Hillbillyholiday
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:17 pm
It seems Hillbillyholiday's mission to troll Wikipedia as some kind of giant performance artistry, is finally over. After numerous violations leading to short blocks and restrictions, which he has thumbed his nose at, he has now earned a year long block. And when he is discovered socking around it (or someone imitates him to set him up), it will be converted to indefinite, then a ban.
The final act.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=831617851#Hillbillyholiday_and_BLP_articles_again
He had achieved his main aim, to exploit Wikipedia's vulnerability to lies, deceit, mob rule and general hypocrisy, to get the Daily Mail 'banned'. It seems that if he even had a plan for an encore performance, it wasn't as well thought out.
Post Mail-ban, he's tried to engineer some drama around BLP enforcement by making it seem as if his legitimate efforts to defend living people were being obstructed by the rules-bound clueless fucks who infest Wikipedia's governance system right up to the very top. He has failed. There's been no mass outpouring of anger, no groundswell of resistance, no peasant led revolt. Indeed, there's been no real backlash of any kind.
There's been some quite ironic turns of events actually. He's getting no credit for those aspects of his edits that are absolutely defensible, and has indeed suffered quite badly at the hands of the usual misrepresentations and other games that are a regular feature of an AN/I report. I guess what goes around, comes around. Some of this is normal and everyday dysfunction, but some is not - it is almost as if he has completely lost all credit/standing previously accrued, both for the Mail ban and as a long term editor.
He has certainly singularly failed to replicate what Hex/Scott managed to achieve back in the day, eventually leading to the adoption of BLP-PROD. His only friends these days appear to be Guy Macon, EEng, Gerda and Martinevans. Which must be embarrassing. I'm wondering if the truth behind the Wikipedian's general disinterest in his plight now, is a desire to ensure none of this becomes a mainstream story, lest it undermine what they collectively did to the Mail, at Hillbilly and Guy Macon's urging.
I'm wondering if the Wikipedians were onto him as soon as it became apparent that he was probably lying about his mother being in fear of the nasty Daily Mail journalist who sought to identify this anonymous coward who boasted of being untraceable (a quite clueless boast as it turned out) - why else would he decline Jimmy Wale's generous offer to take up his cause against the evil Mail as they sought their right of reply?
In the aftermath, and indeed before for those who bothered to do their due diligence, he didn't make for a very convincing hero or indeed victim, when he happily boasted of the duplicitous techniques he used to fuck the Mail and even repeats the Mail's slurs on his own talk page, even linking to their story which identities him. This isn't a guy whose fears and distress were genuine, this is a guy who poked the bear so he could cry crocodile tears when the bear bit back.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... genda.html
If these people are exposed as policy ignoring asshats who demonstrably don't believe in adhering to even the most basic aspects of Wikipedia if it contradicts their own agendas, which are rabidly political despite all their talk of reliability, well, you have to question everything they ever did in the name of what is 'good for Wikipedia', right?
So yes, Wikipedians, you carry on pretending like this guy wasn't once your fucking hero, hailed to the rafters and offered your undying gratitude/sympathy for tackling this major problem. One that you've done very little to actually fix by the way - the Mail is still massively used as a source on Wikipedia - making it appear like the only reason for it all was as a PR stunt and a means to give a wider voice to your pathetic libtard agendas, already enthusiastically pushed in your so called encyclopedia.
At time of writing, the Wikipediots are still desperately trying to justify why they singled out the Mail, and are still amazingly reluctant to make the same general declaration of unreliability to the other mass market British tabloids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=831616479#If_we're_going_to_declare_the_Daily_Mail_an_unreliable_source_(and_I_think_we_should)_we_should_do_the_same_to_the_Daily_Express
Their pathetic excuses reveal the truth - it has got FUCK ALL to do with reliability or BLP or indeed any kind of evidence based case singling it out. It is all about their feelings, prejudices and politics, and the fact the Mail's huge popularity was causing them problems because people overwhelmingly trusted it, and so wanted to use it as a source.
Pre and post-ban they still use other tabloids, but not on the same scale. The majority of the Wikipediots just don't really care, and are happy to pretend general policy and case based discussion covers it (just as it supposedly covered the Mail). The Wikipediots who subsequently went after the Mail, were just heartily sick of losing too many case based debates, and simply wanted to send a message. This Mail hating troll Hillbilly recognised and exploited it.
The unpallatable, unspoken truth for the Wikipedians, is that he played them as much as he played the Mail, Guardian, the WMF and even dear Jimbo, they were just too fucking stupid, and too eager to act on their own prejudices, to see it.
The journalists, columnists and editorial staff whose careers he maligned, the people he lied about, smeared and trashed using Wikipedia's platform, in a massively ironic industrical scale breach of BLP, they took revenge in the arenas they either don't control at all, or have very little influence over. It probably isn't even over yet.
In a way, he has been successful in creating a piece of performance art. For his own particular editor trajectory does highlight very well the dark, twisted, self-deceiving nature of those at the heart of Wikipedia. Trust these people to tell you anything at all? Are you insane?
The final act.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=831617851#Hillbillyholiday_and_BLP_articles_again
He had achieved his main aim, to exploit Wikipedia's vulnerability to lies, deceit, mob rule and general hypocrisy, to get the Daily Mail 'banned'. It seems that if he even had a plan for an encore performance, it wasn't as well thought out.
Post Mail-ban, he's tried to engineer some drama around BLP enforcement by making it seem as if his legitimate efforts to defend living people were being obstructed by the rules-bound clueless fucks who infest Wikipedia's governance system right up to the very top. He has failed. There's been no mass outpouring of anger, no groundswell of resistance, no peasant led revolt. Indeed, there's been no real backlash of any kind.
There's been some quite ironic turns of events actually. He's getting no credit for those aspects of his edits that are absolutely defensible, and has indeed suffered quite badly at the hands of the usual misrepresentations and other games that are a regular feature of an AN/I report. I guess what goes around, comes around. Some of this is normal and everyday dysfunction, but some is not - it is almost as if he has completely lost all credit/standing previously accrued, both for the Mail ban and as a long term editor.
He has certainly singularly failed to replicate what Hex/Scott managed to achieve back in the day, eventually leading to the adoption of BLP-PROD. His only friends these days appear to be Guy Macon, EEng, Gerda and Martinevans. Which must be embarrassing. I'm wondering if the truth behind the Wikipedian's general disinterest in his plight now, is a desire to ensure none of this becomes a mainstream story, lest it undermine what they collectively did to the Mail, at Hillbilly and Guy Macon's urging.
I'm wondering if the Wikipedians were onto him as soon as it became apparent that he was probably lying about his mother being in fear of the nasty Daily Mail journalist who sought to identify this anonymous coward who boasted of being untraceable (a quite clueless boast as it turned out) - why else would he decline Jimmy Wale's generous offer to take up his cause against the evil Mail as they sought their right of reply?
In the aftermath, and indeed before for those who bothered to do their due diligence, he didn't make for a very convincing hero or indeed victim, when he happily boasted of the duplicitous techniques he used to fuck the Mail and even repeats the Mail's slurs on his own talk page, even linking to their story which identities him. This isn't a guy whose fears and distress were genuine, this is a guy who poked the bear so he could cry crocodile tears when the bear bit back.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... genda.html
If these people are exposed as policy ignoring asshats who demonstrably don't believe in adhering to even the most basic aspects of Wikipedia if it contradicts their own agendas, which are rabidly political despite all their talk of reliability, well, you have to question everything they ever did in the name of what is 'good for Wikipedia', right?
So yes, Wikipedians, you carry on pretending like this guy wasn't once your fucking hero, hailed to the rafters and offered your undying gratitude/sympathy for tackling this major problem. One that you've done very little to actually fix by the way - the Mail is still massively used as a source on Wikipedia - making it appear like the only reason for it all was as a PR stunt and a means to give a wider voice to your pathetic libtard agendas, already enthusiastically pushed in your so called encyclopedia.
At time of writing, the Wikipediots are still desperately trying to justify why they singled out the Mail, and are still amazingly reluctant to make the same general declaration of unreliability to the other mass market British tabloids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=831616479#If_we're_going_to_declare_the_Daily_Mail_an_unreliable_source_(and_I_think_we_should)_we_should_do_the_same_to_the_Daily_Express
Their pathetic excuses reveal the truth - it has got FUCK ALL to do with reliability or BLP or indeed any kind of evidence based case singling it out. It is all about their feelings, prejudices and politics, and the fact the Mail's huge popularity was causing them problems because people overwhelmingly trusted it, and so wanted to use it as a source.
Pre and post-ban they still use other tabloids, but not on the same scale. The majority of the Wikipediots just don't really care, and are happy to pretend general policy and case based discussion covers it (just as it supposedly covered the Mail). The Wikipediots who subsequently went after the Mail, were just heartily sick of losing too many case based debates, and simply wanted to send a message. This Mail hating troll Hillbilly recognised and exploited it.
The unpallatable, unspoken truth for the Wikipedians, is that he played them as much as he played the Mail, Guardian, the WMF and even dear Jimbo, they were just too fucking stupid, and too eager to act on their own prejudices, to see it.
The journalists, columnists and editorial staff whose careers he maligned, the people he lied about, smeared and trashed using Wikipedia's platform, in a massively ironic industrical scale breach of BLP, they took revenge in the arenas they either don't control at all, or have very little influence over. It probably isn't even over yet.
In a way, he has been successful in creating a piece of performance art. For his own particular editor trajectory does highlight very well the dark, twisted, self-deceiving nature of those at the heart of Wikipedia. Trust these people to tell you anything at all? Are you insane?