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.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.
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......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.
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.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 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....