How times have changed under the leadership of Jake the Sellout, and his shadowy backer known to enthuaiastically frequent Wikimania, Stan.
According to my sources, Hemiauchenia was just asked why he recently posted there about a certain mysterious Doer of Public Good and their attempts to highlight the Marek Kukula scandal (pedophile has their Wikipedia biography scrubbed because the community of editors want to stick it to the Daily Mail).
He had no answer.@Hemiauchenia:
If or when a child is abused because of your inability to get your head around the fact those tabloid reports are true, would you like to be credited with your part in the tragedy as, "Hemiauchenia, enthusiastic Wikipedia editor", or "Hemiauchenia, sceptical Wikipedia editor." I want the news reports to accurately convey your reason for being a Wikipediocracy member. I.e., is it because you actually think Wikipedia has done anything wrong here and want the root cause debated, up to and including Guy Macon's clear wish to misrepresent basic facts to further the cause (and the fact nobody here stops him, because it is convenient for his lies to go unchallenged). Or is your participation there only to retaliate against someone you perceive as an enemy of Wikipedia, for doing nothing more grave than exposing the fact Wikipedia editors as a collective don't want to acknowledge they would rather put kids at risk than examine the accuracy of tabloid reports on an individual basis. I will understand if you don't wish to reply to my message. I would want to stay silent too, if I were in your position. But since I have morals and a conscience, I am not. Yours, Christ the Unredeemer (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, not quite. He exercised his Wikipedia Safe Space rights. Like a little bitch.
Embarrassing. Can't imagine the old guard ever having done that. They would have never shied away from such a question.
He must at least be vaguely aware that participation at Wikipediocracy is still nominally meant to be about addressing structural Wikipedia problems, because at the end of a long post which was essentially a pathetic plea for support in his fight against the designated Enemies of Wikipedia, he did add this......
.....but that evidently is where his interest in the dilemma stopped, and he instead switched to solely using that thread for enthusiastically battering down the Wikipedia hatches, to make sure this issue isn't discussed in a way that exposes the facts, and downplays the bullshit. The facts being, there is no reason not to use the reports, and the bullshit being, there is reason to think they could be fabricated.I think the Marek Kukula situation raises an interesting dilemma, and several people in the AfD voted delete (including me) because of the inability to give a complete biography due to the lack of coverage of his convictions. A lot of the reasons for the deprecation of both the Daily Mail and The Sun were for BLP issues, which I am largely sympathetic to, but it's pretty odd the conviction wasn't covered elsewhere.
He is all in on the Guy Macon bullshit train. And yet he has the gall to pose as a Wikipedia critic.
In essence, he might as well be the child abuser himself, given he is not just not lifting a finger, he is actively fighting efforts to expose this for what it is.
Hw will deny it, of course. Fuckers like him always do. I was just following orders.....
Hemiauchenia clearly only has one real reason for posting to Wikipediocracy, as his latest effort in that regard shows.....
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 95#p290594
Desperately hunting socky wockies, like a thirsty little bitch. And therefore bolstering the most powerful mechanism Wikipedia has for burying scandals.
You would think Vigilant would see it for what it is, and call it out. But that's what happens when your brain turns to mush, and all you can talk about is lesbian power couple conspiracy theories, like a pathetic loon.
See what you did, Jake? See how you sold out, yet?
Nah, I doubt it. Kind of a dummy like that, aren't you?