if you believe certain Wikipedia editors, EEng's block log is not a fair reflection of his time on or value to Wikipedia. It is instead a litany of persecution and incompetence. It is the lynch mob in action.
As always, those editors are fucking liars. Deceitful, dirty, cheating, filthy fucking liars. A you would expect of anyone who would seek to defend an amoral scumbag like EEng.
And they really do think they can get away with it. And maybe they would, if this site didn't exist to deliver a much needed poke in their beady little rat eyes.
I'll kick this thread off by revising what some have described as "hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia". We can maybe forgive Bushranger for making that comment at a time when the full facts were not known. It is unforgivable that Ritchie repeated this line years later, when all the facts were known (and the blocking Administrator was no longer around to defend themselves). Such cowardice is typical of EEng's admirers. They really do make your skin crawl. Evil little weasels.
Even as a bad block, the truth of the matter doesn't paint EEng in a good light at all. It shows he is a complete wanker in fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... nite_block
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... IALNETWORK
We'll start at the end. Nakon was the blocker. A mere fifteen hours after the block had been placed, Nakon posted a profuse apology, taking full responsibility for the "huge mistake", with a full and complete explanation (tiredness+cold medicine = quick action and poor judgement).
It is a very impressive piece of mea culpa, model Admin behaviour (since it is asumed Admins are going to make mistakes now and then). Needless to say, I have never seen Ritchie even come close to this level of accountability or responsibility, in his long history of poor judgement. But here we are, Ritchie is still an Admin, Nakon is missing, presumably sick of the overwhelming stench of cuntery, where the wants and desires of established assholes like EEng are fully indulged, and everyone else, mainly Administrators and lesser editors, can get fucked.
So, extremely bad block for sure, but is the story here that Nakon just made a huge mistake and EEng was completely blameless? Nope. Not even close. And you kind of already knew that, didn't you? Which is my point.The
Even the supposed injustices, are huge great beacons lighting up the reasons why EEng isn't and never was a Wikipedian.
Nakon was trying to respond to an AN/I report, and EEng just butted in as the next commenter, with a completely irrelevant aside. Even though he isn't an Administrator, this was one of the many times EEng turns up in a section on AN/I and comments as if he is one. And then promptly reminds everyone why that would be a truly lamentable state of affairs. One of the many laughable things about EEng is that he has a tremendous number of edits to AN/I, even though he is not an Administrator. What is he even doing there?
EEng had a bee in his bonnet that this report apparently wasn't serious or urgent enough for AN/I. Which is perhaps a window into the reason why he hangs out there, he loves drama. Clearly EEng hadn't done what an editor is supposed to do and assumed good faith - the reporting user was a newbie and had made an innocent mistake, a not entirely unreasonable mistake either.
It was ever so slightly vomit inducing to see that EEng pretending to be an Administrator and acting like this newbie has wasted his valuable time as he perused the board for reports to action, caused the newbie to offer their profuse apologies. They guy clearly had absolutely no idea he wasn't taking to an Administrator but Wikipedia's resident court jester.
It is only when reading these kinds of exchanges in full, do you really get that almost uncontrollable urge to want to rip out his windpipe with your bare hands and strangle him with it. It really is astonishing that there is anyone out there who thinks this is what a net positive editor looks like. This is what an asshole looks like. On one of their good days.
And then it gets even worse. EEng merely continues this irrelevant aside by sharing with everyone his brilliant idea that perhaps their should be a system whereby you can't post to AN/I unless you have a second. To those who know EEng, this is clearly a sign he is bored and hoping one of his hangers on will join in him in witty exchanges around the word second or some other time wasting bullshit. It isn't a serious proposal, and even if it was, ironically, it is being made on the wrong place.
Two comments in, and we can already see the first comment was disingenuous - EEng has all the time in the world to waste, and could care less about procedural matters such as correct venues. Prick.
And so it attracts Drmies, for further irrelevant asides. You know someone is an asshole when they get into a fight with Drmies and somehow Drmies comes out of it looking like the good guy. He isn't a good guy, which means EEng is a terrible guy. Ritchie later tried to claim this was just "banter", but I'm not so sure. And even if it was, isn't it just so Ritchie to not even notice or care that AN/I is a serious noticeboard, it is not for bants.
Amid this witty bants or turf dispute of whatever the fuck it was, EEng does another of his trademarks and drops a random image with hilarious caption aimed at Drmies. He doesn't sign it. It is of course one of his in-jokes. He is playing the jester again. His very amusing. Fucking tedious more like.
By now the newbie is probable totally confused, but is perhaps worried enough by EEng's chastising not to comment, even though the legendary bants includes this poor newbie being pinged by Drmies, becoming a comedic tool or unwitting pawn in this bunfight. It really is disgusting behaviour, but they don't see it, given how often threads on AN/I are being routinely disrupted/distracted/detailed by EEng and his attention deficit disorder by this point.
Of course, nobody else has stepped in to tell these children to knock it off either. It's literally the only activity on the report for a clear twenty minutes. So much for urgency and seriousness.
Hence we arrive at the reason why an impaired Nakon, once he had reached the conclusion the report did have merit and he blocked the editor being reported, he also could have easily looked at what had transpired in the meantime, and thought EEng was also worthy of an indefinite block for NOTHERE. A bad block, but notably, not entirely indefensible. It can actually be defended in policy as a preventative removal of a disruptive distraction.
EEng can't claim with any real honesty that he doesn't know virtually everything he did in that thread is problematic and undesirable, and many people have made him aware of it over the years. The stupid humour and in-house jokes just aren't that funny. It looks like what it is. Picture time at the zoo. A freak entertaining himself.
He just doesn't care. Special editor is special.
But of course, once blocked, there is a heck of a lot of tempestuous over-reaction to be seen in the review, typical of people who admire EEng. No wonder. Plenty of people jump to the worst possible conclusions and call for Nakon's head. And of course, EEng is leading the charge as best he can, throwing around words like incompetence.
At no point does it enter EEng's mind that there could be a reasonable explanation for this mistake. Much less that he has done anything wrong at all.
EEng shows absolutely no awareness that has he simply not commented on the report, none of the ensuing nonsense would have ever happened. Nakon was impaired but he wasn't completely off his head. He managed to block the right person for the right reason as the filer had asked. He definitely saw something that was a problem in EEng. He was in all likelihood the cause of his own troubles, as he probably is every single time.
With absolutely no hint of irony, even though the mistake is corrected without waiting for Nakon, he says that If the review doesn't end the way he wants, it will show that Administrators "can do whatever the fuck they want with no meaningful consequences." He casts himself as a powerless pleb. It is really quite unbelievable.
He of course completely ignores all the feedback that is inconvenient to his martyr persona.
And once the truth is known, while he does offer thanks, he doesn't stop badgering Nakon to get precisely what he sees as restitution, while still offering no apologies on his part.
If he covets power this much, a correctness in Adminship, all he had to do was pass RfA. An absolute impossibility for a man like that.
The truth of EEng was writ large right here. He hasn't changed in all the years since. He has only got worse.
He is a complete pest who is living right inside his own asshole where he fosters grand delusions of his own importance.
It is absolutely no surprise that even a completely incorrect block, had the truth of what EEng is at its very heart.
You just had to read it, establish the context.
How very inconvenient for his duplicitous defenders.
EEng's block log
-
ChaosMeRee
- Sucker
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2023 11:59 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 155 times
-
ChaosMeRee
- Sucker
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2023 11:59 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 155 times
Re: EEng's block log
On the flip side, even the wholly correct blog log entries don't tell the full story of the cancer that is EEng and the negligence of all those who enable him. This will only ever come out in an Arbitration Case. Where EEng's defenders will probably still lie their assess off.
The most recent 72 hour block for a "pattern of incivility" was a perfect example. According to the official record, the block was correct and ran full term. The block was fully endorsed, but attempts to extend it to indefinite were deemed to have "fallen short" by closing Admin El_C, who nonetheless expressed his hope that lessons had been learned by EEng.
As we saw, they were not, and EEng very quickly (but not so quickly that it is explainable by mere venting) proceeded to forget entirely that he had admitted to sometimes crossing the line, and instead proceeded to relitigate several matters of the review that had already been discussed (with his full input).
But which quickly revealed itself to be nothing more than blatant harassment of his perceived enemies, an invitation to do BATTLE, and one last opportunity to show EEng is a complete mental case, using language like "prison", "holding cell" and "lethal injection" to describe perfectly routine matters of Wikipedia governance. As always, the blurred lines between his comic persona and his nasty persona, were a huge factor.
None of this shows in the block log, because nobody in authority did anything about it. Indeed, Ritchie happily joined in, helping EEng in his goals to use Wikipedia servers to cause distress in Wikipedia users for their perceived crimes against EEng. Bizarrely, EEng was allowed to choose the manner and timing of when this blatant act of wiping his ass all over the concept that blocks are preventative, would end.
Perhaps because they could already see they are disgusting humans whose warped ideas do serious damage to Wikipedia, or simply because they feared (wrongly!) that the evil "lynch mob" would take this golden opportunity to block EEng indefinitely, some of his supporters tried to put stop to this post closure tantrum. But it says a lot that even they felt like they had to tip toe around an EEng in full flight, making sure he knew he was loved. It really was pathetic....
Those are just three of several aspects of established Wikipedia culture that get ignored whenever EEng is being debated. These things only apply to the peons, not the very special users.
A more blatant example of an UNBLOCKABLE you will not see. The term is most commonly used not for those those who are never blocked, but to those to whom the act of being blocked is entirely pointless. A pantomime. Some kind of twisted sick joke at the expense of those who are obliged to take blocks seriously. The so called powerless "peons", to use a term EEng applies to himself, but who clearly isn't a member of.
The people who would have been indefinitely blocked if they reacted to a wholly endorsed short block in this way after it had expired. The people who leave Wikipedia because of EEng. The people that Ritchie claims don't exist. Because why would anyone leave a project that operates a manifestly unfair system of behavioural modification, where substantive allegedly good edits can buy you immunity?
Who would ever be offended by that to the extent they leave Wikipedia after a few hundred edits? Nobody, obviously! Fools. The proof is all around. Very few people even join Wikipedia, and a vanishingly small percentage of those decide to stick with Wikipedia long enough to obtain these benefits.
You can't blame all of that on the software or a difficult learning curve, or Administrators who harass women to the extent they need an interaction ban, to use Ritchie as an example. A lot of it is the deep disgust normal humans feel when seeing this Lord of the Flies shit. The sick reality of a project that promised them equal treatment and unconditional respect in the manual.
Which brings us to the proof that Administrators are definitely treating EEng differently than new users.
El_C, the very same Administrator who decided there was insufficient support for an indefinite block and was happy to extend ever more good faith to EEng, came to a very different conclusion when it came to dealing with an editor involved in that review. ASmallMapleLeaf.
It is inarguable that you would be right to be suspicious of a user who very quickly finds AN/I and gets involved in drama about EEng, and shows a lot of awareness of Wikipedia. But in the case of ASmallMapleLeaf, suspcicions were sufficient to move El_C to indefinitely block them. Their first ever block.
It is under review, but I don't know why they even bothered. This inherent disparity between how established users are viewed and how newcomers are viewed, is deeply ingrained.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... lMapleLeaf
With no hint of irony, El_C happily argues that an indefinite block was appropriate because it is necessarily lengthy, forces the user to fully account for their behaviour, rather than allowing them to just sit out a short block and resume the exact same behaviour. It prevents disruption.
At no point does El_C entertain any suggestion that a short block could have worked here, addressing the short term disruption and giving the user a reminder of what is and is not helpful, and offers them the opportunity to demonstrate they can reflect and change and never give anyone a reason to need to indefinitely block them.
It is of course a pretty bad faith interpretation of what ASmallMapleLeaf was even doing to say it was merely BATTLEGROUND behaviour. The fact they are potentially a new user who simply read the manual and was moved enough by the farce that is EEng to get involved, without the necessary civility himself that only comes with experience, is mitigation. It is worthy of consideration. El_C refuses to do so.
His bad faith is clearly in stark contrast to how El_C himself must have weighted the post block debate regarding the merit of taking further action, namely an indefinite block, in the case of EEng. He has quite literally no excuse. He cannot plausibly claim he isn't aware of the requirements.
This is the only rationale explanation for why EEng even admitted to having sometimes crossed the line when the prospect of something more than an easily sat out three day block was being suggested. He was trying to game the system, and successfully did so. His insincerity was proven in short order, once he had the opportunity to resume his pattern of incivility, and more besides.
This doesn't seem to even bother El_C, whose powers and opinions on EEng have remained holstered ever since he mooted the indefinite block. He saves these concerns solely for new users, or new users who may be socks but who he didn't actually block as a sock (blocking people for being NOTHERE when what you really mean is "I think this user is a sock" is one of the more deplorable trends in Admin behaviour, but what do you expect when the Administrators now only seem to exist to protect EEng and others like him?)
As anyone can see, the indefinite block of EEng was correctly argued. At this point, as was proven very quickly after the event, Wikipedia really does need to use a mechanism that forces EEng to convince people he does get it. Wikipedia is not a battleground. His pursuit of justice for himself or some imagined underclass of editor cowering under the jackboots of Admins, an underclass that he laughably thinks he is a member of, is secondary to the mission.
There are ways and means he can make this case if he wants to, and he is not doing so. He is instead choosing to be disruptive and engage in harassment. Much of it being done ironically when he is passing himself off as an Administrator in an endless stream of unhelpful and even disruptive asides at AN/I. His patented "humor."
This will not be reflected in EEng's block log. EEng often makes a very big issue of having his block log correctly reflect events. But he will of course not want it to be recorded that one side effect of this block, and his supporter's reactions to it, was to have an indefinite block applied to a new user who dared to suggest EEng is not a nice person, and did not immediately (but did eventually) retract that comment. No second chances for them.
That sort of unfairness doesn't interest EEng or his enablers.
Which is why the time has long since passed for doing it the right way, and alternative means of seeking redress are necessary.
Even if you could prove to Wikipedia that the way EEng is being handled is improper, unfair and deeply damaging to Wikipedia, it will clearly take millions of words, hours and effort, to prove it. Just as it did with the nasty little weasel Eric Corbett, with it hardly being a coincidence that many of the same enablers with many of the same arguments who were involved there, having now hitched themselves to this particular wagon.
Easier methods exist.
If you have been ejected by Wikipedia for reasons that when you look at EEng, seem to be deeply unfair, then you are fully entitled to drop any sense that you are obligated to continue to adhere to the rules of Wikipedia. As you can see, they aren't even applied to those who live a life of almost complete freedom in the community, allowed to act on any emotion that comes to them, while claiming to be persecuted. Victims!
You have the right.
HTD.
The most recent 72 hour block for a "pattern of incivility" was a perfect example. According to the official record, the block was correct and ran full term. The block was fully endorsed, but attempts to extend it to indefinite were deemed to have "fallen short" by closing Admin El_C, who nonetheless expressed his hope that lessons had been learned by EEng.
As we saw, they were not, and EEng very quickly (but not so quickly that it is explainable by mere venting) proceeded to forget entirely that he had admitted to sometimes crossing the line, and instead proceeded to relitigate several matters of the review that had already been discussed (with his full input).
But which quickly revealed itself to be nothing more than blatant harassment of his perceived enemies, an invitation to do BATTLE, and one last opportunity to show EEng is a complete mental case, using language like "prison", "holding cell" and "lethal injection" to describe perfectly routine matters of Wikipedia governance. As always, the blurred lines between his comic persona and his nasty persona, were a huge factor.
None of this shows in the block log, because nobody in authority did anything about it. Indeed, Ritchie happily joined in, helping EEng in his goals to use Wikipedia servers to cause distress in Wikipedia users for their perceived crimes against EEng. Bizarrely, EEng was allowed to choose the manner and timing of when this blatant act of wiping his ass all over the concept that blocks are preventative, would end.
Perhaps because they could already see they are disgusting humans whose warped ideas do serious damage to Wikipedia, or simply because they feared (wrongly!) that the evil "lynch mob" would take this golden opportunity to block EEng indefinitely, some of his supporters tried to put stop to this post closure tantrum. But it says a lot that even they felt like they had to tip toe around an EEng in full flight, making sure he knew he was loved. It really was pathetic....
Wikipedia is not therapy. Wikipedia is not justice. Wikipedia does not need you.I can understand the desire for "setting the record straight", but at this point, it would be better to leave the record wherever it is, for an uninvolved admin to close this again (without waiting for anyone to respond or not), and for us all to move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm happy. EEng 19:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Those are just three of several aspects of established Wikipedia culture that get ignored whenever EEng is being debated. These things only apply to the peons, not the very special users.
A more blatant example of an UNBLOCKABLE you will not see. The term is most commonly used not for those those who are never blocked, but to those to whom the act of being blocked is entirely pointless. A pantomime. Some kind of twisted sick joke at the expense of those who are obliged to take blocks seriously. The so called powerless "peons", to use a term EEng applies to himself, but who clearly isn't a member of.
The people who would have been indefinitely blocked if they reacted to a wholly endorsed short block in this way after it had expired. The people who leave Wikipedia because of EEng. The people that Ritchie claims don't exist. Because why would anyone leave a project that operates a manifestly unfair system of behavioural modification, where substantive allegedly good edits can buy you immunity?
Who would ever be offended by that to the extent they leave Wikipedia after a few hundred edits? Nobody, obviously! Fools. The proof is all around. Very few people even join Wikipedia, and a vanishingly small percentage of those decide to stick with Wikipedia long enough to obtain these benefits.
You can't blame all of that on the software or a difficult learning curve, or Administrators who harass women to the extent they need an interaction ban, to use Ritchie as an example. A lot of it is the deep disgust normal humans feel when seeing this Lord of the Flies shit. The sick reality of a project that promised them equal treatment and unconditional respect in the manual.
Which brings us to the proof that Administrators are definitely treating EEng differently than new users.
El_C, the very same Administrator who decided there was insufficient support for an indefinite block and was happy to extend ever more good faith to EEng, came to a very different conclusion when it came to dealing with an editor involved in that review. ASmallMapleLeaf.
It is inarguable that you would be right to be suspicious of a user who very quickly finds AN/I and gets involved in drama about EEng, and shows a lot of awareness of Wikipedia. But in the case of ASmallMapleLeaf, suspcicions were sufficient to move El_C to indefinitely block them. Their first ever block.
It is under review, but I don't know why they even bothered. This inherent disparity between how established users are viewed and how newcomers are viewed, is deeply ingrained.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... lMapleLeaf
With no hint of irony, El_C happily argues that an indefinite block was appropriate because it is necessarily lengthy, forces the user to fully account for their behaviour, rather than allowing them to just sit out a short block and resume the exact same behaviour. It prevents disruption.
At no point does El_C entertain any suggestion that a short block could have worked here, addressing the short term disruption and giving the user a reminder of what is and is not helpful, and offers them the opportunity to demonstrate they can reflect and change and never give anyone a reason to need to indefinitely block them.
It is of course a pretty bad faith interpretation of what ASmallMapleLeaf was even doing to say it was merely BATTLEGROUND behaviour. The fact they are potentially a new user who simply read the manual and was moved enough by the farce that is EEng to get involved, without the necessary civility himself that only comes with experience, is mitigation. It is worthy of consideration. El_C refuses to do so.
His bad faith is clearly in stark contrast to how El_C himself must have weighted the post block debate regarding the merit of taking further action, namely an indefinite block, in the case of EEng. He has quite literally no excuse. He cannot plausibly claim he isn't aware of the requirements.
This is the only rationale explanation for why EEng even admitted to having sometimes crossed the line when the prospect of something more than an easily sat out three day block was being suggested. He was trying to game the system, and successfully did so. His insincerity was proven in short order, once he had the opportunity to resume his pattern of incivility, and more besides.
This doesn't seem to even bother El_C, whose powers and opinions on EEng have remained holstered ever since he mooted the indefinite block. He saves these concerns solely for new users, or new users who may be socks but who he didn't actually block as a sock (blocking people for being NOTHERE when what you really mean is "I think this user is a sock" is one of the more deplorable trends in Admin behaviour, but what do you expect when the Administrators now only seem to exist to protect EEng and others like him?)
As anyone can see, the indefinite block of EEng was correctly argued. At this point, as was proven very quickly after the event, Wikipedia really does need to use a mechanism that forces EEng to convince people he does get it. Wikipedia is not a battleground. His pursuit of justice for himself or some imagined underclass of editor cowering under the jackboots of Admins, an underclass that he laughably thinks he is a member of, is secondary to the mission.
There are ways and means he can make this case if he wants to, and he is not doing so. He is instead choosing to be disruptive and engage in harassment. Much of it being done ironically when he is passing himself off as an Administrator in an endless stream of unhelpful and even disruptive asides at AN/I. His patented "humor."
This will not be reflected in EEng's block log. EEng often makes a very big issue of having his block log correctly reflect events. But he will of course not want it to be recorded that one side effect of this block, and his supporter's reactions to it, was to have an indefinite block applied to a new user who dared to suggest EEng is not a nice person, and did not immediately (but did eventually) retract that comment. No second chances for them.
That sort of unfairness doesn't interest EEng or his enablers.
Which is why the time has long since passed for doing it the right way, and alternative means of seeking redress are necessary.
Even if you could prove to Wikipedia that the way EEng is being handled is improper, unfair and deeply damaging to Wikipedia, it will clearly take millions of words, hours and effort, to prove it. Just as it did with the nasty little weasel Eric Corbett, with it hardly being a coincidence that many of the same enablers with many of the same arguments who were involved there, having now hitched themselves to this particular wagon.
Easier methods exist.
If you have been ejected by Wikipedia for reasons that when you look at EEng, seem to be deeply unfair, then you are fully entitled to drop any sense that you are obligated to continue to adhere to the rules of Wikipedia. As you can see, they aren't even applied to those who live a life of almost complete freedom in the community, allowed to act on any emotion that comes to them, while claiming to be persecuted. Victims!
You have the right.
HTD.