Who is AGK?, brand new arbitrator Options

[Peter Damian]

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.

December 27, 2006: adds himself http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=95877655 to the standby list for CheckUser clerks. Not yet granted.
December 29, 2006: requests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Med...ons/Anthony_cfc to join the mediation committee. Denied.
December 31, 2006: requests http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...93&oldid=503873 OTRS access. Not granted.
January 9, 2007: requests http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...ev&oldid=509373 CheckUser access. Denied.
January 16, 2007: attempts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...uest_for_Access to gain access to the Bot Approvals Group. Denied.

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).

Is this the kind of arbitrator Wikipedia needs?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 1st January 2012, 5:59pm

[Tarc]

Long time no see, Mila, I thought you had quit all Wikimedia projects, but I see you've gone on quite a tear over at the Commons over the last month or so.

So is AGK the new object d'attraction? Gwen Gales doesn't get you all hot and bothered anymore?

[mbz1]

Long time no see, Mila, I thought you had quit all Wikimedia projects, but I see you've gone on quite a tear over at the Commons over the last month or so.

So is AGK the new object d'attraction? Gwen Gales doesn't get you all hot and bothered anymore?

My attention on wikipedia is bullying. gwen gale has not bullied anybody since at least February, the time of my lynching. For the last half year she blocked only 4-5 IP vandals, and that's it. I have a very good reasons to believe that behind the scene WMF did something to reduce a pleasure she was getting from bullying 16 years old kids.
Many editors before me tried to stop Gwen Gale from bullying, they all got persecuted and blocked, and Gwen Gale continued with her bullying. I also got persecuted and lynched, but I stopped Gwen Gale!

This post has been edited by mbz1: Tue 26th June 2012, 5:38pm

[Tarc]

I have a very good reasons to believe that behind the scene WMF did something to reduce a pleasure she was getting from bullying 16 years old kids.

Or the more plausible explanation is that she hasn't come across many vandals lately and hasn't had to use the tools. Your claim that there was a secret behind-the-scenes sanction is laughably delusional. The only thing that tops that is your belief that what you said had any effect whatsoever on WMF doings. You're a pariah that either gets ignored or reverted following repeated pesterings of their talk pages.

[mbz1]

I have a very good reasons to believe that behind the scene WMF did something to reduce a pleasure she was getting from bullying 16 years old kids.

Or the more plausible explanation is that she hasn't come across many vandals lately and hasn't had to use the tools. Your claim that there was a secret behind-the-scenes sanction is laughably delusional. The only thing that tops that is your belief that what you said had any effect whatsoever on WMF doings. You're a pariah that either gets ignored or reverted following repeated pesterings of their talk pages.

Gwen gale has not blocked anybody for more than a month, and she used to block a few editors per day, and I have a very good reasons to believe she was told to stop bullying editors (not vandals, but kids and newbies) .

Yes, right, Sue ignored me calling you, tarc, a liar because she probably agrees with my description of you.
But Philippe (WMF) and Geoffbrigham responded my posts.
And now, if you could please return to the subject of this thread,which I believe is AGK, it will be great...

This post has been edited by mbz1: Tue 26th June 2012, 7:31pm

[Tarc]

Gwen gale has not blocked anybody for more than a month, and she used to block a few editors per day, and I have a very good reasons to believe she was told to stop bullying editors (not vandals, but kids and newbies) .

Again; you are deliusional.

Yes, right, Sue ignored me calling you, tarc, a liar because she probably agrees with my description of you.

Yes, because in much of the English-speaking world, silence means agreement.

But Philippe (WMF) and Geoffbrigham responded my posts.
And now, if you could please return to the subject of this thread,which I believe is AGK, it will be great...

Geoff posted a very long-winded brush-off.

Phillipe responded to you on 31 May, telling you that he was not going to comment o nsome aspects due to legal reasons, and ten pointed out several places where you lied. Would you like me to quote some of those? "Third, you statement that Wikipedia is the only environment that bans people is patently false" was a good one, as well as "You bear some responsibility for the nature of your contributions that led to the situation."

He then reverted your entire rant, uncommented-upon, June 1st.

[mbz1]

Gwen gale has not blocked anybody for more than a month, and she used to block a few editors per day, and I have a very good reasons to believe she was told to stop bullying editors (not vandals, but kids and newbies) .

Again; you are deliusional.

tarc, I am never delusional, and if I am saying something I could prove my words.

As a result of my RFC gwen was questioned about two bullying blocks she imposed:

Block #1 and
block #2

Then Phillipe (WMF) stated this publicly on wiki http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=71873750

You were heard, and listened to, but I am not at liberty to say what, if any, action was taken. There are very real legal and ethical boundaries that we can not cross..

So as you could see he admits I was " heard, and listened to" and of course there were some private communications that I cannot reveal here. There were actions taken, trust me on that. WMF got involved with a bullied kid's story except it was too late for protecting this kid.

Besides not connected to my RFC in any way there was an article in
The Chronicle Review http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Wei...ruth-on/130704/ which successfully demonstrated how gwen gale made a fool not only of herslef, but also of wikipedia. After reading this article an editor came to Gwen's talk page and had this to say: "I looked at the page and discussion in question, and it seems to me that you are boorish and a bully. I would like to suggest that you tone down your air of self-righteous authority, in order to encourage a more civil atmosphere on Wikipedia."
The publication of this article at the very same day I got reblocked by govcom is a great symbolism!

Now, here's Gwen Gale block log http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block/Gwen_Gale
As you see the last block of IP vandal was imposed on May 16. Today is June 26, which makes it more than a month.

I have absolutely nothing against gwen personally. I believe she has a sense of humor, and once I even awarded her a barnstar for this. My problem is bullying. Gwen Gale as many other abusive admins gets a pleasure of bullying. It is sick. I hope my RFC, the article in The Chronicle Review, a few posts at Gwen's page I linked to above, the story with a 16-years old kid feeling as killing himself because she bullied him (do not provide links in purpose to protect the kid) and so on healed gwen from experiencing a pleasure from bullying and I am happy mostly for her.

Yes, right, Sue ignored me calling you, tarc, a liar because she probably agrees with my description of you.

Yes, because in much of the English-speaking world, silence means agreement.

I am trilled that we were able to agree on this. In my culture "silence means agreement" too.

And now,could you please ignore me too?

This post has been edited by mbz1: Wed 27th June 2012, 12:43am

[Tarc]

I am trilled that we were able to agree on this. In my culture "silence means agreement" too.

That was sarcasm, you fucking retard.

Let me make this real clear for you; the Wikimedia Foundation thinks you're a bat-shit insane lunatic. They either brush you off, ignore you, or revert your trolling from their talk pages.

Nothing you have said to them matters.

You are deranged.

[Somey]

Nothing you have said to them matters.

You are deranged.

On the contrary - I now believe that virtually everything Ms. Mbz1 has written or said to the Wikimedia Foundation during the last several months has not only been heard and listened to, but has actually been enshrined as core policy, informing all aspects of Wikipedia governance. Indeed, I think it's clear that all significant WMF initiatives are now being specifically routed through Ms. Mbz1 for comment and approval, and nothing happens there anymore without her express permission and recommendation.

What's more, this is also a big step up from the person who fulfilled this role for the WMF in the past, namely former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich.