Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
Let's take a look at this new arbitrator. I now know his real name and identity, which are not particularly relevant here.
What is relevant is his age - born November 1990, which means he was 15 when he first joined Wikipedia, and 17 when he became an administrator at his second attempt. An extraordinarily rapid rise to power, now a member of the Arbitration committee having just turned 21.
Joining in early 2006, he showed a desire to become an administrator immediately, saying to Flo Knight "I was brought up in a rough part of Glasgow, Scotland I feel my knowledge of the Scottish delinquent personality would be of use as a 'Hall Monitor' http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=43600120, and then at editor review - "I think I may want Adminship, but I am worried I have been with Wikipedia for too short a time despite the fact that Adminship is the one thing I want most on Wikipedia! Please leave comments or advice about how I am doing, and whether or not I should go for Adminship. Also, if I did go for it would you honestly vote for me or not??? Thank you very much." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=69211753
Shows commendable dedication to the cause by his 'vandal fighting'. "Your new Wikipediaholic Score First of all, how did your score climb SO QUICKLY? How is it even possible to score that high if you're not Jimbo Wales? By the way, you made some errors in the ranking, like labelling 2nd as 2st, 3rd as 3nd, and 4th as 4rd. I have fixed them. AstroHurricane001 22:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)"
Also shows commendable ambition in his attempts to climb the ranks.
In February, his first application for RfA was turned down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...hip/Anthony_cfc . The comments are highly intersesting. "An interesting note is that every one of the powers he's applied to is one that Essjay holds; this seems almost like a form of wiki-stalking. In short, I think Anthony cfc just wants any power he can possibly get, and that's never a good trait in administrators. I do not trust him to handle the tools properly. Ral315 (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)"
Aso, in a bizarre request on another wiki in May 2007 http://wiki.editthis.info/Wiki/Special:Contributions/Shmm, he simultaneously joins and asks for administrator rights. He is turned down flat, although objects that "The fact I'm a Bureaucrat on a Wikimedia Foundation wiki, as well as the Developer for a private Wiki, surely seals the deal? --Shmm 17:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)", adding "I have a sincere desire to protect this Wiki, as I have being protecting others of the Wikimedia Foundation --Shmm 15:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)"
Is that true? Since that was before his second successful RfA, on what WMF wiki did he have Bureaucrat rights, in May 2007??
His user page talks about an interest in and knowledge of classical studies, but his main work on Wikipedia seems to have been 'gnoming'. His work on Good Articles is mostly minor changes to grammar (sometimes making it worse), or linking or applying templates or other inconsequential stuff. (I haven't checked that carefully, however, so take that with a grain of salt for now).
What are you happy about, idiot? That power-hungry teenaged bullies block all prolific content contributors and will leave wikipedia with self-describeid bulldogs? And I thought you like wikipedia (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Oh yes, tarc the bulldog, gwen gale has not imposed any bad block for the last 6 months, and I am sure she never will, and no matter how much you will bark it was me, who did it, and it was the best thing I did for wikipedia, you know stopping a bully at the time!
What are you happy about, idiot? That power-hungry teenaged bullies block all prolific content contributors and will leave wikipedia with self-describeid bulldogs? And I thought you like wikipedia (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Oh yes, tarc the bulldog, gwen gale has not imposed any bad block for the last 6 months, and I am sure she never will, and no matter how much you will bark it was me, who did it, and it was the best thing I did for wikipedia, you know stopping a bully at the time!
You fucked-in-the-head cunt, NOTHING you did has had any effect whatsoever on Gwen Gale's editing or blocking or recent lack thereof. She never bullied anyone at any time, you have lied and distorted and misrepresented that entire situation.
You are nobody. You do not matter. You are universally derided in just about every corner of the Wikimedia project that you touch.
You are a fucking psychopath with a dangerously obsessive focus on Gwen Gale and every step she makes. If I were her, I'd have the cops hunt you down, lock you in jail and throw away the dam key. You deserve no better.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 49
Joined:
Member No.: 58,650
QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 4th July 2012, 6:38am)
You fucked-in-the-head cunt, NOTHING you did has had any effect whatsoever on Gwen Gale's editing ...
Well, that would be about right for pretty well most of these characters.
Whatever Gwen Gale's strengths or failings, and a quick look at her user page with its charming Japanese lolicon doll persuades me she's a pleasant enough old luvvy albeit one I wouldn't necessarily nominate to lead the local Brownies group, she does seem to be an anonymous administrator and thus untouchable, a local sheikh in a kingdom of her own accountable to no one but the flunkeys in her cabal, the Annes and Janes she draws to her side and pets and favours not with treats and sweets but with the wikitools they'll need to take their place in the paedocracy when they reach their menarche ... Wikipedia, the children's encyclopaedia any pedo can edit.
I suggest administrators should be directly responsible to a board of trustees independent of Wikipedia, should be public and should have their credentials verified. Nothing else will check their excesses and their pretensions.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
QUOTE(FightingMac @ Thu 5th July 2012, 7:21am)
QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 4th July 2012, 6:38am)
You fucked-in-the-head cunt, NOTHING you did has had any effect whatsoever on Gwen Gale's editing ...
Well, that would be about right for pretty well most of these characters.
Whatever Gwen Gale's strengths or failings, and a quick look at her user page with its charming Japanese lolicon doll persuades me she's a pleasant enough old luvvy albeit one I wouldn't necessarily nominate to lead the local Brownies group, she does seem to be an anonymous administrator and thus untouchable, a local sheikh in a kingdom of her own accountable to no one but the flunkeys in her cabal, the Annes and Janes she draws to her side and pets and favours not with treats and sweets but with the wikitools they'll need to take their place in the paedocracy when they reach their menarche ... Wikipedia, the children's encyclopaedia any pedo can edit.
I suggest administrators should be directly responsible to a board of trustees independent of Wikipedia, should be public and should have their credentials verified. Nothing else will check their excesses and their pretensions.
Gwen Gale used to be an anonymous admin before she wrote two articles about herself. but this is an old story. She also used to be one of the most abusive and dishonest bullies on Wikipedia. Many editors tried to stop her, but failed. I did it. Gwen Gale has not bullied any one for almost 6 months, and I am very sure she never will. But to tell you the truth I cannot care less about Gwen Gale. She's not a bully anymore, and I am happy for her. I am mentioning Gwen Gale now only because this mention effects tarc as a red cloth effects a bull, and besides it so funny to taunt that stupid pit-bull that goes in circles ant bites its own tail. So, tarc, Gwen Gale is a good admin now, and it was me who made her to change! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bash.gif) And now go, bull, go. Please let's have some more fun.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined:
Member No.: 5,309
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 8th July 2012, 10:03pm)
So, tarc, Gwen Gale is a good admin now, and it was me who made her to change!
I find it charming that you STILL cling to this delusional fantasy that you have had any sort of effect anywhere. They even moderated your most recent post over at the 'ocracy;
QUOTE("zoloft @other site")
Members of this site sniping at each other — That's the most common way to get their posting privileges suspended.
Cut it out, Mila.
Topic locked.
and then locked the thread. Banned from en.wiki, banned from meta, probably about a hairsbreadth away from a ban at Commons, and even the 'ocracy doesn't put up with your delusional bullshit.
Y'know, its hard to be really angry at you, Mila...the pity we feel for you tends to overshadow any other emotion.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
QUOTE(Tarc @ Mon 9th July 2012, 9:26pm)
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 8th July 2012, 10:03pm)
So, tarc, Gwen Gale is a good admin now, and it was me who made her to change!
I find it charming that you STILL cling to this delusional fantasy that you have had any sort of effect anywhere. They even moderated your most recent post over at the 'ocracy;
QUOTE("zoloft @other site")
Members of this site sniping at each other — That's the most common way to get their posting privileges suspended.
Cut it out, Mila.
Topic locked.
and then locked the thread. Banned from en.wiki, banned from meta, probably about a hairsbreadth away from a ban at Commons, and even the 'ocracy doesn't put up with your delusional bullshit.
Y'know, its hard to be really angry at you, Mila...the pity we feel for you tends to overshadow any other emotion.
Well, zoloft, PMed me too. He told me he was unhappy when I said: "When I opposed tarc's block on Commons, I called tarc a person. It was an overstatement because no person could behave as tarc does." zoloft told it was dehumanization of tarc, but tarc, honestly, to you believe that somebody who wrote what you did in this thread could be called a person. To me it looked more like a barking of a pitbull not like a talk of a person.
Yes, I am blocked (not banned from meta) and banned on English wikipedia, but you know what I'd better be banned from wikimedia projects than to become one of these grimacing, screaming lunatics that witch-hunters that voted to ban lynch me just like in this video
Only in my situation it was worse because I was not allowed to say a word in my defense. So, tarc, what are you happy about that wikipedia treats people worse than Inquisition did, worse than Soviet Union did? As I've told you already, tarc, I am very proud to be excommunicated by these grimacing, screaming lunatics and witch-hunters because it means I've done something really, really good like for example turning one of them in a normal person. Am I going to be banned from Commons? Well commons have not yet reached the level of idiocy of English wikipedia. As you probably know, tarc, a friend of yours Beeblebrox tried to make me "banned from commons" a week or so ago. The only thing he seceded in doing was demonstrating that each and every word I said about him was correct. BTW I missed you there. Your presence, tarc, would have made the thread much more entertaining. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)
BTW, tarc, your latest post sounds much more normal than the ones above it, which means that not only I've changed Gwen Gale to the best, but I have also changed you, tarc to the best. You still should work on trying not to lie, but thanks to me you're getting there, tarc.
Well, I was sure that you will do your best to prove that you cannot be changed to become, no, not a better person, but simply a person, and I was right! Once again a stupid pitbull goes around biting its own tail . Thanks for the fun,tarc, but because you keep repeating yourself, it is getting boring. Also thank you for allowing everybody to see what I meant when I quoted 1984 about grimacing,screaming lunatics. Jimbo and govcom that allow such lunatics to vote in ban discussions aren't any better than the lunatics themselves. Bye, tarc.
Well, I was sure that you will do your best to prove that you cannot be changed to become, no, not a better person, but simply a person, and I was right! Once again a stupid pitbull goes around biting its own tail . Thanks for the fun,tarc, but because you keep repeating yourself, it is getting boring. Also thank you for allowing everybody to see what I meant when I quoted 1984 about grimacing,screaming lunatics. Jimbo and govcom that allow such lunatics to vote in ban discussions aren't any better than the lunatics themselves. Bye, tarc.
Maybe someday you will have a moment of clarity and realize all along that it is in fact you that is the bully, the aggressor, and the cause of your own problems.
Maybe you will realize that we are all the victims of your certifiably insane personality disorders.
Well, I was sure that you will do your best to prove that you cannot be changed to become, no, not a better person, but simply a person, and I was right! Once again a stupid pitbull goes around biting its own tail . Thanks for the fun,tarc, but because you keep repeating yourself, it is getting boring. Also thank you for allowing everybody to see what I meant when I quoted 1984 about grimacing,screaming lunatics. Jimbo and govcom that allow such lunatics to vote in ban discussions aren't any better than the lunatics themselves. Bye, tarc.
Maybe someday you will have a moment of clarity and realize all along that it is in fact you that is the bully, the aggressor, and the cause of your own problems.
Maybe you will realize that we are all the victims of your certifiably insane personality disorders.
And now I really have to stop responding to you. I would have argued my points, if you were much more polite and much less stupid, but because as it said "there's no sins but stupidity" there's no use wasting my time, arguing with you about anything anymore.
Once again I'd like to thank you for providing me with more than enough material that are going to be very useful for my purpose.
Well, I was sure that you will do your best to prove that you cannot be changed to become, no, not a better person, but simply a person, and I was right! Once again a stupid pitbull goes around biting its own tail . Thanks for the fun,tarc, but because you keep repeating yourself, it is getting boring. Also thank you for allowing everybody to see what I meant when I quoted 1984 about grimacing,screaming lunatics. Jimbo and govcom that allow such lunatics to vote in ban discussions aren't any better than the lunatics themselves. Bye, tarc.
Maybe someday you will have a moment of clarity and realize all along that it is in fact you that is the bully, the aggressor, and the cause of your own problems.
Maybe you will realize that we are all the victims of your certifiably insane personality disorders.
Mila, I am quite familiar with Soviet history, moreso than you realize. Fraudulent psychiatric diagnoses or not, I have to say that all of this Victim stuff is purely in your head. You blame everyone else for your wiki woes, but you know what the following have in common?
*Me *Jimbo *Meta admins *en.wiki admins *Arbcom
You. What is more likely; you are the lone crusader for justice and all these disparate entities are the bad guys, or that a bunch of different people are right, and you are the lunatic?
Btw, was linking to my Facebook profile supposed to prove something?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 11th July 2012, 5:30pm)
Mila, I am quite familiar with Soviet history, moreso than you realize. Fraudulent psychiatric diagnoses or not, I have to say that all of this Victim stuff is purely in your head. You blame everyone else for your wiki woes, but you know what the following have in common?
*Me *Jimbo *Meta admins *en.wiki admins *Arbcom
You. What is more likely; you are the lone crusader for justice and all these disparate entities are the bad guys, or that a bunch of different people are right, and you are the lunatic?
Tarc, if you are familiar with Soviet history you probably heard about Boris Pasternak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Pasternak who was expelled (excommunicated) from the society of Russian writers. It was very, very common in Communist Russia to excommunicate, expel, denounce, execute absolutely innocent people. Many famous, well-known writers, scientists, whatever, were putting their signatures under these documents. Does it mean that Pasternak and others like him were lunatics? No, their persecutes were.
In my situation even leaving alone my guilt or innocence, I was persecuted by a bunch of anonymous nobodies, and without any ability to defend myself (even my talk page access was revoked). This kind of proceedings are unacceptable in civilized world, and everybody who voted to support my ban under such conditions are "screaming, grimacing lunatics" described in "1984" Period. Jimbo, govcom and everybody who saw it and kept silent are dishonest cowards and I have no respect for any of them.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined:
Member No.: 5,309
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 11th July 2012, 3:22pm)
In my situation even leaving alone my guilt or innocence, I was persecuted by a bunch of anonymous nobodies, and without any ability to defend myself (even my talk page access was revoked). This kind of proceedings are unacceptable in civilized world, and everybody who voted to support my ban under such conditions are "screaming, grimacing lunatics" described in "1984" Period. Jimbo, govcom and everybody who saw it and kept silent are dishonest cowards and I have no respect for any of them.
More lies. You had ample time to defend yourself, both at en.wiki and at meta. The near-universal opinion is that your complaints had no merit.
I note that you snipped my question regarding facebook, so I will ask again; was there a purpose to posting a link there?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 11th July 2012, 7:56pm)
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 11th July 2012, 3:22pm)
In my situation even leaving alone my guilt or innocence, I was persecuted by a bunch of anonymous nobodies, and without any ability to defend myself (even my talk page access was revoked). This kind of proceedings are unacceptable in civilized world, and everybody who voted to support my ban under such conditions are "screaming, grimacing lunatics" described in "1984" Period. Jimbo, govcom and everybody who saw it and kept silent are dishonest cowards and I have no respect for any of them.
More lies. You had ample time to defend yourself, both at en.wiki and at meta. The near-universal opinion is that your complaints had no merit.
tarc, everybody knows you are a liar, but I do not understand what is the point in lying, if it so easy to prove you are? I was under a self-requested block since July of 2012, and was able to edit only my own talk. I was reblocked by govcom on February 7,2012 My talk page access was revoked on February 9,2012 My ban discussion that lasted one day started on February 11 and ended up on February 12. So how could I have defend myself on English wikipedia? Defending myself on Meta ended up in blocking of course. Although it is rather funny. Nobody sees anything wrong in re-blocking and banning me from English wikipedia over an absolutely valid RFC I filed at Meta, but when I defend myself at meta over block on English wikipedia, I am told I am exporting conflicts to other sites. Go figure (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)
Detective, you are absolutely right. I should not have fed a troll because it is not kind and not wise. On the other hand Selina should have removed tarc's screaming right away... Whatever... With this I am out of this forum for good. I will not even read it anymore. Bye , guys, it was nice to know some of you.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined:
Member No.: 5,309
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 11th July 2012, 7:46pm)
tarc, everybody knows you are a liar, but I do not understand what is the point in lying, if it so easy to prove you are? I was under a self-requested block since July of 2012, and was able to edit only my own talk. I was reblocked by govcom on February 7,2012 My talk page access was revoked on February 9,2012 My ban discussion that lasted one day started on February 11 and ended up on February 12. So how could I have defend myself on English wikipedia? Defending myself on Meta ended up in blocking of course. Although it is rather funny. Nobody sees anything wrong in re-blocking and banning me from English wikipedia over an absolutely valid RFC I filed at Meta, but when I defend myself at meta over block on English wikipedia, I am told I am exporting conflicts to other sites. Go figure (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)
More lies and distortion. You were at AN/I too many times to count, and frequently e-mailed Jimbo and Arbcom. So much so that I wouldn't be surprised if they blacklisted you. Every venue you have been to, people have found you to be the abuser and the aggressor.
Ever been tested for autism, Mila? I have a guess on where you'd fall on the spectrum.
QUOTE
With this I am out of this forum for good. I will not even read it anymore. Bye , guys, it was nice to know some of you.
LOL
You neurotic asshole liar, you will never walk away from this or any other internet forum where there's even the slightest chance that someone is talking about you. You will return here daily to check up on the latest posts. Guaran-fucking-tee it.
And for a 3rd time you duck the Facebook question, why is that, Mila? You are aware that that picture on there is not of me, right?
FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)
Who is AGK?, brand new arbitrator
Peter Damian Who is AGK? 
