N.W.A Rep, also known as Certified.Gangsta has a poor history in the project, with 6 blocks and his very own ArbCom case over a year ago. [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram]]. He also has a PoV pushing against China articles, which is suspicious for a type of editor he claims to be. I was going to discount his candidacy as a joke, but while reading the answers of the few questions he replied so far, it's surprisingly well and valid, especially The Land Surveyor questions.
He won't get elected but the answers may is too good to ignore.
That's it for spamming this topic for now, a new section should be formed to discuss all the candidacies.
Full Version: N.W.A Rep candinacy
Don't you think there is already enough discussion on this site about the "candidacies"? There are already 3-4 other general threads discussing this.
I may as well "spam" my reply to your threads.
The Arbitration Committee is almost entirely irrelevant at Wikipedia. The committee is not "the leadership". It oversees only a handful of convoluted cases a year that generally have nothing to do with an encyclopedia's content. Most of these cases relate only to ridiculous trivial dramatic feuds. And even then, the Arbitration Committee tends to fudge a verdict, resulting in conditions that are little different to those if the players had never bothered bringing it up at all. Simply a tremendous waste of time.
The Arbitration Committee provides just another avenue for gameplayers to relieve their drama fixes. These annual elections in particular serve no purpose other than to provide a dramatic Carnival of the Absurd every year. This circus kicks up much negative drama that is clearly harmful to Wikipedia - with no net gain.
If people can't see this, then I suggest that they are so addicted to this crap they've lost all perspective, and should seek professional help.
I may as well "spam" my reply to your threads.
The Arbitration Committee is almost entirely irrelevant at Wikipedia. The committee is not "the leadership". It oversees only a handful of convoluted cases a year that generally have nothing to do with an encyclopedia's content. Most of these cases relate only to ridiculous trivial dramatic feuds. And even then, the Arbitration Committee tends to fudge a verdict, resulting in conditions that are little different to those if the players had never bothered bringing it up at all. Simply a tremendous waste of time.
The Arbitration Committee provides just another avenue for gameplayers to relieve their drama fixes. These annual elections in particular serve no purpose other than to provide a dramatic Carnival of the Absurd every year. This circus kicks up much negative drama that is clearly harmful to Wikipedia - with no net gain.
If people can't see this, then I suggest that they are so addicted to this crap they've lost all perspective, and should seek professional help.
QUOTE(Kato @ Fri 21st November 2008, 7:52am) 
Don't you think there is already enough discussion on this site about the "candidacies"? There are already 3-4 other general threads discussing this.
Having a thread for each candidate allows for a more cohesive discussion on each individual. We're overlooking a lot of them in favor of the big names. Do we really want to miss out on the next Jayjg or SlimVirgin?
N.W.A Rep is what "Certified Gangsta" is called these days.
He has recently been blocked for a week for edit warring in favor including a description (well-sourced, of course) of Salma Hayek's breasts in the lead sentence of her BLP.
And, um, I don't think he was vandalising or joking. He seemed quite serious that a reference to her "large, natural breasts" should be included....
I love Wikipedia.
He has recently been blocked for a week for edit warring in favor including a description (well-sourced, of course) of Salma Hayek's breasts in the lead sentence of her BLP.
And, um, I don't think he was vandalising or joking. He seemed quite serious that a reference to her "large, natural breasts" should be included....
I love Wikipedia.
Ahh I was watching that one unfold - wondered whether he would be blocked.
Oh and there are more blocks on this account: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...AFreestyle.king
and this account http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Bonafide.hustla
Oh and there are more blocks on this account: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...AFreestyle.king
and this account http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Bonafide.hustla
Actually, it either leave things at the state it already is or exchange content quality with peace.
Scenario:
POV pusher, user:A
Good intentioned user: user:B
user:A engage in pov pushing, it is reverted by user:B. user:A is experienced in Wikipedia policies and continue his disruption with civil pov pushing, cornering his adversary in a strategy game.
Then things degenerate and the case goes to arbitration.
Now at most user:A and user:B will have the same restrictions, at worst user:B will have a worst outcome. user:A knows how to conduct during the arbitration, user:B doesn't care of such conduct all he cares was that user:A was POV pushing.
So it's all a matter of what the arbcom has termed as 'behavior' which is = to revert warring and personal attack. Only when you are a known member such as Elonka can you ever expect content disruption to be at the center of things.
So most of the time, the arbitration can only work against content, because either it restrict the two, which will work against, or either it will punish user:B more than they do with user:A, because most of the disruption user:A does relate to content, something which the arbitrators wash their hand on, unless you're Elonka or other similar users.
The thing is that if user:A continue disruption and that user:B is still permitted to edit, inevitably user:B will be on the back of user:A. And since the arbitration doesn't give a sh!t for content, the only way to bring peace is to ban user:B.
The arbitration then, can only serve the popular members and those who disrupt and who know the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing game]. Anyone else is damned.
Don't you think there is already enough discussion on this site about the "candidacies"? There are already 3-4 other general threads discussing this.
I may as well "spam" my reply to your threads.
The Arbitration Committee is almost entirely irrelevant at Wikipedia. The committee is not "the leadership". It oversees only a handful of convoluted cases a year that generally have nothing to do with an encyclopedia's content. Most of these cases relate only to ridiculous trivial dramatic feuds. And even then, the Arbitration Committee tends to fudge a verdict, resulting in conditions that are little different to those if the players had never bothered bringing it up at all. Simply a tremendous waste of time.
The Arbitration Committee provides just another avenue for gameplayers to relieve their drama fixes. These annual elections in particular serve no purpose other than to provide a dramatic Carnival of the Absurd every year. This circus kicks up much negative drama that is clearly harmful to Wikipedia - with no net gain.
If people can't see this, then I suggest that they are so addicted to this crap they've lost all perspective, and should seek professional help.
Scenario:
POV pusher, user:A
Good intentioned user: user:B
user:A engage in pov pushing, it is reverted by user:B. user:A is experienced in Wikipedia policies and continue his disruption with civil pov pushing, cornering his adversary in a strategy game.
Then things degenerate and the case goes to arbitration.
Now at most user:A and user:B will have the same restrictions, at worst user:B will have a worst outcome. user:A knows how to conduct during the arbitration, user:B doesn't care of such conduct all he cares was that user:A was POV pushing.
So it's all a matter of what the arbcom has termed as 'behavior' which is = to revert warring and personal attack. Only when you are a known member such as Elonka can you ever expect content disruption to be at the center of things.
So most of the time, the arbitration can only work against content, because either it restrict the two, which will work against, or either it will punish user:B more than they do with user:A, because most of the disruption user:A does relate to content, something which the arbitrators wash their hand on, unless you're Elonka or other similar users.
The thing is that if user:A continue disruption and that user:B is still permitted to edit, inevitably user:B will be on the back of user:A. And since the arbitration doesn't give a sh!t for content, the only way to bring peace is to ban user:B.
The arbitration then, can only serve the popular members and those who disrupt and who know the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing game]. Anyone else is damned.
QUOTE(Kato @ Fri 21st November 2008, 10:52am)
Don't you think there is already enough discussion on this site about the "candidacies"? There are already 3-4 other general threads discussing this.
I may as well "spam" my reply to your threads.
The Arbitration Committee is almost entirely irrelevant at Wikipedia. The committee is not "the leadership". It oversees only a handful of convoluted cases a year that generally have nothing to do with an encyclopedia's content. Most of these cases relate only to ridiculous trivial dramatic feuds. And even then, the Arbitration Committee tends to fudge a verdict, resulting in conditions that are little different to those if the players had never bothered bringing it up at all. Simply a tremendous waste of time.
The Arbitration Committee provides just another avenue for gameplayers to relieve their drama fixes. These annual elections in particular serve no purpose other than to provide a dramatic Carnival of the Absurd every year. This circus kicks up much negative drama that is clearly harmful to Wikipedia - with no net gain.
If people can't see this, then I suggest that they are so addicted to this crap they've lost all perspective, and should seek professional help.
Aaaand here is the customary leaving essay:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NWA.Rep&oldid=253335349
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.