Review opened 01:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Review closed 23:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC) See motion to close below

Clerk note: The Arbitration Committee has reopened Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram for the purpose of conducting a review as described below.

Involved parties

• Certified.Gangsta ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ideogram ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Ideogram ( talk · contribs)

Gangsta is continuing his tendentious editing, pushing the POV that Taiwan is not related to China. Replaces the WPJAPAN tag on Talk:Culture of Taiwan that was the focus of a lengthy edit-war. Calls a replacement of the term "Taiwanese" pov pushing. Replaces "Republic of China" with "Taiwan" and accuses another editor of pov pushing and making racist attacks. Replaces "Chinese "with "Taiwanese". Removes "Republic of China" while accusing another editor of being a sock with no evidence. Removes a singer from the "Chinese singers" category. Replaces "Chinese" with "Taiwanese", removes article from Chinese related categories. Removes "Republic of China", replaces "Chinese" with "Taiwanese", in an edit labelled "cleanup". Replaces "Republic of China" with "Taiwan", removes article from Chinese singers category. Replaces "Republic of China" with "Taiwan". Replaces "Republic of China" with "Taiwan", removes article from Chinese rappers category.

It seems clear to me that Gangsta is intent on violating the spirit if not the letter of the ArbCom sanctions against him, just as he was always capable of reverting up to the third time and then stopping. Since the goal of the ArbCom sanctions is supposedly to prevent "revert-warring" I hope the arbitrators will take note of the nature of the problem here and take appropriate action. If they feel that Gangsta is already violating the adopted remedy and it only needs to be enforced I would appreciate clarification here. -- Ideogram 08:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Note regarding additional evidence: the evidence I have listed above is pretty much the only new evidence. I hope that this process can be abbreviated and the problem can be "nipped in the bud". -- Ideogram 21:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I formally object to being listed as a party in this case. -- Ideogram 04:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Clerk note: Comments by other editors moved to talk page.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

• Comment -- might a motion to modify the remedies in the original case be easier, since all the basic facts are the same? -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 15:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

  That depends on whether you want room to consider additional evidence. A review could be opened (as in RFAR/Waldorf education/Review) or a simple open motion made below. Thatcher131 15:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Accept for a Review (as per Waldorf education). James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Accept for review. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆
• Accept. - SimonP 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Accept for review. FloNight 18:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Accept for review. Kirill Lokshin 20:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence relating to this matter may be posted here. In general, only evidence of conduct since the closing of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram will be relevant to the review, except as background information

Evidence submitted by Sean William

Revert parole violations

• Violation 1: [1] and [2], then blocked 24 hours by Ryulong ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). (The edit war consisted of more than two reverts: [3])
• Violation 2: [4] and [5], then blocked 48 hours by me ( Sean William ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)).
• Violation 3: Blocked 1 week by Vassyana ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for reverting across multiple articles without discussing.

Evasion of revert parole

• Just looking at Special:Contributions/Certified.Gangsta, one can see that Certified.Gangsta is reverting randomly on China/Taiwan-related pages, but is not violating the letter of his revert parole.
• [6] Certified.Gangsta has not discussed his reverts, which his revert parole requires him to do. Sean William @ 01:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Evidence submitted by Wizardman

Certified.Gangsta may be gone

According to his contributions, he has not edited in a month, and has yet to make an edit since his last block, as well as no edits since this review has begun. However, he may not be completely gone, as his contributions show rather large gaps at times. Wizardman 21:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Please use the talk page to comment on the evidence and proposed decision.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on the decision. Editors may make or comment on proposals on the talk page.

For this case, 12 arbitrators are active of whom none are recused, so 7 votes are a majority.

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

8) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

9) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

10) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

10) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

General

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

1. As Special:Contributions/Certified.Gangsta shows no editing since early June, I move to close pending his return. Fred Bauder 20:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Agree to close for now per Fred. FloNight 13:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply

   I wonder whether it would make sense to issue a remedy banning him until he answers us regarding the concerns that have been raised here. It seems unfair to those who have gone to the trouble to ask for this review to simply drop the matter. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply

3. Close, with the understanding that with any return the case can be quickly reopened. - SimonP 13:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Close; we can reopen this if/when he returns. Kirill 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Close. If and when this editor returns, a new review can be opened immediately. Paul August ☎ 16:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply