In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 04:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC).
RfC (deleted Feb 19) restored to ease up ani thread. It will be, however, redeleted in 48 hour unless pertinent conditions are met. El_C 00:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certified.Gangsta consistently chooses to revert war rather than participating in discussion. He also loves to label reverts as "minor". When discussing he fails to understand points presented to him and does not yield to consensus. Please note that he has previously edited under the name Bonafide.hustla (talk·contribs). --Ideogram 05:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: He previously edited under the following names:
Certified.Gangsta to cease revert-warring. Participate in discussion of all controversial changes in good faith. Yield to consensus when it is against him.
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Gangsta and Ideogram slugging it out. The spectacle is observed by many Wikipedians taking a break from contributing to mainspace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.192.222 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 March 2007
There's two points that I'd like to make. The image may be silly, but I'm serious about the issue:
This RFC has been around for a while and has been advertised in several places. Not many users chose to comment, indicating that the Ideogram-Gangsta show is a distraction, a sideshow, not something that's pressing or worth commenting on.
Ideogram has an unpleasantly belligerent attitude [7][8] and must remember that Wikipedia isn't a battleground.
Certified.Gansta is a racist China basher. [[9]] Certified.Gansta should be banned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redcloud822 (talk • contribs).
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.