|Page 1 of 1|
|Author:||CrowsNest [ Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:04 am ]|
|Post subject:||Michael Hardy|
This guy is an Administrator with 200,000 edits to Wikipedia. He has just been indefinitely blocked.
Literally the only thing the Wikipedians needed to do to avoid this embarrassing fuckup, was to admit that they had libelled two professors, the defending of whose honour this Administrator took up as a cause recently.
In his own words.....
It happened weeks ago, but since he never got any satisfaction, he continued to complain about the issue, and has essentially been blocked for refusing to shut the fuck up.
He hasn't been blocked for telling lies in the above where he says things can be easily verified or were just absurd, and that's because he is right.
Post-block, he has had to further suffer the indignity of comments like this......
By rights, that comment should not be worth much, given who said it......
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=19&t=791
.....but that's not how Wikipedia works - every dumb fuck is allowed to speak. As Hardy has found out. And Wikipedia being what it is, there will be no complaints about this comment, describing other Wikipedian's behaviour as a tantrum is considered perfectly OK (if you seriously need help in understanding why it is not, you too may find Wikipedia the perfect hobby for you).
A pertinent comment is this summary from another Administrator.....
This is essentially how Wikipedia works. They're not interested in who is right. They're only interested in people who will easily submit, even if it is to the wisdom of fools. Spineless idiots, basically.
This is how it will work until it dies, because they cannot stand the thought of any mechanism that would actually prevent or punish editors for being assholes. Being an asshole is one of the major benefits of contributing to Wikipedia, rather than working for free somewhere that you're not allowed to be an asshole.
Hardy was of course the one who was casually insulted by one of the newer breeds of Administrator, for whom this behaviour is seen as (more) normal, which led to this......
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=19&t=762
Anyone and everyone who spends more than a year as a Wikipedia editor, which is more than enough time to figure out this is how it works, is an absolute fool, largely to themselves.
Now all they have to do is figure out how to square the circle of having an Administrator in their ranks who is essentially blocked until he admits he has been guilty of conduct that is not really what Administrators should be doing. After which, if he submits, he would be unblocked, but still be an Administrator.
As if this wasn't enough proof Wikipedia is a very fucked up place that no sane person would willingly give any of their time to, as some kind of concession to his long service, the block has been reviewed and affirmed at the relevant noticeboard, but they are somehow insisting this does not mean it is a community ban (meaning it would be out of the hands of single Administrators to review and potentially unblock).
Naturally, not so long ago at the very same noticeboard, in a case not involving an Administrator, the community reaffirmed the existing policy, namely that if an indefinite block is ratified at a noticeboard, it becomes a community ban. No exceptions.
In essence, even for an Administrator they apparently consider totally unfit to be an Administrator, so much so he is blocked indefinitely (a very rare thing, as they admit) they are still entitled to the preferential treatment being an Administrator routinely attracts, namely to not be treated the same, much less worse, as an ordinary editor in the same situation would (ignoring the fact the block is obvious bullshit).
Naturally, the Administrators haven't documented any of these developments on Hardy's talk page, which follows the rather oblique and confusing way they have documented the block itself. This is all part of the process. Contrary to their claims they just want him to move on (or fuck off), it will just be more fuel to add to Hardy's level of annoyance at the general incompetence that seems to pervade Wikipedia governance that he is complaining about. But it's OK, they've stopped his ability to email people. Because that will shut him up....
|Author:||CrowsNest [ Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:43 am ]|
|Post subject:||Re: Michael Hardy|
The three editors Andrew is not so subtly referring to, Kupdung, Jytdog and Rambling Man, are of course guilty of that behaviour as part of their sounding off. This is, ironically, indisputable fact.
And proving even further the admin/non-admin problem of differential treatment, the two non-admins, Jytdog and TRM, are even under specific restrictions because of it.
The logical inference of this idiotic reply, if we removed the proveable false claim they don't attack/accuse when sounding off, is that if their lesser sanctions are appropriate for handling the attacks and accusations element, while still allowing them to endlessly soapboax, then why wasn't Hardy given the same luxury? Indeed, if Kupdung's admin status allows him to do it unencumbered by any sanction, then why not Hardy?
Obviously, it is because the issue is not just how he was saying it, it is what he is saying. They simply do not want to hear it. It's embarrassing because it exposes what they're all about, whereas there is plenty of appetite for those other issues being sounded off about. While uncomfortable for some, those gripes aren't as wholly discrediting to the idea Wikiepdians are not terrible people in comparison to the logical conclusion of Hardy's case. You can accidentally or in good faith allow a poor RfA system, paid editing or main page errors. You can't accidentally or in good faith ignore Hardy's issue with the competency and/or moral fibre of his fellow Wikipedians.
But like I said, on Wikipedia, there is no punishment for talking absolute bollocks to justify utter bullshit. Boing! is, of course, an Administrator. Par for the course.
|Author:||CrowsNest [ Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:17 pm ]|
|Post subject:||Re: Michael Hardy|
This is hilarious. Ritchie unblocked Hardy despite nobody, least of all him or Hardy, being clear about what the conditions were. He is apparently committed to not mentioning the specific incident unless at Arbitration, but he can continue to complain about corruption. If that is what has been agreed, and it is a big if, it is pretty obviously not a sustainable position.
Anyway, now he is unblocked, Beeblebrox has sensibly brought up the issue of why the hell Hardy just magically reverted to being an Administrator on being unblocked. And boy, do they not want to talk about this in the slightest. Excuses offered thus far....
-He doesn't use the tools
-He hasn't abused the tools
-His misconduct happened last week
-He should have been desysopped then, but not now
-Let's see if he abides by his unblock conditions
-It is other people causing his misconduct, not Hardy
-We're tired of all this shit, why did you bring it up again?
Hardy says the Wikipedia Administrators are hypocritical and corrupt. He is ironically proving just that in how they go about this sordid business of trying not to have to desysop the guy who says they're institutionally corrupt.
He's never going to shut up about the issue, he is not going to forgive or forget, he has at least made that clear in how he answered the filing....
Several have of course already accused Hardy of lying about the email to Brad. Which is a feat, since how could they know what Brad has and hasn't replied to? Just another example of why Hardy is so mad, they want him to stick around and be productive, but they won't for a second give him the benefit of the doubt that when he says bad things about prominent Wikipedians, and by extension the culture, he might just be telling the truth.
I'm loving the double usage of "sycophants". Nice Eric Corbett related in-joke for all of us who find amusement in documenting the very things Hardy is highlighting.
|Page 1 of 1||All times are UTC - 8 hours|
|Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group