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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ideogram 

message: 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" (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  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Question, again, about the scope of this case

message: 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)
replies: text: I do recommend a check-user request.    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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  With a heavy heart...