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

Canvassing?

Please explain why this is inappropriate, and how it threatens the "integrity of the community sanction process"? I ask because it seems to me that notices on article talk pages where edit wars had been fought is an effective way for bringing the arbitration matter to the attention of involved editors, and, importantly, to gather evidence from all concerned in disputes involving those articles.

A fortiori, the notices were requests to comment in the relevant processes, not a request to "help me ban C.G" or anything else. It would have been just as effective in bringing out messages in support of C.G as those against? Surely an open sanction process is preferable to a "closed forum" where it is just Ideogram against Certified.Gangsta? --Sumple (Talk) 03:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(after reading Wikipedia:Canvassing) My question remains. It seems to me that the contents weren't partisan, and the audience wasn't partisan (being on an article talk page). Posting was limited to talk pages of affected articles. --Sumple (Talk) 04:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

When the disruptive editing guideline was at the proposal stage there were very serious concerns from a variety of Wikipedians that the proposal might be gamed by editors who wanted to get the upper hand in content disputes, particularly to drive out a notable but minority view. There have been occasions where a cadre of editors dominated some particular topic, so canvassing certain article talk pages is a highly gameable concept: an editor who tries to manipulate the system will select pages where most of the active editors support the canvasser's POV. The balance of opinions who weighed in at this particular case when it was in the proposal stage suggests that is exactly what happened. And if that somehow wasn't the operative dynamic in this particular instance, it could upend the community sanctions process to allow those actions as precedent. Durova^Charge! 16:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This rfa is not about "majority vs minority views", "china vs taiwan", "green vs blue". It's disingenuous to characterize this rfa as "content dispute". You're missing the point. This is about gangsta's consistent tendency to play identity politics, throw about buzz words and blanket statements, accuse users of being in china's camp or lionhearts' fan club, and make reverts without any proof. It'd be fine if he had found the time to go to sites like "wufi.org" to back up his views, but he didn't. And many of his statements sound very illogical, even to a green supporter. It's not a content dispute and there's nothing "notable but minority" about gangsta's edits so please don't treat it that way. Blueshirts 18:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Although you may view this arbitration in that light, and I have no opinion about its outcome in that respect, this also happens to be a precedent-setting case for acceptable conduct regarding community sanctions proposals. My statement that I do not defend Certified.Gangsta's mistakes may be taken at face value: I do not defend him. What matters to me is the larger picture, of which this case is one small piece, and perhaps for this reason my priorities do not coincide with yours. I want to make sure that community banning is fair and equitable. Whether or not Ideogram actually did abuse the process (I think he did even though you seem not to), there's no denying that he attempted a highly exploitable precedent. I hope the Committee regards that as seriously as I do, because community sanctions serve a vital function at this site. Durova^Charge! 00:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See my comments on Wikipedia talk:Community sanction noticeboard#Heads up, which I can copy here if someone believes they are germane to the arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 00:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I understand your concern. At the same time, I think Newyorkbrad's comments linked above are cogent and should be borne in mind. --Sumple (Talk) 00:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you repost those links? I don't see them. Durova^Charge! 01:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Right there above my post: Wikipedia talk:Community sanction noticeboard#Heads up. --Sumple (Talk) 02:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've replied at that thread. Most of it is on a level that has little direct bearing on this particular case, except that I opposed the guideline change that made canvassing a relevant issue here. Durova^Charge! 03:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't make sense. How do you suppose ideogram or users who have had issues with gangsta and tried to resolve them should have acted? And now you're dodging the fact that you thought it was a content dispute by dropping more lawyer talk. Blueshirts 00:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Those are very bad faith assumptions and I ask you to withdraw them. From my perspective, a smooth and effective community banning process is far more important than the outcome of any particular case. One thing I did suggest at the CN discussion was community enforceable mediation. Ideogram declined that, and given the amount of previous edit warring between both of them arbitration looked like the proper venue. Other than the parties directly involved in this dispute, the community seems to have agreed with me. Durova^Charge! 02:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem. This case was opened on the basis of edit-warring between Certified.Gangsta and Ideogram. The problem, however, is that Certified.Gangsta edit-wars with everyone. It's a much wider problem than that involving Ideogram. In fact, he hardly does anything other than edit-warring (see contribs).

That is the crux of the problem. --Sumple (Talk) 06:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if you thought about it for a second you would realize that the reason this ArbCom case was opened was due to edit-warring, mostly by Gangsta. Your concerns about the CSN process are completely irrelevant. But feel free to waste your time. --Ideogram 03:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram's comment from 03:02, 15 April includes the edit comment you aren't very smart, are you? Please retract the personal attack. Durova^Charge! 03:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You of course have nothing substantive to say. --Ideogram 03:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also of note, this edit to WP:RFA which you submitted eight minutes after mine.[1] If you continue in this manner you will compel me to supplement my current evidence to the Committee. I ask you as second time, please retract. Durova^Charge! 03:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing improper about my noticing an RFA and submitting my honest opinion. And no one is going to retract anything just because you ask. --Ideogram 03:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

However, there may very well be something improper about your posting there so soon after I did. If this becomes a pattern the site calls it Wikistalking. It does not help appearances that you insulted me twice within minutes of doing so, then refused to retract the insults when asked to retract them. If this pattern continues I will enter it as formal evidence. Durova^Charge! 03:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it would bother me if you further waste your time? --Ideogram 04:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova's prejudice

Durova has apparently decided I am a "bad guy" and is only interested in evidence against me that supports that prejudice.

About canvassing: I had no idea that my actions could be considered inappropriate. If Durova had simply taken the time to advise me of this, the matter would have been resolved. Instead he/she jumps to the conclusion that "this is a very serious precedent" and that I "attempted to manipulate" the process. This amounts to claiming he/she can read my mind and is a failure to AGF. It should be obvious that I restored the posts because I did not believe they were inappropriate. Citing this fact is not relevant to the claim that I attempted to manipulate the process.

It is not relevant that the alleged "canvassing" took place before I downgraded my request to 1RR. I already requested that Gangsta be limited to 2RR. I initially requested a siteban solely because I didn't realize other sanctions could be approved.

I didn't "canvass certain article talk pages", I selected those pages where Gangsta was most active. If Durova took the time to examine Gangsta's edit history in detail, he/she would see that there aren't any pages where most of the active editors support Gangsta.

Durova seems to think that because I edit-warred with Gangsta I am not allowed to bring a case to CSN. Apparently I am only allowed to bring a case to that venue if I never interacted with Gangsta at all. It is my impression that this is not how CSN works.

My demands for Durova's recusal are based on my impression that he/she seems out to "get me". I do not know why this should be so.

I am new to CSN and unfamiliar with the process. Durova has interpreted my errors (if they are errors) as attempts to manipulate the system, a failure of AGF. Instead of allowing for error and good-faith disagreement he now demands that I be sanctioned with "the strongest remedies". It should be obvious to anyone that if someone can be sanctioned just for bringing a case to CSN this will have a chilling effect. Durova apparently has a sense of "ownership" of the process which is contrary to Wikipedia principles. Durova does not have the right to define who and who is not allowed to participate in CSN, regardless of his/her past contributions. Frankly, I believe the greatest threat to CSN is Durova him/herself.

All this is besides the fact that multiple editors have supported me on AN/I, the RFC, and on this arbitration case. Durova is the only editor expressing these views and editors are even now disputing them. --Ideogram 19:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF is a very good policy. I did not apprise you of the inappropriateness of those edits because I was unaware of them until after this arbitration case opened. Had you sought my advice I would have provided it, but you did not, and Certified.Gangsta acted appropriately by removing them and telling you they were inappropriate. He hasn't been correct about everything but he was right on the money there. You chose to repost them without seeking advice.

I do recommend the WP:ADOPT mentorship program to both of the named parties in this case. There can be no question about the impartiality of feedback received through that volunteer service and it usually does a lot of good for editors who enter it.

And Ideogram, if you wish to have me banned from WP:CN this happens to be a venue where you can request it. Head over to the evidence page and submit the best reasons and diffs you can find. When you have finished with your presentation I will offer mine, beginning with several of my seventeen barnstars. Durova^Charge! 01:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if you are banned from CSN or not. But as long as you try to control it I will know I am not welcome there, and I will not use it. And I don't care about your barnstars either, I have no idea why you feel that is relevant. --Ideogram 04:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained that I do not try to control it. You assume very bad faith by continuing to repeat that assertion. And several of my barnstars have been for dispute resolutions and for working to empower community decision making, as well as for the integrity which you continue to impugn. You certainly are welcome at WP:CN as long as you participate in accordance with accepted policies and guidelines. I have no prejudice against you. Durova^Charge! 05:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to control it by telling the rest of us how it should work. You do not speak for the community, the community can speak for itself. And barnstars can be awarded by anyone. The fact that you have some does not give your opinion any more weight than that of any other editor. Anyone capable of reading a contributions list will note that I also have experience in dispute resolution and I even have a barnstar. Do I brag about that here in an attempt to assert my authority?

You certainly must drop your attempt to get me sanctioned before I will go anywhere near CSN again. --Ideogram 05:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, my statements to the thread you started were summaries of the consensus that had formed the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline. A month ago part of that guideline changed and I, as a minority voice, was overruled. Had the clause I preferred remained in the guideline, I probably still would have opened the arbitration request because of your prior history of edit warring with CG but there would not have been the same need for me to submit evidence against you. You, however, attempted to dictate to me how the board ought to run. I find that an interesting contrast to one of your statements at this thread: I am new to CSN and unfamiliar with the process.

My actions in arbitration are influenced only by the merits of the case, not by any personal or political prejudice. At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel I was the lone supporter of an editor whose ideology on a controversial issue was completely different from my own beliefs. After Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate I awarded the Resilient Barnstar to one of the editors against whom I had given evidence. If you choose to avoid WP:CN that is entirely your own decision, but you need not fear any persecutory action from me. My standards are fair and impartial. Durova^Charge! 05:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

All of which is irrelevant. I filed a CSN case and you tried to get me sanctioned. Who wants to go through that? --Ideogram 05:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You know, there's a preview function. --Ideogram 06:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

One part of this thread is quite relevant: the link to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. I heartily recommend it to both you and Certified.Gangsta. Your actions are now under scrutiny of the arbitration committee and mentorship can provide several benefits to you: it can provide advice from an experienced editor whose fairness you can trust, it can save you time you would otherwise spend researching policies and processes on your own, it can help you avoid any more of the mistakes that got you to this point, and it would be one postitive step to demonstrate your potential for self-examination and self-correction. Durova^Charge! 06:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That is none of your business. You fail to understand that your attempt to sanction me is a dangerous precedent itself, namely that anyone foolish enough to violate your rules when filing a CSN request can get sanctioned. Why would anyone want to risk filing a CSN request? Did I have to file a CSN request? No, my first instinct was to go straight to RFAR. But CSN supposedly exists to lighten the load on ArbCom, so I tried to use it in that spirit. Frankly, your action discredits the entire CSN process and I don't see why anyone would use it now. --Ideogram 06:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if my request were inappropriate then the Committee would not have reached a unanimous decision to open the case. It is for them to decide and if you believe I should not participate you may state your reasons here. Until such time as someone posts a formal request to that effect and ArbCom approves it, I will participate as I deem appropriate. Durova^Charge! 06:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's really going to convince doubters that they should use CSN. --Ideogram 06:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

I'm curious about the scope of this case: Does it only include the edit warring of the parties in question, or is it important to consider and present evidence on other factors, (the one I'm thinking of is civility issues not related to their edit warring)? Heimstern Läufer 06:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The scope of the case is up to the ArbCom members to define. You may introduce any evidence you feel should be considered. --Ideogram 06:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how this is mainly an edit-war-esque case, feel free ot add in any info that may be useful (i.e. if Certified.Gangsta has a history of edit-warring, it doesn't necessarily have to be with Ideogram).--Wizardman 00:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that you have evidence that would be relevant, go ahead and be bold and present it. If the arbitrators don't need it, they won't use it. // PTO 00:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram

Did this edit to RFA have anything to do with this case, or the CN proposal not closing in your favor? The timing is a little odd, especially given the above discussion. Navou ^banter 00:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I noticed your RFA because I was looking at Durova's contributions. I really was frustrated when you asked me your questions on CSN without reading my RFC first. This is an honest concern and I wouldn't have commented if that hadn't happened. --Ideogram 04:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Question, again, about the scope of this case

I see the question and the replies about the scope of this case above under "Question", but I would really like to have a more specific reply, and from an arbitrator. Ideogram, feel free to comment on what I say, of course, but please note that your views on what I may or may not do aren't what I'm asking for at this time. (Nor the views of Certified.Gangsta, if it comes to that.) And "any info that may be useful" and "any relevant info" are sort of circular replies. What's useful or relevant depends on the scope of the case. While I appreciate that the arbs are very busy, humble users such as myself have other commitments too, and it may be difficult for us to give priority to writing up various kinds of evidence on the off-chance that it'll be of interest. These things take a lot of time. Anyway. I have two questions:

• 1. Is this case about the "interpersonal conflict"[2] (Durova) between Ideogram and Certified.Gangsta? Durova's brief evidence and Georgewilliamherbert's even briefer evidence and Sean Williams' long list of diffs are predicated on this definition. Or is the arbitration an invitation to give evidence for any sort of edit warring or any poor behavior by either of the two? This is what Sumple, Kusma, Wizardman, and Redcloud822 apparently assume. They have used their sections exclusively for evidence of (what they consider) edit warring by CG. There is no evidence section like that about Ideogram, and yet I don't take him to be an uncontroversial editor. Anybody who thinks he is is invited to read his block log, and his input in the InShaneee arbitration workshop, which IMO he used less to comment on the Inshaneee case, and more as a platform from which to troll old "enemies". I could post diffs for that sort of thing if a general consideration of Ideogram's editing is part of the case. But is it? Or is this exclusively about his conflict with CG?
• 2. I'm concerned about the behind-the-scenes role in this arbitration of User:LionheartX (aka User:RevolverOcelotX, User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH, User:Apocalyptic Destroyer, User:Guardian Tiger, indefblocked by Dmcdevit in January [3] as Apocalyptic Destroyer). Three of the statements requesting arbitration mention that they post at the request of LionheartX, and many more have been solicited for statements about Certified.Gangsta on their talkpages by him. Is it appropriate to try to turn this arbitration, by such means, into a campaign against one of the two conflicted users involved? LionheartX has written no statement or evidence of his own. Does that mean his role won't be considered by ArbCom? I think it should be. Bishonen | talk 20:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

I think RevloverOcelotX needs to be considered here at least a bit, for the help he has been to CG. I personally think he is the only reason why Certified.Gangsta hasn't been banned by the community yet, as CG could use "reverting banned editor" as a convenient excuse for his edit warring quite often, even if it was actually CG, not ROX who was editing against general consensus. CG's contributions are to a very large degree revert warring, nonsensical arguing, and trolling. While I do not always agree with Ideogram's opinions (we disagree on some naming issues) nor with his style (he is a bit quick on the trigger for my taste, it is easy to find lots of useful contributions and hard work trying to hammer out a consensus in difficult cases by Ideogram, who doesn't force his opinions on other reasonable editors. Let me just add that I deeply regret not having blocked CG before (I didn't because I was afraid I might be considered to be in a content dispute with him). Kusma (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you are really looking for an opinion by an arbitrator, but I wanted to mention that Gangsta has done his fair share of canvassing. I was pretty much expecting my behaviour to come under scrutiny here, so I won't be surprised if you choose to bring evidence regarding me. But I'm certainly not going to complain if the arbitrators dissuade you. --Ideogram 20:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately the scope of this case will be determined by the evidence provided. Arbitrators will necessarily rely a good deal on other users to provide this–we can't undertake a full investigation ourselves. I certainly consider the behavior of both Ideogram and Certified.Gangsta under scrutiny. Best, Mackensen (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Observation

I've not really been following the events leading to this RFArb - but my interactions with Ideogram have all, and without exception, been less than positive. On occasions (probably mistakenly) I have even suspected he is stalking me. Bishonen has provided many diffs on the evidence page, some I have not noticed before which display Ideogram's inimitable style of getting under people's skin in many different situations. In my experience he likes to involve himself, out of the blue, in a problem about which he generally knows little, and then keep shouting and jumping up and down until others finally take notice of him. Sadly once his presence is acknowledged then he become unstopable. This seems to be the situation here too, unfortunately, understandably and inevitably this odd behaviour seems to have a detrimental effect on the attitudes of others towards him. I'm afraid Ideogram, looks for trouble, asks for trouble and generally finds it. Having located trouble he then complains that he is in trouble which is what seems to be happening here. A pattern, unfortunatly, that is destined to repeat itself again and again. Giano 16:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well said. This is generally my experience as well. One could be more detailed about how he does these things (anyone remember the "Ideogram is a troll" RFC? has it been linked? am I misremembering it?), but the central point is that he shows up, very much out of the blue, generally very late in a conflict, and then begins picking at parties until someone yells at him. If no one yells at him, he keeps picking. If a person does yell at him, he gathers up a group of brand new "friends" (whoever was on the other side) and proclaims himself their helper. The psychology is unimportant: the effect is that things grind to a halt or have to tolerate really aggressive comments. (If people ignore him, he starts going to talk pages, as when I said that I simply wouldn't speak with him.) Geogre 11:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There has never been an RFC regarding me. Don't be so eager to cite one without checking the facts. Your description of my actions in a conflict is pure propaganda. In our last interaction, I never addressed you directly until you decided to attack me. I don't start flame wars, I end them. You're mad because I usually end them by making you look bad, but if you stopped flaming before I get there this wouldn't happen. There is no support for the claim that I "gather up a group of brand new 'friends'" etc. The other parties from WPCHINA supported me here from the beginning. Don't jump to conclusions about good faith attempts to discuss the issues raised by our interaction with other parties. You didn't think I post only to attract your attention, do you?

Don't throw these vague allegations on the talk page. If you have supporting diffs, post them. I will be happy to explain my behaviour in each and every case. --Ideogram 12:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Posted for Ideogram by Thatcher131 16:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

With a heavy heart...

With a heavy heart, especially since Ideogram seems to take the impeding decision quite badly, I must voice another sad suspicion. Looking at Ideogram's last edits I discovered that (s)he blanked and/or marked the userpages of a couple of other users with "this user has left wikipedia". The users involved are User:Ilovetaiwan, User:Wang C-H, User:Galindo, User:R1es, and User:Medcabemail. Many of their edits are constructive, but their edits often seem to occure in close vincinity to Ideogram's edits. Both points taken together do hint to more than pure coincidence. So I would like to recieve input what other editors think looking at those thing and if additional steps should be taken. CharonX/talk 02:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I do recommend a check-user request. R1es (talk · contribs) has 113 different edits, of which nearly half were on the 19th and 20th of April, a period for which Ideogram was banned. As well as the blanking/tagging that you mention, this edit [4] seems to be a peculiar coincidence. I don't see that the edits are in close vicinity chronologically, at least, no 3RR violations jump out at me, but there is a lot of overlap in terms of the pages edited. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have credible evidence, just file it. There's no point in talking about it or recommending it.--Certified.Gangsta 07:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Check User is a reasonably serious thing to request. It never hurts to think out loud before acting. Especially as I think that no-one has asked Ideogram for an explanation yet? I'll do so. Maybe after that, it won't be necessary. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram is taking the outcome pretty hard. I think we should drop this, pretend we didn't see it, give him a bit of space. So long as it doesn't happen again, it's no big deal. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what I have felt and why I spoke my mind here first. I did not notice any obvious abusive behaviour of those accounts at first glance, just that they were oddly linked to to Ideogram's account. I hope Ideogram will be able to pull himself together - he is, I believe, at core a good editor. I also won't pursue this any further unless evidence for profound abuse emerges. CharonX/talk 11:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, if he really have good faith in the project, he doesn't need all these drama on his talkpage. He made a poor decision to launch a harassment campaign against me, stalk me, and edit warring , he has to deal with the consequences. Just because he's a good actor doesn't means he has the right to create sockpuppets (block-evading ones).--Certified.Gangsta 04:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)