User talk:Certified Gangsta/Statement

NWA.Rep
This campaign is about the little guys and the average good-faith editors who are sick of rogue admins and want one of their own in ArbCom. I'm not an admin. I'm not an insider. I have no ties to the so-called establishment and I have no special interest or vendetta. I have never been to IRC. I'm not on any mailing list.

Three years ago, my ultra-grassroots arbcom candidacy ended in controversial circumstances that culminated with my departure from 'pedia. A fellow candidate, User:Gwen Gale, who was an admin, gave me an unwarranted block for voicing my concern about another admin's patronage of a sockpuppet []. Arbitration User:FT2 had the decency to step in and at least acknowledge the questionable nature of the block User_talk:NWA.Rep. After too many unwarranted block and constant admin abuse including standing up to a rogue admin in the now infamous Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/UI_spoofing, I was disillusioned and decided to quit Wikipedia for good.

Now 3 years after my long hiatus, I want to throw my hat to the ring one more time. I always said Wikipedia is at a crossroad. We are losing contributors, especially content contributors that actually makes this project works. The big-time players, the insiders, and the power brokers are not interested in actually writing an encyclopedia but only the political mudslingings to fulfill their egos. Admin abuse scares off newbies and potential valuable contributors who have something to offer to this comprehensive encyclopedia. I was a prime example of that during my initial foray to this site. Thankfully User:Bishonen took me under her wings and it pains me to see her, someone with so much passion, integrity, and love for this project getting crucified by a large chunk of the community who never contributed to the content. I learned a lot from several well-respected editors, which gave me an inside look of the intricacy of the wikipedia power structure. I commented a various high-profile arbCom case before my departure and regularly in AN/I and other policy making venues.

Wikipedia needs to dig deep and go back to the basic. Many Wikipedians here are losing sight of why we are here: to build a comprehensive encyclopedia. That's it. I’m running not only to reform arbCom, but to bring the spirit, love, and passion back to wikipedia. Obviously, we are all in ‘pedia for a more than selfless reason. We are volunteers after all. But keep in mind that all of us, no matter how we behaved in the past, all want to be part of a successful, comprehensive, and neutral encyclopedia

Being an admin is a privilege not a right and they should be held to a higher standard than the average editors. Gang patrolling articles? Unacceptable. Abusing/biting newbies? Unacceptable. Engaging in sockpuppetry? Unacceptable. Wikipedia needs a shakeup, a revolution. Rogue admins should be desysopped. Sockpuppets should be banned permanently. ArbCom is the driving force of wikipedia. The biggest problem of ‘pedia is admin abuse. The rogue admins far exceed the good ones. ArbCom rarely desysop any admins, which is a complete paradox given that we have so many new qualified editors who are not admins. The establishment has failed us and failed its stated objective. 5 years ago, there were more than 40 people running for arbCom and tons of people applying for adminship. Where is the love now? It's time to restore the public's faith in Wikipedia again. Voting for independent-minded "mavericks" with common sense and no factional/clique ties to the ultimate dispute resolution body is a good start.--NWA.Rep (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am well-aware of the fact that running in this election put me under increased scrutiny. Like my last run 3 years ago, this campaign will no doubt attract rogue admins to wiki-stalk and censor my contribution to the project in order to find an excuse to forcibly end my campaign. In fact, the scrutiny already seemed to have started. After my interaction with User:Sven Manguard about an unfounded allegation against me on his candidate guide User_talk:Sven_Manguard, he responded by wiki-stakling and censoring my contribution to improve the quality standards of articles he previously took no interest in. Effort to discuss with editors knowledgeable in the subject area fell on deaf ears Talk:Allen_Iverson. But I will not let that deter me. Due to the possibility of wiki-stalking and baiting from those who do not want me in the election, I will refrain from making any mainspace edits throughout the duration of the election.--NWA.Rep (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I am a staunch opponent of sockpuppetry of any kind and obvious operate no alternate accounts. All of my previous other name change were done through the proper name change requests and all the edits I made previously were transferred over to my current name. I am of legal age and have no problem identifying myself to the committee/foundation if elected.--NWA.Rep (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal encounter of admin abuse on Wikipedia
Keep in mind that what I have encountered in these instances is no isolated incidents. It may have happened to you. It very well could happen to you in the future.

1. December 2006: Admin User:Centrx used his admin tool to block me for 1 second with the note This user's contribs appear to be almost exclusively revert warring and accusing established editors of vandalism despite no prior interaction whatsoever. After lengthy discussion on AN/I (Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive65), it was found that Centrx should not be using 1 second block in this manner [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=92074217#One_second_blocks} However, Centrx refused to acknowledge his mistake or apologize for his misuse of 1 second block despite community consensus against the use of 1 second block in his manner.

2. February 2007: Admin User:David Levy unilaterally remove joke banner from my userpage with no consensus and blocked me after I restored it despite numerous admins urging him not to block. This entire episode resulted in the now infamous Wikipedia talk:User pages/UI spoofing, and earned a spot in Lame. David Levy later put a notice on my block log acknowledging his block was not met with community consensus and I was allowed to keep the banner.

3. March 2007: Admin User:Kurykh mistakenly blocked me for 3RR when 3RR was in fact not violated. He unblocked 3 minutes later.

4. March 2007: Admin User:Viridae blocked me for 3RR despite no violation while turning a blind eye on similar behavior by User:Ideogram who actually violated 3RR. Viridae then attempted to justify his unwarranted block by accusing me of violating the "spirit" of 3RR while continuing to turn a blind eye on Ideogram. Outside observer User:Bladestorm noted the double standard but Viridae refused to unblock, block Ideogram for 3RR, or apologize on the block log.

5. May-June 2007: After the ArbCom case of Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram, 3 blocks ensued due to violations of my parole editing restrictions. However, Ideogram was later found to have trolled and baited me and deliberately drove me and other editors away as well as engaging in sockpuppetry to gain an upper hand in his community ban case. It was found that Ideogram, virtuously enumerating CG's parole violations in this review, was himself evading his own symmetrical parole much more efficiently by large-scale sockpuppeteering. After Ideogram's ban, ArbCom accepted my appeal and lifted my editing restriction User:Bishonen/ArbCom_appeal_for_Certified.Gangsta which was endorsed by respected admins Bishonen, Jehochman, among others. It was accepted by ArbCom Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

6. November 2008: During my previous run for ArbCom, a fellow candidate User:Gwen Gale vindictively stalked and blocked me for one week after I questioned User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise patronage of a major sockpuppeteer which ultimately resulted in my withdraw from the election and departure from Wikipedia. Arbitrator User:FT2 found the block to be questionable User_talk:NWA.Rep and added the notice stating this in my block log. Gwen Gale was soon forced to withdraw from the election due to being exposed to have started 2 articles on herself and editing them. She was also found to have used socks to edit articles Arbcom blocked her from and continued to use several IPs and socks. This could explain her motivation to aid Future Perfect's patronage of a major sockpuppeteer.--NWA.Rep (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom election voter guides
According to the summary of all the voter guides compiled here User:Monty845/ACE2011, the establishment admins/editors who write these voter guides (and want to make your decisions for you), have overwhelmingly OPPOSE my candidacy. Why I am not surprised. There are issues that the average editors encounter day-to-day on Wikipedia that these power brokers do not want to address or add to the discourse. On one of the voter guides, User:Rschen7754/ACE2011, a recurring theme is to classify me as "too radical" or "out there". Wikipedia needs a shakeup, a revolution. We are sick of getting run over by rogue admins. We are tired of being told what to do by factory-made zombies and robots who are only interested in the politics rather than the content of the encyclopedia. We must prove that the average content writers who have a life and only edit Wikipedia as a hobby have a voice too. It does not have to come from me, but this grassroots movement must not die or this encyclopedia has no hope. Thank you for considering me for this election.--NWA.Rep (talk) 05:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

New abuse during ArbCom Election
I guess the establishment has to find another way to make me retire again after I pledge not to make any mainspace edits so they won't have any excuse to wiki-stalk my contribution or block me. No abuse is complete without reviving Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Certified.Gangsta and Wikipedia talk:User pages/UI spoofing again. My userpage, after more than 3 years of relative quiet, is now nominated for deletion by 2 users who obviously have nothing better to do. That is exactly why so many potentially valuable content contributors are disillusioned or leaving Wikipedia.--NWA.Rep (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)