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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: ''Tu quoque''

message: 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)
thread_title: Locus of dispute

message: 4)  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" ().
: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)
replies: text: This is not a hypothetical statement.  , 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Email discussion with Kirill 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aha 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Personal attacks should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. In any case, his contributions speak for themselves. LionheartX 09:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: --Ideogram 07:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't be afraid 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lesson 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Let's count, shall we? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Asymmetricity 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Arbitrators ignoring evidence