Page 1 of 1

Michael Hardy

Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:04 pm
by CrowsNest
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 was asserted on a Wikipedia page about professors in health-related fields, one of them a surgeon in the medical school at Johns Hopkins University and one a professor of psychology at UCLA, and various others, that their reason for using the standard terminology of their fields was only to create a false impression of legitimacy (this is absurd and clearly dishonest), that they don't publish, or at least not on the topic of their common interest, outside of a journal that their group had founded (this is false, as may be quickly verified), and that they do not collaborate in research with others outside their group (this is false, as may be quickly verified).

I objected to those assertions as clearly libelous and I was told that I was wrong without any attempt of six persons asserting this to tell me why I was wrong or to argue or discuss this with me. There is supposed to be collegiality among Wikipedians, and merely issuing a definitive ruling on a matter about which one disagrees with a fellow Wikipedian while refusing to discuss or argue, is inconsistent with that.
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......
I'm sure people will complain bitterly about this comment, but it is quite clear that this is nothing but an unending temper tantrum, and we all have better things to do here than put up with it. So I endorse the block, for what it's worth.
By rights, that comment should not be worth much, given who said it...... ... 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.....
If you are frustrated because editors will not respond to your points, I welcome you to Wikipedia (which seems odd considering you have many times my Wikipedia experience) and refer you to WP:SATISFY. There is no objective mechanism by which stronger arguments prevail, except in the rare case of a clear policy connection, and the rest of us learn to live with that or leave. I and others are dealing with exactly such a situation today, losing a debate to a majority with lame arguments in a discussion with no clear policy connection. If the trend continues to the close, we will review WP:How to lose, say our respective personal versions of the Serenity Prayer, and move on.
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...... ... 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.... :roll:

Re: Michael Hardy

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:43 pm
by CrowsNest
Classic Wikipedia.....
Bad block It is not unusual for veteran editors to obsess about some issue and then keep returning to it and sounding off. Common examples include RfA reform; paid editing; and errors on the main page. Pages like the village pump and Jimbo's talk page have huge amounts of this stuff but nobody is forced to read it. Blocking such a veteran editor for this reason is disruptive because it prevents them from doing other useful work. For example, the broad topic mathematical practice is currently under discussion. Michael Hardy has previously edited this and, as a member of the mathematics projects, should be able to have a say in the matter. Silencing them completely because of an unrelated issue seems too draconian and disproportionate. Treating contributors in this way will tend to have a chilling effect which will do serious damage to the project. Andrew D. (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a significant difference between sounding off about things like "RfA reform; paid editing; and errors on the main page" and repeatedly making attacks/accusations against other specific editors and their motives. Having said that, I want to see him back as soon as possible, and all he needs to do is agree to drop the personal attacks/accusations. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
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.

Re: Michael Hardy

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:17 am
by CrowsNest
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....
If I had not been completely blindsided by learning of the existence of the corruption, dishonesty, and bullying that is the dominant behavior of the Administrators' Noticeboards, I would have conducted myself differently in the recent events. However, there is no reason for me to recant or apologize for allegations of dishonesty, corruption, and bullying. And those are accusations, not "personal attacks". There are accusations against me on this present page, and no one is calling those "personal attacks" or "insults". That discrepancy is in itself dishonest. It is a fact that on Administrators' Noticeboards and like venues, there are unstated unadmitted pecking orders, and those who rank high in that unacknowledged system, and their sycophants and other supporters, have de-facto licenses to accuse others without being accused of "personal attacks" or "insults", while others who make accusations of the same kinds, myself obviously included, are accused of "personal attacks" and when making assertions that are factually correct or factually incorrect and that are in fact accusations. And that situation does not scratch the surface of the deep corruption in such forums. I don't even have any idea how to collect sycophants and it has never occurred to me to wish to do so, but as we see, some are masters of that art.
Possibly I will file an ArbCom case, but that may be too expensive. I will probably want to be advise in the matter by counsel who is thoroughly familiar ArbCom proceedings. This is an important matter. If I do that, I may or may not include some mention of the [sic]

I asked "NewYorkBrad" in an email if there is some rational grounds for confidence in the integrity and competence of the Arbitration Committee. Some time later he has not replied. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
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.