Inactive/away:
As Ideogram pointed out, Certified.Gangsta has been neatly dodging his 1RR sanction by reverting randomly on various Taiwan related articles. An extra remedy might be in order, but I don't believe that a full case would be the most efficient way of solving this. Sean William @ 13:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I'd say we need to add in another remedy, something on a maximum number of total reverts in a day or week period, as opposed to "per article". It probabyl doesn't need to be reopened if something can be decided on this page.--Wizardman 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been requested to comment on this request. To my recollection, I have not been involved in any of the articles that Ideogram has listed above. But Certified.Gangsta does revert on List of Chinese Americans, which I've edited before. While I am neutral to the content that he keeps reverting, I do notice that he is making no more attempts at discussion in the Talk page of the article before he reverts. But he does stay within the boundaries of 1 revert per week on the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been asked to comment on this request. My only run in with Certified.Gangsta was on Double Ten Day, which resulted in a RfC here. I opened that RfC after he made a baseless accusation of "pov-pushing" against me and reverted my edit twice. He did not respond on the RfC, which in the end reached a consensus in support of my edit. Wl219 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, this page should be located at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Review, as that is where the original case was. Sean William @ 01:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Since I can't post them on the main page since it works as a proposed decision, I'll post them here. Some of my proposed ones.
1) The three-revert rule is in place not to have an arbitrary benchmark so much as to be a general warning against edit warring.
2) Users who engage in revert wars and disruptive editing are generally not assuming good faith in the other user.
3) When making controversial edits, or even uncontroversial edits on a heavily discussed topic, it is strongly recommended that these changes be discussed, hence a consensus can be reached if the edits aren't accepted.
I'll look more into the case to add in the other two. Discuss as you will. Wizardman 22:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)