Tu quoque

2) Wikipedia editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own.

Policy that is not enforced is not policy. I have repeatedly stated that I will accept whatever sanction the ArbCom deems necessary so long as Giano is given the same sanction. This is not Tu quoque. --Ideogram 02:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a difficult point of mine for people to understand, so I will explain it again. I am not arguing that I should not be sanctioned. I am arguing that both me and Giano should be treated the same way. Punish us both or don't punish at all. --Ideogram 02:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano is not a party to this case. If you feel he needs to be sanctioned, you're perfectly free to request arbitration against him; but I don't like attempts to add additional parties—who, frankly, have nothing to do with your dispute with Certified.Gangsta—to the case after the fact. Kirill Lokshin 04:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locus of dispute

1) The dispute revolves primarily around a number of articles related to Taiwan (particularly Culture of Taiwan); other articles have also become forums for the dispute as parties have moved to editing them.

Incorrect. Abundant evidence of Gangsta edit-warring and failing to discuss on Keely Hazell and Michelle Marsh (model), long before I arrived. --Ideogram 02:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideogram's stance

4) Ideogram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) believes that poor behavior is acceptable when another editor has engaged in it first; he has stated that "I allow other people to show me what rules they play by and then play by their rules" ([1]).

Absolutely false. I have no opinion on whether this kind of behaviour is acceptable or not. I can not emphasize that strongly enough. Whether this behaviour is acceptable is for the community and ArbCom to define, but that definition must be applied fairly. Double standards and hypocrisy are damaging to morale and will drive valuable editors away from the project. --Ideogram 02:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a hypothetical statement. Kylu (talk · contribs), my favourite editor, was driven off Wikipedia by Giano's paranoid grudge. Now you know why this is so important to me. --Ideogram 03:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's plainly ridiculous for ArbCom to adopt a proposal telling me what I believe. --Ideogram 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kirill,

I do not think the case should be limited to the interaction between Gangsta and me. The vast majority of the evidence presented is about Gangsta's edit-warring and failure to discuss with multiple editors. I just happen to be the one who decided to try to put a stop to it once and for all.

I don't see it as being limited to the interaction between the two of you per se, but rather as being limited to matters arising from the conflict in which both of you were involved, and, in particular, *not* including other, tangential conflicts that either of you may have had with editors who are not parties to the case.

On a practical level, I don't wish to see an expansion of the scope to include the Giano et al. matter; the major participants there are not, strictly speaking, parties to the case being arbitrated, and any haphazard introduction of that issue tends to become an entirely unproductive flamefest in short order.

I will cease my attempts to drag Giano into the matter.

I don't see why you treat Gangsta and myself equally here. Again, the preponderance of the evidence is about Gangsta edit-warring and failing to discuss with multiple editors.

You must realize that no one has been able to have a productive discussion with Gangsta. All of us have tried multiple times to no effect. I can and do have productive discussions with any editor interested in productive discussion with me, although I will admit to falling back on edit-warring when discussion has failed. This alone argues for treating me with more leniency than Gangsta.

The Gangsta problem existed long before our current conflict, and continued after I stopped interacting with him on April 10. I got involved with Gangsta because I noticed a recurring pattern of bad behaviour and wanted to end it. I tried many forms of dispute resolution before edit warring: I tried to discuss, asked for help on AN/I, and filed an RFC, all of which took considerable time and effort. Gangsta has never made any serious attempts to resolve any of his disputes.

I understand that I should not have resorted to edit-warring, but I implore you to explain to me what I should have done. To be treated the same as Gangsta after all my attempts at dispute resolution is a slap in the face.

The short answer is that arbitration is more a sledgehammer than a scalpel. We have, basically, three levels of remedies available:

1. Admonition/warning/sternly worded condemnation/etc.

2. Parole

3. Ban (topic-area or total)

So the fact that you're being "treated the same" is simply a consequence of the fact that I view the behavior of both parties as sufficiently poor to require something harsher than a warning, but not so atrocious as to justify a ban. It's not intended to have any cosmic-balance-type meaning beyond that; I'm not purposely proposing equivalent sanctions.

I don't understand why there is only one kind of parole. It seems to me I have seen many kinds of parole sanctions applied before.

There are different flavors of parole (revert, civility, administrative, etc.), but not really different gradations within each type. As I said, they're fairly blunt instruments designed to halt disruptive behavior, not something suited for determining fine gradations of just what shade of disruptive said behavior is. Kirill Lokshin 20:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me a really obvious way to have different gradations of parole is to vary the length and the number of reverts allowed. Why are you not capable of this? --Ideogram 23:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the idea here is to have you not reverting, not merely to play counting games. Practially speaking, if we were to allow you two reverts instead of one, what would that change in terms of how you'd edit? The sanctions are meant to be as pragmatic as possible; we're purposely trying to avoid making them mean something beyond simply preventing the behavior we don't want to see continue. Kirill Lokshin 00:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why limit it to me? If no one is supposed to count their reverts, why not make 1 revert per week a universal rule? After all, it wouldn't change anything in terms of how they edit, would it? --Ideogram 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the average editor does not have a documented problem with revert-warring, rather removing the need for us to do anything to resolve said (non-existent) problem? Kirill Lokshin 04:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The average editor has never been examined in an ArbCom case. And they are smart enough to avoid it (unlike me). Don't be so naive to think they aren't revert-warring. --Ideogram 04:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I get the exact same sanction as Gangsta, the message is that I have nothing to lose by engaging in the exact same behaviour as Gangsta, namely not wasting any time on dispute resolution efforts and continuing to edit-war until I get sanctioned by ArbCom. --Ideogram 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I or did I not help Wikipedia by exhaustively examining Gangsta's edit history and doing all the work on the RFC? That took a lot of time and effort. If this is my reward, I will never do anything like that again. --Ideogram 20:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly that was helpful; but positive contributions don't necessarily excuse negative ones. Fundamentally, you're free to pursue—or not pursue—dispute resolution, as you wish; but what you may not do is to revert-war. Kirill Lokshin 20:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for help. No one told me what to do. You are punishing me for pursuing a positive goal in the wrong way, with exactly the same punishment meted out to the source of the problem. Doesn't this seem wrong to you? --Ideogram 23:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying you'd rather have Gangsta and others like him still hanging around edit-warring than forgive me for an honest mistake. --Ideogram 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'd rather have you not revert-warring to begin with, obviously. Plenty of editors seem to manage that, for some reason—even ones that file arbitration cases; you're presenting a false dichotomy here. Kirill Lokshin 00:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand that before I arrived, everyone was revert-warring with Gangsta and no one was taking the time to file an arbitration case. I have seen this many times on Wikipedia, which is why I thought it was normal. And certainly no one I asked for help was smart enough to tell me how I should comport myself prior to filing an arbitration case. Obviously from my perspective I should have done the exact same thing as all the other people involved: keep revert-warring, but never file an arbitration case because it not only takes a lot of time and effort but you will get punished for your trouble. You can be sure I have learned my lesson, even if it's not the one you wanted to teach. --Ideogram 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for what you should have done: once you had gone through the expected attempts at good-faith negotiation (via talk pages, RFC, mediation), it was incumbent on you to bring the matter to arbitration quickly, rather than first edit-warring and only requesting arbitration after the fact. We are quite willing to sanction editors that revert-war instead of discussing matters.

Do you realize that every single participant in this case critical of Gangsta has edit-warred with him and is still edit-warring with him? I just happen to be the only one named as a party. --Ideogram 23:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd better examine the facts behind this statement I made and try to make a reasonable response. If you don't, frankly I'm done with ArbCom. --Ideogram 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And those participants would be...? Only two parties were named when the case was submitted, and I've seen nothing in the evidence presented that would show another editor involving themselves in your dispute and reaching your level of reverting. Kirill Lokshin 04:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't touched any of Gangsta's edits since April 10. Yet if you look at his contributions list since then you will see none of his contributions ever survives. Why is that? My RFC fully documents three revert wars that I had no part in. Who was revert-warring with Gangsta? What do you think of this? All you have to do is click on the history link of any of Gangsta's contributions. They are all the same. --Ideogram 04:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always knew the leader is the one most likely to get shot, but I never expected it would be by the people I am trying to help. --Ideogram 23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I was having my dispute with AQu01rius over Portal:China I was absolutely terrified of edit-warring. As a result he was making change after change and ignoring all my objections on the talk page. I came to you for advice, and you recommended to me to revert changes I disagreed with. You said it was normal and acceptable to revert such changes once in a while. If you impose this remedy on me, I will be unable to follow your own advice. --Ideogram 01:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD assumes that people will register objections to your boldness by reverting. --Ideogram 01:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite honestly, if you can't see the fundamental difference between occasional, explained reverts and sustained revert-warring via automated tools, there's not much I can do to help you understand my reasoning here. Kirill Lokshin 04:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occasional? Goddamnit you clearly haven't looked at any of the evidence. In every one of Gangsta's documented revert wars, someone is revert-warring with him. --Ideogram 04:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually think before you wrote this? Because I made the mistake of doing one, you are going to remove my ability to do the other. If there's a fundamental difference, why are you doing that? --Ideogram 05:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I finally understand what is going on here. You don't trust me, so you want to control me. And you will literally say or do anything to make that happen.

Now, I would never be stupid enough to claim you should trust me, but I will not be controlled. Never have, never will. And I think it should be obvious to you that you cannot enforce your control. --Ideogram 10:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if most of the ArbCom actually looks at the evidence page, or just looks at what is going on in this proposed decision page? Shouldn't Certified.Gangsta's extensive personal attacks, edit-warring, and attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground be considered as proposed final decision? LionheartX 00:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are starting to get tedious, LionheartX, with you constant campaigning against Certified.Gangsta and for Ideogram. Both have their share of guilt, and Ideogram's behaviour in this case has been FAR less than acceptable. I just mention the attempts to draw Giano into this whole thing, the "Arbcom should rule I should not insult Giano" proposal and the "if other editors editwar, I editwar" attitude without any sign that Ideogram sees that he carries part of the guilt here (the correct action would have been, after Mediation had failed - to file a RfArb but without editwarring in return). C.G is not the devil and Ideogram is not an angel - both have editwarred, both were uncivil, both will get punished. And your constant campaigning will not change that. CharonX/talk 23:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are problems with Certified.Gangsta's behavior, and there are problems with Ideogram's behavior. These problems are not linked. In particular, see the facts of findings and the evidence page. Certified.Gangsta has made serious personal attacks and only a harsh block will stop this user. LionheartX 06:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aplogies if my last edit have sounded a bit harsh - I am occasionally hot tempered and this sometimes creeps into my edits. I agree that C.G behaviour was less than civil at several times, though I still find a ban would be too much. I suppose civility parole would be a good option to ensure cooler tempers. In fact I think some kind of mentorship for both of them would probably do alot good and help them keeping a straight course. CharonX/talk 11:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. In any case, his contributions speak for themselves.[2] LionheartX 09:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Ideogram 07:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your action is self-defeating because people can and do revert-war as much as they like as long as they can avoid ArbCom scrutiny, which is easy to do. Those people will simply never file ArbCom cases. You are sending the message that the only people who should file ArbCom cases are those who never revert-war, for example, by never making mainspace contributions. --Ideogram 14:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are exactly seven questionable reverts to Culture of Taiwan listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence#Culture of Taiwan. The first three reverts were settled by Kusma's revert. This is cited as "extensive edit-warring" equivalent to Gangsta's dozens of reverts, including the entire Talk:Culture of Taiwan edit war documented here, which happened before I arrived and I had no part in. --Ideogram 14:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 revert per week? That's amazing, much stronger than even WP:1RR. Unlike voluntary 1RR, Arbcom mandated 1RR acts like a hair-trigger, and gets people blocked at random times. This is probably not the intended effect. Knowing the psychological effect of such random punishment, I think it is preferable and certainly more humane to simply ban outright.

If Arbcom does not wish to instate an outright ban, please note that Ideogram has currently been performing certain duties where he might need to be able to do rather more than 1 revert per week.

I do agree that he has behaved like an idiot at RFAr, and that he should learn Not To Do That (tm). Could the revert parole be replaced with something else? (Like for instance a (2 week?) block or so?)

For symmetry, perhaps Certified.Gangsta could then recieve a similar sanction.

--Kim Bruning 00:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Am I allowed to comment in here as well?)

I'm not sure that the proposed decision is really "random punishment". There's a problem specifically with revert warring, so the proposed decision is to limit reverts. Other than (blatant) vandalism, I doubt I use more than one revert a week myself (and certainly try to limit myself to one revert per issue). I don't see how switching it to a shorter block would really curb the edit wars. Could you please elaborate on those duties which would require more than 1 revert per week?

(Unless, of course, I'm not supposed to be commenting in here, in which case, just delete this) Bladestorm 01:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any user may comment on this talkpage. It's the proposed decision itself that only the arbitrators may edit. Newyorkbrad 01:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 revert parole seems fine (though I think ordinary 1RR would have been enough too) for both - both have editwarred, and while C.G perhaps "started" it, Ideogram also participated in the editwarring and the behaviour (s)he has shown during the Arbitration process was plainly awful. I don't think a two week block would impress the scale of the situation on both parties involved. But if there are important tasks that would be overly impeded by the ruling the decision might still be changed, but right now I can't imagine one where 1R/Week would be a true problem. CharonX/talk 01:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If both parties can sort out their diffulties (Ideogram made a good first step here) maybe something less draconic could be resolved. CharonX/talk 02:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that 1 revert per week *seems* sane, especially when you normally stick to that rule yourself. However, in practice, often people have different ideas about what is a revert exactly, and what isn't. So at the end of the day, if you can only have 1 revert per week, anytime you edit someplace, someone might accidentally see it as a revert, and there you go.

So in theory fine and reliable, in practice not so great an in fact quite random.

Ideogram maintained pages in the project namespace. Editing in the project namespace often requires slightly more aggressive reverting. Note that WP:BRD is not really heavy on reverting, but I have managed to get up to 2 reverts per day on some pages in exceptional circumstances. 1 per day is normally ok, but 1 per week can be tricky when BRD doesn't go exactly to plan.

Hmm, but ideogram is not really acting in a very useful way right now. I hope he calms down and talks with me. In the mean time, it might be best to suspend my request 'till later.

--Kim Bruning 02:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still don't see how it can be called "random". The response to revert warring was to limit reverts. Even if you think it's harsh, it still doesn't qualify as "random". (Saying, "You can't award barnstars!" would be random. Or, "You can't edit on tuesdays!" would be random. They don't have any connection to the offense.)

That said, would it really be appropriate to throw an editor with a revert problem right back into specific articles where constant reverts might be an issue? Nobody's telling him not to edit. They're just telling him to go easy on reversing edits.

Perhaps the problem isn't with the 1 Revert per Week, so much as the duration? For example, if ideogram can avoid revert wars for a couple of months, then I don't see that as being any less helpful than a full year. (though, of course, gangsta would then deserve the same treatment) Bladestorm 02:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah see, I'm not getting this across very well. (My fault for editing at 5AM :-P ). You see, last time I looked a bunch of months ago, in practice, people under 1RR-like paroles would get randomly blocked at the strangest intervals. I guessed at the time that this was due to the fact that "reverting" was interpreted differently by different people. In fact the only safe thing to do was not to edit at all.

Would folks happen to know if that's still true today? --Kim Bruning 03:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found Ideogram to be quite reliable in the past, so his current behavior seriously surprised me, and indeed appears to be atypical.

I might enter some additional (private/confidential) evidence on his behalf, possibly excusing some of his current behavior; provided he contacts me ~this weekend. Possibly he needs to take a wikibreak anyway (excusable is not necessarily tolerable), but possibly we can allow him to do take that wikibreak in good standing. --Kim Bruning 15:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've talked with Ideogram and would like to make my report. --Kim Bruning 22:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: The evidence page and this page remain open for comments. However, evidence or information relevant to the case but that should not be posted on-wiki for privacy reasons may be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee mailing list, or to any active arbitrator (see WP:AC) for forwarding to the list. Newyorkbrad 22:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forwarded Kim Bruning's report to me to the ArbCom mailing list so we all have the same information. FloNight 12:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I've had no access to Kim Bruning's evidence, I did offer community enforceable mediation to these editors and Ideogram declined it. They could have chosen some form of revert parole for themselves. Durova^Charge! 03:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, that would have worked too. :-) Hmmm, and I should really read up on CEM and maybe walk through a few cases, sometime in the near future. It sounds fascinating, but I haven't had time yet ^^;; --Kim Bruning 13:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to everybody involved, User:Certified.Gangsta has requested a username change.[3] Those admins who are interested in enforcing the decisions here may especially want to take note of the new username. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certified.Gangsta's username should not be changed. User:Certified.Gangsta was previously known as the following usernames.

• Freestyle.king (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Certified.Gangsta was previously known as Bonafide.hustla and Freestyle.king before he changed his username twice in an attempt to hide his previous block log and misrepresent his identity. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia:Changing username. Certified.Gangsta has a very extensive and substantial block history that would not be reattributed during the rename. See this user's long block log [4] [5] [6]. In addition, Certified.Gangsta is currently facing ArbCom sanctions and this ArbCom case is not over, so this username change would be highly inappropriate. Note that Certified.Gangsta has also abused sockpuppets and made an attack account. Please see N1u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). LionheartX 23:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world are you trying to accomplish, LionheartX? You've started making very direct accusations about bad faith and evading block logs. You dredge up old stuff from a solid year ago. You air your gripes here, on BenAveling's talk page, on the username-change project page, and no-so-subtley on the username-change talk page.

What's more, you bring up entirely irrelevant facts. Any block logs of Freestyle.king and Bonafide.hustla aren't really relevant, since those logs already aren't tied to the Certified.Gangsta account. (this is ignoring the fact that you insist on constantly announcing his past to people anyways.) The only block log that's up for debate is that which is directly tied to the Certified.Gangsta account. And that account doesn't have anything worth noting beyond the dispute with Ideogram which, if you haven't noticed, is kinda the point of this arbitration case. And, yes, it may be a cause of concern to change usernames when there's a pending arbitration case, but the new username can easily be added to this arbitration case; thus eliminating any confusion. What N1u has to do with this is beyond my comprehension.

Again, what are you trying to accomplish here? Bladestorm 08:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not bad faith accusations. Certified.Gangsta has violated made many serious site policy violations and the proposed final decisions should reflect that. Freestyle.king/Bonafide.hustla/Certified.Gangsta are all clearly the same person and should be treated as such. Blocks are not reattributed during the rename and this would impair an admin's judgement when deciding to block Certified.Gangsta again for other violations. The userpages of those username all redirect back to Certified.Gangsta's userpage. Changing your username does not mean that your previous blocks are "forgiven". That is not the purpose of Wikipedia:Changing username. Please note that N1u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an attack account created by Certified.Gangsta. Quite frankly, Bladestorm, your constant defense of Certified.Gangsta is getting quite tedious and you are hardly neutral in this dispute. In light of the new evidence against this user, Certified.Gangsta definitely deserve stronger sanctions. In any case Certified.Gangsta's contributions speak for themselves.

Another user above has also expressed concern over Certified.Gangsta's username change. It is very confusing and inappropriate to rename a user during an ArbCom case. It also would be very inappropriate because his extensive block history would not be reattributed. Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has admitted that he abused sockpuppets and created the attack account, N1u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).See [7] [8]. LionheartX 08:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

? Are you serious? I said you made accusations about bad faith. Take a look here and here, where you clearly say "Certified.Gangsta is demonstrating his bad faith" and "This username request is clearly made in bad faith". I don't know how "This username request is clearly made in bad faith" can possibly be considered anything but an accusation of bad faith. Frankly, I think it's preposterous that you'd ever claim it was anything else.

Also, I haven't been defending Certified.Gangsta. I've been pointing out bad conduct. Please don't accuse me of a lack of neutrality. And, if you are going to accuse me of such, then I expect you to directly back it up.

Fact is, Certified.Gangsta put in a request for a change of name. WjBscribe brought up the issues of block logs and arbitration case. Your contributions since then have added nothing constructive.

As if that wasn't bad enough, you continue to keep bringing up Freestyle.King and Bonafied.Hustla. I assume they're all the same person. However, again, those block logs aren't tied to the Certified.Gangsta account anyways. As such, any change of name would have no effect on the block logs of those two accounts. They wouldn't be tied to the new username, but they aren't tied to the current username either. See the problem? I sure do hope so.

And, for as much as you want them to increase the punishment on certified.gangsta, even though you're talking about year-old actions, you're really only highlighting just how disruptive you can be.

This is what the CHU was before you decided to add your two cents. It contained no less (relevant) information than it does now. This is what you turned it into. See the difference? And this is beside your comments on the CHU talk page, and on BenAveling's talk page.

Not to mention your comment on Sumple's talk page here, where you make the accusation that he's trying to "misrepresent his identity during his Arbitration case", which is a patently false accusation. I'll say it again. Nobody tries to hide their identity by conspicuously posting it on a public notice page.

Care to prove that accusation? Because if you don't want to prove it, and don't want to retract it, then Certified.Gangsta might not be the one facing new penalties... Bladestorm 09:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... if I made an abusive sockpuppet, but posted somehwere among a page of dense text on a neglected little article somewhere ("public page") that "oh, i'm sumple's sockpuppet", would I be any less guilty of "bad faith"? --Sumple (Talk) 09:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is Freestyle.king/Bonafide.hustla/Certified.Gangsta's block logs are tied to the Certified.Gangsta account. The userpages all redirect back to Certified.Gangsta. Changing your username does not entitle your previous block logs to be forgiven. LionheartX 09:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sumple, I can't really reply to that, since it doesn't make sense. CG posted a public request, including a reference to his arbitration case, and requested that his name be changed. Name changes are (at least, theoretically) considered by intelligent people who decide if it's appropriate or not. A person trying to evade consequences simply creates another username and doesn't tell anybody. Asking people to look at his account and change his name isn't trying to evade. Your analogy simply does not fit.

LionheartX, I think you still fail to see my point: I'm not saying the accounts are different. I'm not saying there's no connection. I am saying that when an admin clicks on CG's block log, he doesn't see Bonafide.hustla's block history. So, the fact that he wouldn't see BH's block history under a new username is immaterial. Bladestorm 09:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating ban-evading sockpuppets does not entitle your previous block logs to be forgiven.--Certified.Gangsta 09:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certified.Gangsta is in no position to criticize other when he created his sockpuppet N1u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Note User:N1u's userpage says "Sockpuppets of Freestyle.king". Freestyle.king is clearly the same person as Certified.Gangsta. His sockpuppetry has gone unpunished. LionheartX 09:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not of immediate concern when the purpose of "punishments" in wikipedia is to prevent further abuse. No socks have been in use since april of last year, so clearly a punishment for that 'offense' was never necessary anyways. Bladestorm 09:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally irrelevant. The evidence you provided is from over a year ago. It was either a newbie mistake or an impersonator trying to frame me. Feel free to file a checkuser request if that can clear my name, but I doubt it will be accepted since it is rather pointless.--Certified.Gangsta 09:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is a very valid concern considering this is an ArbCom case regarding Certified.Gangsta. All of Certified.Gangsta's bad behavior should be considered by the ArbCom, as Certified.Gangsta has a very long history of policy violations. The fact is that Certified.Gangsta's constant disruption has gone unchecked all this time. The excuse that it was a "newbie mistake" is baseless. See the evidence and workshop page for diffs of his policy violations. Certified.Gangsta's contributions speak for themselves. In any case, Certified.Gangsta should not shift the subject at hand, which is Certified.Gangsta's unacceptable behavior. Also note that it is inappropriate to rename users under ArbCom sanctions as Certified.Gangsta is facing right now. LionheartX 09:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LionheartX, if C.G previous conduct must be given such great additional scrunity in this arbcom case, I suppose this should apply to other users involved too - possible ban evasion is not a trival policy violation. Bottom line, if C.G continues to act up he will be punished - same goes for Ideogram. Don't keep on trying to stir up additional dirt on one of the participants while turning a blind eye on the other. CharonX/talk 11:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed decision seems inconsistent given the evidence at /Evidence and the discussion at /Workshop. Both have edit warred, yes, but Ideogram has made productive edits. The predominant part of his edit count is productive. Certified.Gangsta has made very few productive edits, if any. The predominant part of his edit count is destructive. Commentators, both neutral and non-neutral, have been hard pressed to say anything positive about Certified.Gangsta's edit history.

Given this, it seems strange that both are being choked with the same penalty, with Ideogram receiving an additional admonishment for his recent behaviour. If Certified.Gangsta is being allowed to run around, it's a slap in the face to good faith editors who actually try to improve this project. --Sumple (Talk) 11:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It doesn't seem like the Arbitrators are reading all of the evidence. Seems like nobody is interested in reading this whole case, but just end this as soon as possible. LionheartX 15:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the recent evidence being ignored by the Arbitrators? None of the messages here are being replied to. Some more people have put their evidence forward after the 'voting phase', but it doesn't seem like the Arbitrators is reading all of the evidence, including the diffs provided. The current proposed decision is inconsistent given the evidence provided at /Evidence and and the discussion at /Workshop. Why isn't all of the evidence being considered in the final decisions? LionheartX 15:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. I've reviewed the evidence and do not feel that any changes to the case are needed. Other issues can be addressed going forward as needed. FloNight 15:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed decision seems inconsistent given all of the evidence at /Evidence and the discussion at /Workshop. As noted by another user above, Certified.Gangsta has made very few productive edits, if any. Users with an extensive history of aggressive edit-warring and attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground should be strongly sanctioned. LionheartX 15:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is such an injustice. Sure, Ideogram has been reverting, but at least you can reason with him on talk pages. On the other hand you can never have the same conversation with gangsta, who just reverts and calls you names, and apparently has shown that he knows little in the pages he edits. The great majority of the evidence page points to gangsta's behavior, did the arbitrators even read through the evidence page? I can't believe I'm seeing the "arbitration" go down like this. Blueshirts 08:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they just judged this on the clash between Certified and Ideogram, in which (by definition) each is equally culpable. And the fact that Certified has warred with other people was somehow 'out of bounds'? Likewise Gansta's person attacks on people and his almost total lack of positive contributions? I hope that's not the case, but I don't have a better explanation. For me, 1RR is the harshest sanction that might be justifiable for Ideogram and the softest possible sanction that could be justifiable for Certified. Neither feels completely wrong, but to deal the same to both when their behaviour has not been comparable, that feels wrong. I can live with it, but I don't have to like it. Or perhaps there is a range of behaviour from bad to very bad for which 1RR is the appropriate remedy, and that Ideogram fell into one end of that range, and Certified fell into the other end. Certainly Ideogram's defiance didn't do him any favours. But I'm surprised that Certified's refusal to respond to the evidence presented against him seems to have been ignored. Not to mention his continuing to edit war and attack people during the hearing. As I said, I'm not sure it's the wrong decision, but I don't fully understand it either. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]