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

Statement by User:HongQiGong

I've been requested by

Response to Jumping cheese

I'm not involved in Taiwanese politics, but I make no secret that I support Chinese reunification. If you would like to put me in the Pan Blue column, then so be it. But please note what I said above - I don't know that being in the minority in terms of editing choices is cause for community action against an editor. Now, Certified.Gangsta edits against evidence presented by other editors, and edits in opposition of most other editors involved. Even then, I don't know that there is any policy against such behaviour. However, edit-warring might be cause for community action, and that's what he and Ideogram have been doing with each other. Also note that I've only suggested perhaps longer 3RR blocks for both of them, or preventing them both from editing the articles they edit war on. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Jiang

Freestyle.king/Bonafide.hustla/Certified.gangsta has long had a habit of edit-warring over multiple pages to further misguided views (to the opposition of multiple editors) in areas which he evidently has no expertise.[1][2] This has led him to remove references of Taiwanese Americans from articles on Chinese Americans (again, to widespread opposition) under the reasoning that "whether Taiwanese canadians are chinese is controversial"[3]. His comments on talk pages are at best a nuisance and at worse blatant trolling.--Jiang 23:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Blueshirts

I also certify this request to sanction gangsta. I've had negative experience with him on the culture of taiwan page. He has no intention to argue reasonably with editors, but use blanket statements and revert warring. He also likes to mask his behavior as "content dispute", and likes to throw around buzzwords like "Chinese nationalists vs Taiwanese people" to switch the focus. This makes his inability to engage in dialogue look like a legitimate content dispute to outsiders. Be careful of this trick. Blueshirts 00:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Jumping cheese

Like I wrote in my statement, this rfa is not about content dispute, and I think it's very misleading to divide users into blue/green camps. That's what gangsta wants it to look like, and as you know he likes to pass around this kind of accusations to justify his edits. He doesn't hold "minority" views, as Taiwanese independence has major support in Taiwan. It's his style of argument that is mostly illogical, full of personal opinion and highly combative. Saying green users would support gangsta and vice versa is misleading and underestimates both camps. For the same reason, I don't think most "blue" users here would support User:Nationalist and his edits either. Blueshirts 17:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Wl219

I have been asked to make a statement by

Statement by User:yuje

I have been asked to make a statement by

Statement by User:Jumping cheese

Gangsta requested that I participate in his and Ideogram's RfA, noting [4] that LionheartX was actively recuiting other editors that agreed with his/her politics. To clear the air, I support the pan-green platform so I obviously have some bias in the manner (since I believe Gangsta adheres to the same political viewpoint). I'm also somewhat active in Taiwanese related pages (mostly on the talk pages).

I've known Gansta for about half an year now. I was involved in the whole LionheartX/RevolverOcelotX/Guardian Tiger/whatevervarient case and the in the joke banner case. In my opinion, Gangsta is an aggressive editor, but does so out of good faith. Ganasta does not harbor "misguided views" as stated by Jiang, but a frankly minority opinion on Wikipedia regarding the political status of the ROC/Taiwan. When he (I'm assuming Gansta is a dude based on his user page) sees edits that he believes to be pushing a particular POV, he reverts it. A common edit summary is "rv pov pushing" [5], which does a bit brash.

I've know of Ideogram for sometime, but never worked with him/her (besides leaving a vote on Ideogram's page). He appears to be also a good faith editor, but clashed with Gangsta over some edits. His active recruitment [6] [7] [8] for Gangsta's RfC is kind of alarming, since they're posted on article talk pages.

I believe both should be discouraged from engaging in edit warring in the future and poking at each other. Maybe positive mentors for both would help. A block to either party would seem a bit out of order, since none of them committed serious infractions of Wikipedia policies. It's mostly a matter between two pissed off users going for each other's blood.

Oh...I'm gonna be bold and categorize the political views of the participants so each statement can be taken into proper consideration. Table based upon user page, edit history, and comments on talk pages. They're not sourced, since that would take a prohibitively long time...make edits appropriately if I placed any participant in the wrong category. I'll update the table as more users join the RfA. (edit: I removed the parties that are cited by the RfA per Sumple)

In short, users that support the pan-blue coalition will oppose Gangsta for his blasphemous and heretical edits, while people that support the pan-green coalition will support Gangsta for his all-too-true and much awaited edits. ;)

Sorry for the long statement. I hope it helps in the decision making process. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 09:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to HongQiGong and Blueshirts (also to AQu01rius's indirect response)

Thanks for taking time to respond to my attempt at categorizing. I completely agree that the dispute goes far beyond political identification. Gangsta was obviously involved in inappropriate edit warring with Ideogram. However, it's no secret that the ROC/Taiwan related pages that all of us edit involve some degree of controversy and political. Thus, all involved parties are biased and will be more inclined to blast or defend Gangsta's actions based on their political agreement or disagreement with Gangsta's politics.
Also, how was the categorization a "violation of

WP:NPOV#Bias"? That section is a definition of types of biases. In light of Wikipedia's sense of openness of information, I thought the categorization would be a service to the neutral parties by being able to see where each statement was coming from. I agree with Blueshirts's point that the reason for the RfA is not for content dispute. But as I mentioned in my original statement, it's only a tool or reference source. I was not attempting to redirect this RfA into a matter between two opposing political parties. Thanks again for the response! Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry if I may appear to be obtuse here, but if you agree that content dispute is not the problem, then how is political affiliation even relevant? Let's look at the real issue here - the edit warring between Certified.Gangsta and Ideogram. Now I fully admit that I've edit warred myself, but I acknowledge that my disagreement with other editors does not mean I must edit war with them. And that's the point of this RfA - they could not disagree with each other without edit warring across multiple articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Sumple

I have had a number of encounters with User:Certified.Gangsta. I stress that my objection is not to his political and other views, whatever they may be. My objections are to his behaviour in pursuant of those views. My key objections to his behaviour are:

1. 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. See, for example, Talk:List of Chinese Americans#Chinese Americans = Americans of Chinese descent and other parts of that page. This is especially a problem because, as can be seen from that link and other links quoted on this page, Gangsta appears to know very little about the areas he frequently edit-war in.
2. Instead of genuine argument, 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, my exchange with him at: Talk:Culture of Taiwan#LionHeartX, and, more bizzarely, User talk:Bishonen#thank you ("... Sumple insulted you, maybe you should get Zilla involve[sic]" - an accusation with no inkling of any evidence, as far as I can see).
3. In a similar vein, 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:Certified.Gangsta#User:Ideogram timeline
   ("“LionHeartX fan-club community” (Sumple, Nic tan, Jiang, blueshirt, Ideogram, etc)").
4. 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"), which is very ironic, since none of the editors in his perceived "Chinese conspiracy" are PRC supporters, or and many of them are in fact Taiwanese!

Again, I have no problem with Gangsta's political views per se. I have worked happily and constructively with many users who have opposite views to mine. However, as has been mentioned here and elsewhere, Gangsta's "contributions" consist almost exclusively of edit-warring. He knows very little about what he is editng, and he makes virtually no substantive or constructive edits. He incites unnecessary antagonism between other editors. I do not feel, overall, that his presence is contributing to Wikipedia.

As for User:Ideogram, I have not had much interaction with him/her, except a minor disagreement over the importance rating for Chinese food items (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China). Therefore, I do not feel I am competent to make a comment about him/her.

Btw, in pre-emption of User:Jumping Cheese categorising me, I should declare that I am not Taiwanese, am not involved in Taiwanese politics, and I will object to being classified as either Pan-Blue or Pan-Green. Maybe you can make an Pan-Red box for me. --Sumple (Talk) 12:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further response to User:Jumping cheese

I don't think it's appropriate to put User:Certified.Gangsta under the Pan-Green heading, as far as political views go. His views are very, very different to the views espoused by Pan-Green parties and politicians. A quick look at Talk:List of Chinese Americans should show that other users were using Pan-Green sources as argument against User:Certified.Gangsta. In fact, I might make a suggestion that User:Certified.Gangsta (and, if you think appropriate, User:Ideogram) be taken out of that box to avoid creating an impression that certain editors are "in league" with others in this dispute, which, as others and I have mentioned, is something User:certified.Gangsta keeps trying to do, and part of his disputed conduct. --Sumple (Talk) 08:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ElC

I restored the deleted RfC since the AN spillover was getting too much. I do see fault in the conduct of both CG & ideogram. [To be continued]. El_C 20:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AQu01rius

I have interacted with

The categorization by

This is not a dispute between User:Ideogram and User:Certified.Gangsta. This is more of of a community disgreement against a certain individual's thoughts. Everyone is free of expressing their thoughts, but User:Certified.Gangsta have expressed it through edit-warring and refusing to communicate by claiming all oppositions "pov pushing".

For the information, my impression of

I have not seen anything from CG (under his various usernames) but edit warring on Taiwan-related pages. Most of that was completely clueless POV-pushing, and it saddens me that this block one year ago was overturned and the user is still causing problems. Kusma (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Response by Certified.Gangsta. Paul August ☎ 13:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)): The blocking admin in that particular block was desysopped a few days afte he block me by the arbCom and barred from request for adminship. The block was also without warning or any interaction whatsoever.--Certified.Gangsta 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Redcloud822

I am not requested by anyone to make a statement here. I have only one encounter with Certified.Gansta. He kept reverting my editing in Legal Status of Taiwan while refusing to any dialog in the talk page and his personal talk page. My impression is that CG is not interested in rational discussion, and takes political views very personal. I respect his political views, but he is wrong to refuse discussion while kept reverting my editing.

JumpingCheese is wrong to using political views as a diversion to excuse CG's behavior problem.Redcloud822 19:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup to Redcloud822, I just noticed that Certified.Gangsta just reverted the article

Legal status of Taiwan again, claiming blatant POV pushing without explaining why or how there is POV pushing. As one of the authors of that article months ago, who has gone through a good deal of discussion on its talk page with all sides, I do not see how the revision made by Redcloud822 is POV pushing and have noted my view on the talk page. It is becoming hard to assume good faith on Certified.Gangsta's part if he doesn't explain why he views the edit in question to be non-neutral.Ngchen 04:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Redcloud is not in any position to criticize other editors when he's showing a lack of respect for others' userpage.--Certified.Gangsta 17:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gangsta, firstly your charge is baseless. Secondly, you should not shift the subject at hand, which is your unacceptable behavior. Redcloud822 19:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ben Aveling

Gangsta

My take is that Gangsta feels that acknowledging that the Taiwanese are ethnically Chinese would somehow make a mainland takeover of Taiwan somehow acceptable. And therefore, he is quite determined that Wikipedia present the Taiwanese as completely distinct. I suspect something similar has motivated him in the English/British war at Michell Marsh and Keeley Hazell. I think the UI spoofing revert war at his own talk page speaks for itself.

For whatever reason, discussing things with Gangsta is, in my experience, frustrating, even annoying. There is never a sense that he is trying to reach a NPOV, only that he is looking for some way to get what he wants. He often ignores what you say to him. He frequently abandons conversations midway. He sees improper motives that do not exist. He makes claims that none but himself support, and he acts on them.

I note that he is complaining about some canvasing around this RFA that has been done, and he is right that it was inappropriate. But I also note that he himself has canvased extensively in his attempts to have the same user banned for misbehavior that would normally only incur a short block.

He has made some useful contributions in the past. I think a complete ban would be premature. But the amount of time he costs other users is a problem.

I was tempted to suggest banning him from Topless model and Chinese related pages, but he doesn't often edit anything else in the mainspace. [9] So that's not a solution.

One possibility: In my experience, Gangsta does stay within the letter of 3RR, if not the spirit. That makes me hopeful that a partial restriction of his rights, a 1RR or 0RR order might work.

Regards, Ben Aveling 04:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CharonX

It seems obvious to me that both users, Certified.Gansta and Ideogram have editwarred at the pages mentioned, which deserves the appropiate response (as two wrongs do not make a right, so does not another user editwarring allow you to do the same). Still the other fact that I noticed is the continued tedious editing style that Ideogram has displayed, often bordering or crossing over into incivility or personal attacks, as well as a lack of insight that editwarring is not acceptable even if another user is editwarring. Also it seems that Ideogram is deeply suspicous of the entire ArbCom process and all those involved, as it does not go the he/she thinks it should go, ranging even into paranoia [10] . Maybe a mentor would help Ideogram regaining a healthy editing-style. CharonX/talk 22:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[11] [12] [13] I'm just curious as to whether the ArbCom decision for one revert per week per article applies here or not. Nowhere in the decision does it say it is limited to mainspace. --Ideogram 03:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that he tried to comment about one of the edits here and the editors reply here. MrMacMan ^Talk 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per prior cases and common usage, the revert parole applies to all project space pages like categories, AfD, and so on. I doubt the arbitrators meant for the parole to apply to his own user page. Edit warring over the practical joke box is probably more disruptive as the box itself.

Thatcher131 03:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree 100% with Thatcher, and would add that interaction between the two of you (Certified.Gangsta and Ideogram) should in general be held to a minimum. The parole restrictions will hopefully help in reducing friction on the mainspace pages you both edit, but there is no reason for either of you to be concerned with the content of the other's userpage. Newyorkbrad 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll thank you not to perpetuate the lie that this case was all about the interaction between the two of us. As I stated repeatedly, I did not touch any of Gangsta's edits since April 10th. Simple observation of Gangsta's contributions and block log since then shows he is continuing his disruptive behavior, while I have had no such problems with any other editor. I don't know exactly what happened in this arbitration case, but don't rub my nose in it. --Ideogram 18:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that while Ideogram made the request for clarification here, he was not involved in the edit war that prompted it.

Thatcher131 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Please avoid use of the term "lie" anywhere on Wikipedia and especially on arbitration pages. There is no allegation that Ideogram was involved in edit-warring at User:Certified.Gangsta; my observation was that there also is no reason to bring a concern about that page to this forum. In any event, hopefully this concern is now resolved. Newyorkbrad 21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor taking advantage of Gangsta's 1RR restriction to taunt and harass

Please note Sumple's disgraceful revert warring at Gangsta's userpage [14], taking advantage of Gangsta's 1RR restriction to taunt and harass. I ask the arbitrators to take some action to prevent this kind of thing in the future. I don't think the restrictions they placed on Gangsta were intended to pin a general "Kick me" sign on him. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• They're revert-warring over the joke banner? I swear to God, I'll pistol-whip the next user who reverts over a joke banner. Furthermore, if there was any kind of consensus, it was to let well enough alone. Mackensen (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bishonen, is there some reason you don't want to act directly? Anyway, I noted on the noticeboard a couple of days ago that this was inappropriate. It seems to have stopped; if it starts again, you can report it to
    Thatcher131 23:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Yes, there is: I prefer not to act as an admin, or at all, since I submitted evidence in favor of Gangsta in the case, and was attacked by Sumple and others for it. A completely uninvolved admin would clearly be more appropriate. I would certainly have done some shouting if I'd seen the revert war, though, or noticed the ANI thread (with its exceptionally un-noticable heading) sooner. Bishonen | talk 00:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • I really feel the action that needs to be done is quite obvious. Though I understand why Bishonen wouldn't want to act directly. -- Cat ^chi? 03:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is already a thread on
      WP:ANI about the baiting matter here. Sean William 23:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]

RFAR/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

I've been contacted by User:Certified.Gangsta, who left the project in June 2007 in consequence of the sanctions imposed on him in the Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram RFAR. He was finding it impossible to edit under them, and was feeling very frustrated. User:Ideogram is now under a community ban, where he was found to have baited Certified.Gangsta and attempted to drive him off the project (successfully). CG is thinking about returning, and wonders if he might possibly have his editing restrictions revoked, despite the infractions he has indeed committed. Would the arbitrators like to take a look at this case, please? To remind you of how it went, I've written up a short overview of the circumstances here. Other users should feel free to add their views of the matter at that subpage, or at this notification, whichever works. Bishonen | talk 09:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Committee is discussing this matter. Kirill 13:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I would not personally recommend a lifting of the restriction, since Ideogram was not the only editor that encountered his edit warring and I fail to see a pressing need in the absence of his primary antagonist. Giving such a user the extra wiggle room of two to three non-vandalism reverts seems like a poor idea for an established edit warrior. However, I would not be opposed to the editing restrictions being lifted, since the community tends to take a dim view of continued nonsense from editors with a problematic history. If CG were to relapse towards poor behaviour, I'm fairly confidant it would be handled quite quickly without kid gloves. I doubt great harm would result from allowing him the chance to participate in Wikipedia productively without editing restrictions. Additionally, the endorsement of Bishonen and Jehochman for the lifting of restrictions is a strong point in its favour. A bit of thought on both sides of the coin. *hands out grains of salt* Vassyana 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Disclosure: I was the blocking sysop for the most recent parole violation.[reply]

Thank you, Vassyana. Some recent developments: in his edits of today, November 10, Certified.Gangsta points (on request) to his positive contributions to the project.[15]. Please note especially his appeal here, and the new section "Contribution" on his talkpage, which he's in the process of adding to. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Committee has decided to lift the editing restriction on Certified.Gangsta. Kirill 17:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the user,

WP:AN — Rlevse • Talk • 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you arbCom.--

talk) 21:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Noted on the case page, and I'll archive this discussion to the case talkpage in 24 hours. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]