true that I have on occasion checked Certified.Gangsta's contributions and reverted some of them. This is not out of animosity towards Certified.Gangsta, but simply because many of his edits are not good, as per the diffs he himself has provided above.

It is true that I believe that most Taiwanese are ethnically Chinese. This is not an anti-Taiwanese bias. This is a position that is well supported by all the available authorities, common sense, and personal observation during 6 months I have spent living in Taiwan.

It is true that I dislike Certified.Gangsta. He has cost me a great deal of time that could have been spent far more productively, caused distress to a great many people, some of whom I am quite fond of, and he appears determined to continue to do so. I have tried not to let this affect my comments in this case, and elsewhere on the wiki. My apologies if I have not always completely succeeded.

Regards, Ben Aveling 12:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideogram and MingTing

"You are an arrogant little fellow and I suggest you watch it TingMing" [168]

Revert war followed on Ideograms page, with some collateral damage, eg [169].

After which Ideogram seems to have followed TingMing around and undid a lot of his edits. See: [170]

At a glance, many, perhaps most of Ideogram's reverts were (to me) good. Eg changing "

Demographics of the Republic of China back to Demographics of Taiwan
.

Looking further back, I can see similar exchanges. Eg [171].

Regards, Ben Aveling 00:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by LionheartX

personal attacks
on his userpage and on talk pages. Certified.Gangsta is a disruptive influence across Wikipedia.

Note: Certified.Gangsta previously edited under the following names:

Certified.Gangsta was previously known as Bonafide.hustla and Freestyle.king before he changed his username twice. See Certified.Gangsta's long block log [172] [173] [174].

Bishonen's charge that Certified.Gangsta's block log on his first account name Freestyle.king should be forgiven because it was a "newbie account" is baseless. Freestyle.king/Bonafide.hustla/Certified.Gangsta should all be treated as one individual. 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. Bishonen's claim that Certified.Gangsta "turning over a new leaf" and "come a long way" is baseless. Note that this block one year ago was overturned and this user is still causing problems. Certified.Gangsta has exhausted the community's patience.

Personal attacks/Incivility by Certified.Gangsta

Certified.Gangsta is habitualy incivil and often engages in

personal attacks
. Certified.Gangsta has made racist personal attacks.

WP:POINT
violations by Certified.Gangsta

Certified.Gangsta have often attempted to turn Wikipedia into a

battleground
along national lines.

Edit warring by Certified.Gangsta

There is no need to document Certified.Gangsta's edit warring any further. Please see the evidence provided by other users above for edit warring. Certified.Gangsta hardly does anything other than edit-warring (see Certified.Gangsta's mainspace contributions). That is the crux of the problem.

Certified.Gangsta has continued his edit warring during this Arbitration case. See the history of the following articles.

Canvassing by Certified.Gangsta

Certified.Gangsta made accusations of canvassing around this RFAR, but note that Certified.Gangsta himself has extensively canvassed in his attempts to have certain users comment on his arbitration case. [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182]

Harassment by Certified.Gangsta

Certified.Gangsta has extensively harassed admin User:Jiang and User:Nlu because political differences.

Certified.Gangsta has used

attack account N1u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as admitted by Certified.Gangsta.[183] [184] [185]. N1u's contributions speak for themselves.[186] Certified.Gangsta created the attack account User:N1u to attack admins User:Nlu and User:Jiang
.

Certified.Gangsta has done nothing but edit warring, soapboxing, POV pushing, trolling, and personal attacks since arriving at Wikipedia. See Certified.Gangsta's extensive block history [192] [193] [194]; he has been extremely disruptive for a very long time. I urge the Arbitration Committee to sanction Certified.Gangsta with the strongest remedies.

LionheartX 12:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Evidence presented by {your name}

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence&oldid=1138653330"