Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/YOLO Swag

When I started this journey more than six years ago, I had no idea what I was doing. I didn’t know the politics or the policies. I didn’t know how to make a difference or how to make this site a more harmonious, welcoming editing environment.

All I had was this youthful idealism as well as a bit of a rebellious recklessness. I was drawn in by the concept of this encyclopedia as the sum of all the world’s knowledge. It seemed like a project with limitless possibilities.

I appreciated the freedom to edit and the diversity of editors’ background that made collaboration that much more fulfilling. There was also a faint sense of community, of being able to relate to each other despite all our individual differences and eccentricities. The implicit acknowledgement that hate me or love me, we were all in this together. We all strived to build and expand this project, to educate the masses, to prove the doubters and naysayers who said this could not be done wrong.

Six years later, I am older and wiser. While I still value authenticity, brashness, and the mantra of “keeping it real”, the youthful idealism is in the rearview mirror. I suspect the aforementioned naive idealism was the reason most of us signed up to contribute to this project in the first place. Then we all had our disillusioned coming-of-age moment that hardened us. I am world-wearied and cynical beyond my years. Yet the passion to make this community a better place still burns.

If elected, I promise to the bring the passion (shoutout to Giano/Malleus), 100% transparency except privacy concern (open ArbCom balloting, no secret mailing list/IRC), efficiency, integrity (Malleus’ civility enforcement case problematic), accountability, and the sense of community back (editor retention, userpage freedom, joke banner, satire, humor, shoutout to ‘zilla). I still firmly believe that we have more common grounds than we think, that consensus-building is not impossible. As part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party, me and my running mate Count Iblis are offering fresh ideas and bold solutions. I truly believe together we can change Wikipedia for the better.

Last but not least, I have to give a shoutout to Bishonen for all her kind words and encouragement. I would not have lasted half as long here without you.

Wikipedians deserve better! We can do better!--YOLO Swag (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If elected, I would be willing to identify myself to the Wikimedia Foundation. I've only ever had this one account.

• YOLO Swag (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2012 candidate: YOLO Swag Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.

Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom selection and appointment policy, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.

1. Skills and experience:

   a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?

   A: I have a great deal of experience in dispute resolution on and off Wiki. I pledge to approach each and every case with an open-mind and carefully examine every single evidence no matter how tedious that may be. Since I am not an admin or a Wikipedia insider or belong to any specific faction/clique, I have considerably less baggage than most other candidates. I am a firm believer in impartiality and transparency. If elected, I promise to bring change, transparency, efficiency, and integrity to the discourse. As part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_ArbCom_Reform_Party, I will bring fresh ideas, bold solutions, and brave innovative proposals to ArbCom.

1. b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement.

   A:I was a named party in a previous ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram more than 5 years ago. The other named party, Ideogram, was subsequently community banned a few months after the conclusion of the ArbCom case for deliberately trolling me (as well as several other users) and driving me away [1]. Bishonen helped me drafted an appeal to ArbCom User:Bishonen/ArbCom_appeal_for_Certified.Gangsta which ArbCom responded by lifting my editing restrictions Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram#Removal_of_restrictions_on_Certified.Gangsta. Around a year later, I caught Ideogram editing under the sock User:Slashem and reported him to User:Jehochman. I also contributed to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/TingMing and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/PoolGuy (another sock farm case).

1. Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings, or with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions? What factors might generally influence you?

   A: I will treat each case in a case-by-case basis using a common sense approach and 100% transparency during the ArbCom decision-making process.. I am of the opinion that admins should be hold to a higher standard than the average newbies. There are plenty of good-faithed editors who are willing and able to do the job. We must not allow admins to play by a different set of rule. When I am elected, I will not be gun-shy in regard to desysopping rogue admins or making them re-apply for adminship. I will not hesitate to hand out long bans to sockpuppeteers who troll the project, harass fellow editors, and create an overall toxic/battleground editing environment. However, as I mentioned in response to Boing! said Zebedee, we must never forget that the ultimate goal is to build a comprehensive encyclopedia. The rules exist to serve the community not the other way around. We could not build a comprehensive reliable source of information without rebuilding the camaraderie and the sense of community among the mostly-disillusioned mainspace content contributors. They are truly Wikipedia's most valuable assets. Ultimately, my candidacy is about rebuilding the community's faith in the arbitration process.

1. ArbCom Practices:

   a) ArbCom and policies:

   i) ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.

   A:No. I view ArbCom as more of a Supreme Court. The role of ArbCom is strictly to resolve dispute. It is by no means a legislative body. Any discussion regarding changes to policies should involve the entire community.

1. ii) The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?

   A: The "Five Pillars" essay is mostly used for newbies who are not familiar with Wikipedia policies. It is too simplistic to be used in committee findings. Quite frankly, I expect the arbs to have a better grasp of the policies than the mere recitation of the "Five Pillars" essay.

1. iii) Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?

   A: Since ArbCom does not rule on individual content issues, the primary concern for ArbCom is user conduct during the dispute with regard to the adherence of Wikipedia policies.

1. b) Article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? Please give reasons.

   A: ArbCom does not rule on content dispute and that would not change. It is impossible for the arbs to have that much knowledge of every single topic that come up to make a determination of whether the editors are "POV pushing" or not. Like I stated in the previous answer, the ArbCom only concerns itself with user conduct, adherence of policies, dispute resolution, and the preservation of a welcoming harmonious editing atmosphere.

1. c) ArbCom and motions:

   i) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.

   A: Motion is a more efficient ways to "get things done". Sometimes it is tedious to see ArbCom cases drag on for months when the facts of the cases are indisputable. I am in favor of utilizing the "motion" option more often.

1. ii) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?

   A: If the facts of the dispute are murky and controversial, it is best to examine it with the time and care of a full ArbCom case. No, ArbCom does not have the right to overrule the consensus of the community. ArbCom also should not intrude divisive issues in the community by motion when no active case has been brought forward. That would be overstepping its mandate.

1. iii) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2012 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.

   A: I consider the motion against Malleus Fatuorum to be a gross miscarriage of justice Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement#Motion_on_Malleus_Fatuorum The fact that a prolific featured article writer could be repeatedly treated with such disrespect and hostility just for occasionally having a potty mouth is overly puritan and entirely uncalled for. From my vantage point, I saw a lot of finger-pointing and insinuation but very little in the presentation of actual incriminating evidence. The other motion, while occurring years before 2012, was the curious motion of admin User:Geogre (documented here Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_5#ArbCom_motion_re:_Geogre). He is an editor I hold in high regard due to his prolific mainspace contributions. This accomplished user/admin left Wikipedia in 2009 permanently due to the lynch mob mentality of the ArbCom motion. I strongly feel publicly humiliating and desysopping such a valuable asset to Wikipedia without opening an ArbCom case and allowing him to tell his side of the story is a miscarriage of justice.

1. d) Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:

   i) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?

   A: Absolutely not! Those are private records and should be destroyed as long as they are no longer necessary.

1. ii) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?

   A: n/a

1. iii) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?

   A: ArbCom should be as transparent as possible. All discussions not directly concern private info should take place in the relevant talkpage of the ArbCom case.

1. iv) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?

   A: It is absolutely crucial to protect the privacy of Wikipedia volunteers. I would do anything in my power to preserve and protect the privacy and sensitive personal information of editors. The fact that so many people were allowed to have access to sensitive information was a slap in the face.

1. v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?

   A: I would identify myself to the Foundation if elected as required but I do not intend to publicly identify myself.

1. vi) To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to see evidence used in Arbitration proceedings? To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to question witness' statements against them? To what extent, if any, does the Community have a right to see Arbitration evidence and statements?

   A: As long as the information is not private, all evidence and statements should be as transparent as possible. Users also have the right to see evidence used against them in Arbitration proceedings in order to adequately defend themselves.

1. e) Past Cases The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?

   A: Like I said before, I will treat each case in a case-by-case basis. Previous decisions made by a different group of arbitrators and under different circumstances should not be binding to future decisions.

1. Division of responsibilities:

   a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?

   A: At this point in time, I don't think there should be discussion to redefine the relationship between ArbCom and the WMF. The foundation has virtually no role whatsoever when it comes to dispute resolution and user conduct. The community and ArbCom (elected by the community) are better served policing themselves rather than letting the un-elected members of the foundation to intervene. The current arrangement is optimal.

1. b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?

   A:The point of my candidacy is to encourage a wider community participation to the ArbCom process. The CSN (community sanction noticeboard) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Community_sanction was originally designed to ease the burden of ArbCom. It was closed after this Mfd Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard_(second_nomination). While the CSN process had its issues, I think there still should be some sort of lower courts (assuming ArbCom is the Supreme Court), mediation, or other form of dispute resolution that both encourage wider community participation as well as easing the burden of ArbCom. The other issue is to figure out a more efficient way for the community to desysop admins (or make them stand for "re-confirmation") that have lost the confidence of the community without going through a tedious ArbCom case. This process could be especially useful for admins who constantly demonstrate their willingness to Wikipedia:Gaming the system. I would propose making admins open to recall Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall a binding process for all admins with a fixed set of recall criteria. Too often, we have witnessed admins who proudly proclaim they are part of the Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall program only to renege on that promise, change their recall criteria when a petition passed. This sort of blatant hypocrisy, quite frankly, is detrimental to editor retention and the overall editing environment.

1. Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.

   a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "civil POV pushers"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?

   A:Civil POV pushers could broadly be filed under as editors who intentionally game the system with bad faith (Wikipedia:Gaming the system). My take on the issue is that it would be extremely difficult for ArbCom to rule on content disputes. According to past precedent, ArbCom never ruled on content dispute. That, unfortunately, would not change if I were elected. The whole problem with upholding NPOV is often a group of editors with similar POVs could claim they have "consensus" especially in ethnic-related articles (Taiwan vs. China, Jews vs. Arabs, Japan vs. China, Greek vs. Turks in Cyprus, allegations of apartheid, etc) even though their edits are in fact violating NPOV. My view is that faux consensus (especially with Wikipedia:Canvassing) never trumps NPOV. My past personal effort to uphold NPOV in Taiwan-related articles and dealing with Chinese editors from WikiProject: China, who filled up Taiwan-related articles with pro-China, pro-annexation propaganda, was frustrating to say the least. Given that the number of Chinese editors far outnumber the Taiwanese ones and that very few editors who are neither Taiwanese nor Chinese take interest in the subject area mean it was David vs. Goliath. WikiProject:China essentially has a monopoly to gang-patrol all the Taiwan-related articles. I suspect the same could be said for many other sensitive ethnic-related issues. I promise to look at each case with an open mind and a sensible approach but unfortunately the ArbCom could only rule on behaviorial issues (such as edit warring, baiting, canvassing and other forms of underhanded tactics of civil POV pushers) not the actual content dispute.

1. b) "Factionalism" has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?

   A:Factionalism is of course a major problem. When evidence of factionalism is presented, the ArbCom needs to address it. We must not turn a blind eye on "faction" of editors to bully/troll/drive editors who are not like-minded off the project. The purpose of WikiProject is to encourage collaboration, not as a front to canvass against your enemies and recruit editors with similar POVs to form factions that gang-patrolled articles. My view is if the committee recognize "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, all parties of the "factions" needs to be punished accordingly to send a message that such conducts are unacceptable and have no place in this project.

1. c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?

   A:Obviously, editor retention is a huge problem for Wikipedia. I have been here since 2006 and I have personally witnessed the steady decline of high-quality mainspace content contributors. The statistics speak for themselves. A major theme of my candidacy is to bring the passion back to Wikipedia. Many quality content contributors and FA writers have left the past few years due to disillusionment. Many of the newbies find it impossible to get started. Many were treated poorly before they had a chance to fully familiarize themselves with policies. The other main cause with editor retention is in the old days, there were more rooms for straight talk, humor, and self-expression especially on editors' userspace. Nowadays, the political process is hijacked by self-important pseudo-intellectuals and civility police. These guys throw a shit fit whenever someone utter one of the seven dirty words. My own semi-satirical userpage was the subject of two separate Mfd (the 2nd one was successful due to canvassing) and the subject of this mile long thread Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/UI_spoofing that was later filed under Wikipedia:Lame#User:Certified.Gangsta. The outlawing of joke banners and other forms of humor, satire, and self-expression greatly decrease the morale and camaraderie in the community.

1. Reflection on 2012 cases: Nominate the cases from 2012 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.

   A: Well I think ArbCom has not been efficient in a long time. Fortunately, the community has been better at picking up the slack in recent years that fewer cases reach the ArbCom level. With that being said, I have to give credit to ArbCom for its efficiency in the handling of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay case. The entire case only took a little more than 2 weeks. I feel like that should be the level of efficiency of ArbCom I would strive to accomplish if I were elected especially in less complicated cases. As for less successful cases, one that stands out in particular is the Malleus' case, titled Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement, I mentioned in both my candidate statement and previous questions. The civility police, most of them self-important pseudo-intellectuals with very limited mainspace contribution, has been particularly unrelenting when it comes to potty-mouthed straight-talking esteemed mainspace content contributors. It has been an issue that has divide the community for quite some time. My view is, as I repeatedly stated throughout this Q&A, just because someone used one of the seven dirty words in the English language does not immediately equate incivility. It is not a blockable offense. I hold FA writers to the highest regard and consider them the real backbone of the project. The fact that Malleus was topic banned is a mistake, period.

1. Proposals for change: What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?

   A:I would propose 100% transparency in all forms of ArbCom communication other than sensitive private information. Most of the ArbCom business right now is conduct via e-mail, IRC, or other off-wiki communication. I fail to see how that is necessary for most cases. Use the talkpage so everyone could see black-and-white how ArbCom arrive to that conclusion. Also, like I mentioned above, I would encourage a wider range of community participation (which is also part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_ArbCom_Reform_Party platform) as well as establishing lower courts or something similar to the now-abolished community sanction board to lessen the burden on ArbCom. Another change I would like to see as aforementioned is to make controversial admins stand for re-confirmation without ArbCom's involvement. To do that, I would propose making all administrators eligible to be recalled with a fixed set of criteria set by the community (preferably through a RFC).

Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#Question:
#:A:

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. In past years, I have gone strictly based on points, as I was not familiar with candidates; that is no longer true. This year, I reserve the right to deviate from this past practice, but missing answers will still be noted. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.

1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?

   A: Way too long bro. I have been proposing the same thing since as far as 2008 Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/NWA.Rep/Questions_for_the_candidate. Given that arbitration case are usually opened when all other dispute resolutions are exhausted, I would like to see a more efficient ArbCom. I would also propose some "circuit" courts (assuming ArbCom is the Supreme Court) to speed up the dispute resolution process. Some of the Wikipedia:ArbCom_reform also has merit.

2. What is the purpose of a WikiProject?

   A: WikiProject is a good concept on paper for article collaboration and stubs. What we should bear in mind is that it must not be used as a form to Wikipedia:Canvassing and recruit editors with similar POV in order to "gang patrol" articles. This sort of things Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China/Archive/2006#Bad_edits_alert.21 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China/Archive/2006#User:Bonafide.hustla_and_pov_issues is blatant gang patrolling and should not be acceptable.

3. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?

   A: I don't understand what type of Wikipedians are considered "vested". To me, I hold the mainspace content contributors and featured articles writers to the highest regard. They are truly Wikipedia's most important asset. There are also obviously rare exception and amazing editors such as Bishonen (and back in the days, Geogre) who has been both carrying the mop and writing FAs. Quite frankly (and I know the voter guide writers will hate me for this), most of the guys who think they are "vested" are guys that are into Wikipedia politics and drama (see Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars#User:Certified.Gangsta) rather than improving the encyclopedia content. These people, such as some of the voter guide writers, obviously are not "vested". I will not, in any circumstances, give them any special privilege.

4. Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?

   A: If I could no longer carry out my duty due to unforeseen circumstances.

5. a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?

   A: No. We have seen time and again in numerous ArbCom cases that experienced trolls are good at "baiting" users into bad behaviors and then make the Tu quoque argument to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering out of their mess.. I have first hand of this low-quality tactic with troll Ideogram and his mass sock farm Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Community_sanction/Archive11#Recent_cases_involving_Ideogram.It is important as an arbitrator to thoroughly review the facts and evidence of each and every case instead of simply saying "it takes two to tango".

6. ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! a) How do you determine if abuse of the tools actually took place? Is there the possibility of a "gray area" in the interpretation of the policies? b) When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to act on a case of admin abuse, without having the scenario brought to ArbCom by another editor?

   A: a) There is no shortage of admins or potential admins who would like the mop. I believe admins should be held to a higher standard than the rest of the community. ArbCom shouldn't be "gun shy" when it comes to desysopping rogue admins.

b) Motions can be proposed. ArbCom is the last resort but it doesn't mean ArbCom should turn a blind eye to admin abuse. It should be dealt with in a timely manner with desysopping and ban issued as appropriate.

1. What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites? Specifically, a) Does the enwp ArbCom have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites, and/or can those actions affect the user on enwp? b) Is public evidence on other WMF sites valid in arbitration proceedings? Admin-only or private evidence?

   A: a) No. No jurisdiction over other Wikimedia sites. I don't use them myself.

b) I'm a big believer in transparency but behaviors outside of Wikipedia seems out of bounds for ArbCom. Obviously I looked at the Michael Suarez case myself. Sometimes you just have to use common sense. ArbCom should be as transparent as possible including its decision making process. I don't like the whole "admin-only" thing unless there are major privacy concerns.

1. What are your thoughts as to what happened to Mat Honan, since you are applying to be an arbitrator, one of the most visible positions on one of the top 10 sites on the Internet?

   A: It's not really a concern for me. I'm not as tech-savvy as the guy you mentioned. I don't "cloud-connect" my devices or link any of my accounts. If someone hack into my Wikipedia account and start acting random, it should be obvious that my account is compromised. I could easily open up a new account, openly identify myself, and resume my arbitrator duty. The compromised account would no doubt be blocked indef. I would also be willing to resign if that unfortunate event were to occur to avoid any potential controversy.

2. If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?

   A: I plan to be active for the entire duration of my term.

Thank you. Rschen7754 00:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. How do you contrast the decorum and behavior expected of an arbitrator compared with your behavior, which includes calling people "Creepy stalkers"? [2] Also, last year, you ran (as User:NWA.rep and received one of the lowest vote totals in the election, only receiving 16% supports. What have you done over the past twelve months that you believe would increase your percentage of supports this time around? SirFozzie (talk) 08:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   A: The creepy stalker comment has merit. Admin User:Jehochman, who was instrumental in the Ideogram community ban case 4 years ago Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Community_sanction/Archive11#Statement_by_Jehochman, took control of the situation and blocked my stalker User:Dengero for persistent harassment and for being a sleeper sock of Ideogram or someone acting in concert with the Ideogram account [3] [4]. He was later unblocked by Jehochman after he agreed to stop harassing me pending a SPI investigation, which I just filed. Given the ample evidence, the creepy stalker comment clearly has credibility. As for the low vote total from last year was primarily the work of Wikipedia insiders sabotaging my candidacy, specifically voter guide writers who persistently harassed me in order to derail my candidacy and credibility. Instances of such include a baseless sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NWA.Rep/Archive as well as mass canvassing in the deletion of my userpage Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:NWA.Rep (despite the fact that previous attempts to delete my userpage with wider community participation failed repeatedly Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Certified.Gangsta Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/UI_spoofing). Nothing in ArbCom election season surprises me anymore. When I stood as a candidate in 2008, another candidate blocked me without grounds and locked me from my own talkpage in order to force me to withdraw. The block was found to be baseless by arbitrator User:FT2 [5] and he left a note on my block log in the form of a 1-second block that the block was questionable and confronted the blocking admin User:Gwen Gale (who was also a candidate for ArbCom that year) on her talkpage. In short, that shows how far people are willing to go to derail someone else's candidacy. I would not be surprised if similar dirty tricks are used again this time around. All I could guarantee is I am smarter not to fall for it.--YOLO Swag (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. How should the committee handle extended absence (>3 months) by one of its members?

   A: I think it is important for candidates to make the commitment and time for the good of the project before running. If you don't have the time for the workload of being an arb, don't run. As for unforeseen circumstances, I would assume we could handle one less arb for a few months. I just think it is irresponsible to run when you don't have the time.

2. Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team: these were the initial internal teams set up by the Arbitration Committee. Whilst this division has now evolved, which part of in the internal operations of the committee do you feel you could bring expertise to, and why?

   A: I could primarily see myself dealing with case management and ban appeals support. I have participated in quite a few ArbCom cases including my own as well as the IRC case. I was also involved a bit on the now defunct community sanction board. At the end of the day, I don't think it would be difficult for me to pick up no matter which internal teams I end up being involved in.--YOLO Swag (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. In the last year, you have 9 months with 0 edits. In the year before that, you have 8 months with 0 edits. During those 2 years, your most active month showed 98 edits. Familiarity with community norms and activity on pending cases are important to being an arbitrator, so please explain a) why your activity has been so low and b) whether it reflects on your ability to be an effective arbitrator.

   A: My activity had been so low because I have been disillusioned with the project. I was treated extremely poorly by many people especially User:Ideogram and his mass sock farm, rogue admins who had a problem with my personal userspace, and self-important voter guide writers. I was trolled, stalked, harassed continuously by numerous factions in the community. I will spare you the details but I have compiled them here User_talk:NWA.Rep/Statement#Personal_encounter_of_admin_abuse_on_Wikipedia if you are interested. But the bottom line is this election is not about me. The reason I am running is to give the newbies a chance. Some of you may have noticed less and less people are running for ArbCom every year. Less and less people are willing to volunteer their time to this once-wonderful project due to the toxic environment, cliques, and politics. Even though my edit counts have been low in recent years, I still have a firm grasp of policies and continue to follow Wikipedia relatively closely. I hope this adequately answer your questions.--YOLO Swag (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why do you feel the need to be part of one of the most visible groups on the Internet, when as a Wikipedian, with singularly two articles created to your name, and with drama following you in the past, and what some people would consider a relatively uncivil remark for an arb, who needs to be good at dealing with problems, large fluctuations to your editing periods, and nothing which may single you out as an editor that is ready for big responsibility (e.g. adminship)?

   A: Like I stated during my run 4 years ago, carrying the mop in the form of adminship and being an arb are vastly different capacities. I think Geogre summed it up best during his ArbCom candidacy in 2006 ArbCom members currently debate, propose, and write, but they don't have to be chatting each other up. As an arbitrator, one doesn't have a way to "get" another arbcom member, unless you yourself violate WP:POINT, and that's something I have not done in the past and won't do in the future (Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Candidate_statements/Questions_for_Geogre#Question_from_Certified.Gangsta). I have demonstrated during my time in Wikipedia a willingness to fight sockpuppets (I caught a lot of sockpuppets of User:PoolGuy User:RevolverOcelotX and User:Ideogram for admins) and the consistency in my views (go back and look at my ArbCom election Q&A and candidate statements from 2008 and 2011). As for my comment toward Sven Manguard, I do not regret making it at all. Last year he went on a fishing expedition and character assassination campaign in a concerted effort to derail my candidacy. He went as far as filing a frivolous sockpuppet investigation against me with absolutely no evidence Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NWA.Rep/Archive. I do not regret making that remark because quite frankly the stalking and harassment from these self-important "voter guide writers" needs to stop.--YOLO Swag (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note you have expressed support for Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party. Do you consider yourself to be running solely on your own merits or are you representing the "party platform" of that organization? Do you think there is value to having factions in ArbCom elections? I also note that you commented on the talk page of that project as NWA.Rep on October 11, then came back and commented as YOLO Swag on the 23rd. Do you think it is appropriate to comment using two separate accounts on the same page without clarifying that they are both the same user?

1. A: I'm going to try to be as succinct as possible here. I read both Wikipedia:ArbCom_reform from 2 years ago and Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party and I think both have their merit. If you go back to reading my candidate statements and answers from both last year Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/NWA.Rep/Statement and 4 years ago Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/NWA.Rep, I have been very firm and consistent regarding my views to reform and change in the ArbCom. At this time, I am not officially running under the Reform Party banner but I have been in contact with the founder of the party and will not rule out running under that banner. I do not necessarily believe in "factions" but I believe in letting the voters know where you stand if you were voted into ArbCom. I have been very candid throughout my 6 years editing in expressing my views. The community is already bitterly divided by factions and cliques. One of the main reasons I am running is to use a common sense approach to bring Wikipedians together. As to your concern about my change of username, I changed my name through the legal/proper channel Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple with all my contributions/userspace/block log moved so it was by no means an attempt to create confusion. I hope I answered all your questions!--YOLO Swag (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your reply. I'd like to ask a follow up question if I may as it seems the situation has just changed. Count Iblis (talk · contribs) has just announced his candidacy and indicates in his candidate statement that you and he are running together in support of the ArbCom Reform Party. Is this accurate? If so, what specific changes do the two of you intend to try and effect as regards ArbCom practices and procedures? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. A: My view is by incorporating Wikipedia:WikiProject_ArbCom_Reform_Party courageous platform that Count Iblis drafted to the discourse, we could have an election that Wikipedians deserve. This election should be a serious discussion of bold solution, big ideas, and outside-the-box thinking that could fundamentally transform Wikipedia for the better in terms of editor retention, transparency, community building, and efficiency. Wikipedians deserve better than the status quo. I believe in the platform and I am honored that Count Iblis gave me a shoutout in his statement. However, I would not necessarily classify this as a "party" but rather a brave proposal to change and reform ArbCom on a fundamental level. Obviously, I would not do anything without gaining community consensus first. The presence of the proposal is merely to give the voters more options and let them know from the get-go the detailed plan and philosophy. While I endorse the platform and encourage reform-minded voters to vote for both of us, I do not endorse every statement and proposal Count Iblis has made in the past. My endorsement is strictly limited to the refreshing, solution-oriented platform of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_ArbCom_Reform_Party (even though I view it more as ArbCom Reform proposal and still leery of calling it a "party")--YOLO Swag (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Looking at the attitudes of Wikipedia contributors towards the management of the project, I see a rough spectrum from what I would call "Community" at one end to "Authority" at the other - some are more inclined to lengthy consensus-seeking while others prefer the quick exercise of authority. There are strengths and weakness to both approaches, and I think the optimum position is somewhere in between - though I'm an advocate of a position near the "Community" end.

   There's also a related issue, the "rules". Some contributors see the rules as being there to serve the community, while others appear to see the community as being there to serve the rules. I strongly favour the former, and I see the "rules" as closer to being guidelines that should be intelligently applied to each individual situation (with a few obvious "bright line" rules that need to be applied unconditionally). But I see many people (including many admins) who apply rules firmly and unconditionally.

   How would your approach to the issues of authority and the rules manifest itself in your ArbCom actions?

   A: I agree with you. When this project first got started, there was a sense of community that we were all in this together to build a comprehensive encyclopedia from scratch. Back then, editors could disagree yet still genuinely enjoy collaborating with each other. There were also more rooms for humor and self-expression particularly on userspace. People had thicker-skins and did not cry personal attack just because someone used one of the seven dirty words without directing it at anyone in particular. Back then, people did not go all lynch mob on someone and nominate his satirical userpage for deletion. In recent years, the project has been increasingly dealing with this so-called "clique" problem. Ironically, the "clique" that advocates the authoritarian approach also happens to be the ones that contribute very little to the mainspace. My view is Wikipedia rules' only purpose is to make sure there is a harmonious editing atmosphere. Wikipedia would not be the comprehensive encyclopedia it is today without the thousands of hours spent by good-faithed mainspace content contributors building it from the ground up. We must never lose sight of that. The minute we lose sight of what this project fundamentally stand for is the time Wikipedia cease attracting good-faithed content contributors (and stop being a convenient, up-to-date, reliable source of information). So yes, indeed, the rules are there to serve the community like you stated above, not the other way around. If elected, I would use a common sense approach as an arbitrator to restore the community's faith in the process. Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating being soft on trolls and sockpuppets. In fact, if you look at my record, I have a long history of fighting sockpuppeteers and catching sleeper socks. I do believe in rule enforcement. But I also truly believe Wikipedia could only be build up from the bottom up. A tyrannical heavy-handed top-down approach would only drive away more and more mainspace content contributors.--YOLO Swag (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. What does "Civility" mean to you?

   A: Just because someone used one of the seven dirty words in the English language does not constitute incivility. I have been making the same point since I first ran back in 2008. One well-known example is the Jimbo Wales-Bishonen incident Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_5#Arbitration_motion_regarding_Jimbo_Wales_and_Bishonen, which ultimately reflected poorly on Jimbo himself. Sometimes, trolls and disruptive editors deserve getting called out. Quite frankly, just because expletives are used does not necessarily equate incivility. I think the fact is incivility is a policy that has been frequently used as straw man argument to wikilawyering his way out of a dispute.--YOLO Swag (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of very limited situations, the Committee renders decisions only on matters at the request of one or more members of the community. Decisions on which the Arbitration Committee holds votes are passed or failed based on majority support. At times, the members of the Committee can be divided on an appropriate course of action, and voting outcomes will sometimes be determined by only one or two votes.

How do you feel about the concept of committee solidarity, i.e. all members of the committee standing by a decision that has been made in accord with committee processes? If you are elected, will you personally be able to publicly uphold the considered decision of the Committee as a whole, even if the position you took did not receive majority support? How would you deal with a situation in which you have a strongly held position that is not supported by the Committee as a whole?

I'll look forward to reading your response. Risker (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. A: I am very candid about what I would like to see in the ArbCom with regard to changes and reforms. One of the areas I would like to see changing is to vote on decisions without peer pressure. What I would do is to promise 100% transparency (other than private info) instead of hammering out ArbCom decisions behind close doors through off-wiki communications. Every single decision and decision making process will then be in plain view in front of the community and the named parties. To be perfectly candid, I am not in favor of the so-called "committee solidarity". The committee is there to serve the community. The arbitrators are only elected because of the community's confidence in them. When I am elected, I will take my mandate very seriously and continue to take a principled stance like I promised in my statement, Q&A's, and the ArbCom Reform Party platform.--YOLO Swag (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia is global, issues arise on a 24 hour basis, so it can be useful to have Committee members available across several time zones to deal with urgent issues as they arise and reach a consensus, and also to prevent fragmenting the Committee when dealing internally with issues, so that members in isolated time zones do not become detached from discussions mainly taking place in one time zone. Would you mind indicating either in which time zone (UTC +/- 0-12) you are located, and/or those hours UTC (0 - 24) in which you are likely to be available (being aware that some people are active on Wikipedia long into the night, and also that some people may not wish to reveal their precise time zone). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. A: I don't think it is particularly relevant to reveal my "timezone" especially given how screwed up my sleeping pattern is.--YOLO Swag (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that your account has been renamed several times (4 that I know of). While getting renamed once would be reasonable, and twice wouldn't be too suspicious, being renamed 4 times seems rather odd. Especially since 2 of them were immediately preceding your running for ArbCom, one gets the impression that you're doing this to make scutiny of your account harder - especially your old nominations. What do you say about this?

1. A: The notion that I changed my name to avoid scrutiny is completely ridiculous and baseless. I am proud of my record and my achievement here and I feel that I have absolutely nothing to hide. If you read my answers to the other questions above, I freely acknowledge my previous failed runs in both 2008 and last year and the dirty tricks that were used by insiders to sabotage my candidacy (I documented those two incidents in detail in SirFizzle question). I also acknowledged by previous ArbCom case in the mandatory questions and discussed at length about the circumstances that led to my ArbCom case with Ideogram. Given that block logs and contributions automatically transfer over to my new account, the name change is in plain view for all to see. Quite frankly, I find it hilarious that anyone would think that I am trying to conceal my record and avoid scrutiny by changing my name.--YOLO Swag (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you balance your repeated arguments against politics, cliques and factions (noted especially in the general questions and the response to Philosopher) with your standing as a member of the Arbcom Reform Party, a concept that is by definition both political and cliquish, and cannot help but to increase factionalism on Wikipedia and within Arbcom? Resolute 16:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. A: Most of your question I already covered in response to Beeblebrox. I believe in the platform of the party but I am leery of calling it a "party". I see it more as a plan/proposal to reform. I believe in letting the voters know where you stand on issues before you are elected. I want this election to be a debate of big ideas, reforms, and changes not another petty election of personal attacks and drama. That's the kind of ArbCom Wikipedians deserve. The point of my candidacy is not a power grab for the ArbCom Reform Party but to restore the faith of editors in the dispute resolution system which would help editor retention and community building.--YOLO Swag (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, a followup: Your entire campaign is about changing arbcom, but there still remains the need to hear cases. Can we trust - especially given your history of disappearing for months at a time - that you will remain a focused arbitrator, even if your attempts at reform fail to pass? You noted in your response to Philosopher that your long disappearances resulted from disillusionment with the community. Are you prepared to work within the constraints set by that very same community? Resolute 14:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. A: I promise to be active for my entire term when I am elected. I would not be seeking this position if I plan to take extended breaks. I strongly believe when we put our name in, we are making a major time commitment. I fully understand that reform will take time and effort, that change will not happen overnight. I am prepared to work within the constraints and continue to work toward reform and change with the backing of the community.--YOLO Swag (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee? Bazonka (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. A: My Wikipedia activity is entirely online. That will not change when I am elected. Other than identifying myself to the WMF when I am elected as an arb as required, I do not plan to engage in any Wikipedia-related off-line activities.--YOLO Swag (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you have a user page? -- Wikipedical (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. A: Because when I ran for ArbCom last year, a group of "insiders" and "voter guide writers" relentlessly persecuted and harassed me in various ways to discredit and sabotage my candidacy. One of the things they did was nominating me userpage for deletion as well as filing a frivolous sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NWA.Rep/Archive against me. The consensus for my userpage was a repeatedly speedy keep (documented here Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Certified.Gangsta Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/UI_spoofing Wikipedia:LAME#User:Certified.Gangsta). Last year, a group of editors (mostly voter guide writers) shamelessly used IRC as a way to stealth canvass (I can't post the links here but feel free to e-mail me for evidence) and push the MfD of my userpage through Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:NWA.Rep with significantly less involvement from the community than previous discussions about my userpage. Since then I have made it clear that I will never create another userpage unless I get to re-introduce my original one.--YOLO Swag (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted most of this to the discussion on the failed motion to "suspend" Elen, and if you find it phrased oddly as a question, that's why - the page was archived almost immediately afterwards. It occurs to me that maybe some voters might be interested in candidates' reactions to a question like this, so I'm asking it of each of you. It's a very open question, so feel free to ignore it or to comment on it in any way at all.

Is it an arbitration body we want? Do you think that's what we have? It doesn't seem to arbitrate at all, most of the time, it sits in judgement and hands down sanctions from on high. That's not the same thing at all. Do you think, instead, we've ended up with GOVCOM, complete with all the lovely political trimmings that brings along. If you think that's true - how did we get here, and is this where we want to be?

1. A: Sorry for the late reply. I believe we need thorough comprehensive ArbCom reform and a change of attitude from the "insiders" and self-important attention seekers who are more interested in the political mudslingings rather than mainspace encyclopedic interests. So yes, ArbCom has gradually move closer to being GOVCOM and the entire concept of Wikipedia and its dispute resolution structure have gradually deviated from its original stated objective. The two main issues I am concerned about are transparency and editor retention. We need 100% transparency from ArbCom to restore the faith of the community in this ultimate dispute resolution body. We need to help new editors break in more easily in order to retain and recruit editors. The number of editors have fell drastically over the last few years due to disillusionment with the politics. ArbCom has rejected too many cases and taken on new responsibilities that was outside of its stated objective upon its founding. What we need is a more defined role and a more streamlined dispute resolution process. I proposed four years ago about creating circuit courts with elected "judges" (similar to the community sanction board that was abolished a few years ago) to take the pressure off ArbCom (assuming it is the Supreme Court) and to better mediate minor disputes. In fact, many disputes in "frontier" articles end up being unresolved in a timely manner or an admin would block unilaterally or the issue simply gets referred to AN/I, which usually end up driving a lot of potential editors away. I also believe ArbCom is better served going back to its stated objective "arbitrating" disputes instead of taking on a bunch of new responsibilities that have little to do with arbitrating disputes. The good thing is at least ArbCom election happen every year with significant community input to keep arbitrators mindful of the fact that they are serving the interest of the community, not the other way around.--YOLO Swag (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Questions: 1) Would you close an RfC that was happening as part of a formal mediation but wasn't to be closed by the mediator/s when you had 3 months previously participated in an AN/I discussion and !vote in which you supported the indef-block of an especially vocal party to the same dispute that resulted in said RfM and RfC? 2) Assuming this has happened inappropriately, what remedy would you suggest? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A: I'm not sure what particular situation you have in mind. But I think it is important for admins/mediators/arbs to be mindful from the perception of conflict of interest and recuse themselves from such scenarios even if it were a slam-dunk situation. I have a strong track record against "admin abuse", including my personal encounter with admin abuse documented here User_talk:NWA.Rep/Statement#Personal_encounter_of_admin_abuse_on_Wikipedia. I also believe admin abuse is one of the main reason Wikipedia has with regard to editor retention. Of course, if not enough people certify the RfC (2 other users) within a defined timeframe, the RfC would be deleted. As for the second part of your question, it would depend on the circumstances. If it were controversial, I definitely wouldn't take any option off the table and would not be gun-shy when it comes to desysopping.--YOLO Swag (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or more of a request: I'd appreciate it if you'd take part in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire, or if you decline, say here why you consider this questionnaire not to be worth your time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A: I'm working on it right now.--YOLO Swag (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)? You are welcome to combine your answer to this with my subsequent question:
2. on a related note, a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see here). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?
3. to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is too...?)
4. do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?
5. do you think the United States justice model with the highest incarceration rate in the world (List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate is something to applaud or criticize? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A: If a guy is found to be trolling in bad faith to drive away potential editors, he should be site-banned. A good example is Ideogram [6]. We have enough problem with editor retention that we need to take a hard-line against this type of cynical behavior. The other case for site-banning is when someone clearly demonstrates that he/she has no interest in building an encyclopedia but is only here to vandalize, disrupt and troll. However, we must be careful about labelling editors as troll. In fact, I would argue labelling good-faith editors as trolls adversely affect editor retention, morale, and the overall harmonious editing atmosphere. It could also be interpret as baiting and incivility. I largely agree with the premise of your essay. In fact, I have been making the same "net positive/negative" argument as far back as 2006. It is precisely for the same reason that I hold featured articles writers to the highest regard not arbitrators or admins. When good-faithed useful contributors who contribute to the mainspace either by doing research or upholding NPOV, yet get blocked over petty issues like incivility, interpersonal disputes, userspace joke banner, etc, we lose sight of what this project is all about. As far as comparing a block to real world legal concepts, I am leery of making the comparison. If you feel as hopeless as you are incarcerated when you are blocked, it means you are a Wikipedia-holic and should probably take a voluntary wiki-break. There are a lot of other stuff you could do other than editing Wikipedia. I don't think you could say the same if you were locked up in jail. Most short blocks are more of a warning for editors who refuse to adhere Wikipedia's policies despite being warned and offer a cooling off period between disputing parties. It should be used carefully and impartially in order to not bite newbies and hurt editor retention. Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because the guy you are arguing is a well-known "insider" doesn't mean you should be blocked by his buddies and he should get away with it. I don't have a problem with the United States justice model with the highest incarceration rate. Sure there are a lot of talk about the failure of the War on Drugs but I would rather live here than in Canada where criminals, sex offenders, gang members, drug traffickers roam free, get laughably light sentence, and most likely re-offend. The whole concept of criminal rehabilitation in countries that are soft on crime is a joke. Canada's pathetic effort to crack down on crime and drug dealing resulted in 2009 Vancouver gang war and emboldened ordinary people to take shortcuts to get rich. But as I said earlier, I don't think a parallel could be drawn between getting blocked on a website and getting locked up. On Wikipedia, most people edit anonymously under a screen name. If you were a newbie IP who vandalized the project, got an indef block, and then have a change of heart a couple of years later. No one could prevent you from signing up to contribute. Quite frankly, the same could not be said for a real life situation.--YOLO Swag (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Question: "The use of four letter words by editors in Wikipedia "discussions" is perfectly acceptable, as it quickly brings everyone to the "same level." - Do you agree? Thanks.

   A: Absolutely. I don't think there is anything wrong with the use of profanity. I would rather someone call me a piece of shit than a troll. Many voter guide writers have called me a troll in their "voter candidate guides". Apparently, that is not considered a personal attack. My question is, what's the difference?--YOLO Swag (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a deft and charming example. Good luck in the election. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it! And thank you for never calling me a troll (responding to your edit summary).--YOLO Swag (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]