They actually made a deal with the Daily Dot

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
Post Reply
User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2460
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 176 times
Been thanked: 412 times

They actually made a deal with the Daily Dot

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:01 am

This had been mentioned before, but now it's appearing on the Dot's front page. And OF COURSE they used sock accounts on WP to take a few pokes at the subject.

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/tenebrae-w ... eppermint/

Yes, I will concur, Frank "Tenebrae" Lovece is a gigantic asshole. Long history of fighting with people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... hn_Buscema
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... n-Tenebrae
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... /Daredevil

And two RFAs that failed horribly. (All traces of the first one were completely obliterated. Must have been really bad.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... Tenebrae_2

He's getting an SPA thanks to the Peppermint squawk. Frank runs a LOT of socks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ae/Archive

No doubt he gets away with this shit because he suckasses on IRC for "wiki-luv".
They should just ban the fucker--but oh hell no.....

(BTW there was a WPO thread about Lovece's rotten activities......back in 2013. Few of the denizens even noticed.)

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Fan
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: They actually made a deal with the Daily Dot

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Fri Mar 26, 2021 4:48 pm

All that happened here, was the Daly Dot inflicted some serious harm on their journalistic reputation.
Michael Cockram a.k.a "Hillbillyholiday" is a researcher at Wikipediocracy
Update 9:29am CT, March 2: Reader disclosure: The author of this story previously clashed with Tenebrae and other Wikipedia editors and was ultimately banned from Wikipedia over political disagreements.
Clearly Daily Dot let the appropriately named Cockram write his own byline, and also let him describe his manner of departure from Wikipedia.

If they had asked the Wikipedians involved, I think they would have gladly told the Dot that Cockram was banned from Wikipedia for, in a word, ramming his cock down their very unwilling throats. In a manner that would only be recognized as the politics of Trump, due to his objection to how strictly Wikipedia interprets their sourcing rules for biographies, he intentionally disrupted Wikipedia in his effort to make a point.

He thumbed his nose at any and all community efforts to work with him, and ironically given his piece here, once he was in receipt of a sanction he couldn't just wait out, he happily resorted to sock-puppetry to persist in his aims. In a likelihood, he is still doing that.

He proved himself to be the very antithesis of a Wikipedia editor. He is undoubtedly proud of that, but he was of course too chicken shit to then disavow Wikipedia. He is still quite proud of the fact that at one point, then the Wikipediots were still operating under the false impression that he was one of them, none other than Jimmy Wales himself offered him assistance, moral and financial, in his efforts to battle the political enemies of Wikipedia.

Since the truth came out, since that forcible parting of the ways, there has of course been nothing but radio silence from Wikipedia. They clearly realised he was a wrong 'un from the get go. They've talked more about one time editors who turned out to be kiddie fiddlers or white supremacists, than they have ever shed light on what Cockram used to ram his cock in, as he wandered the 'pedia as a supposed editor in good standing.

It's a pity the Daily Mail is not a reliable source for the Wiki, because they had him bang to rights as far as his likely credentials as a Wikipedia researcher and all round decent human being goes...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... genda.html
Michael Cockram is a ginger-haired 35-year-old from Bournemouth who, like many men his age, offers a window into his soul via Facebook.....[He] appears to take great pleasure in regularly circulating obscene images and racist sentiments via the social network.....His Facebook page includes an image of two gay men performing a sex act in public, a photograph of a naked, dark-haired man having oral sex with himself, and a painting that depicts bestiality between a man and a sheep.

Three years ago, Cockram wrote on his timeline that ‘all Muslim men admitted to Paradise will have an ever-erect penis and they will each marry 70 wives, all with appetising vaginas’.

Around the same time, he declared: ‘If you gently lick the outside of a Kinder Egg, you can slowly recreate the changing skin tones of Michael Jackson.’

It’s lubricious, utterly unedifying stuff. Indeed, a casual observer could be forgiven for pigeon-holing Cockram as a bigoted oddball who spends rather too much of his life in darker corners of the internet.

Yet in the modern world, bigoted oddballs who are over-familiar with the internet can wield tremendous power — and this potty-mouthed man is a case in point. For when he’s not posting obscene images or racist sentiments, Cockram is a regular editor of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, where (according to multiple posts on his Facebook feed) he operates under the alias ‘Hillbillyholiday’.

Last month, ‘Hillbillyholiday’ was the architect of a cynical PR stunt which saw this newspaper publicly smeared by damning its journalism ‘unreliable’.

He and 52 like-minded anti-Press zealots, almost all of whom remain anonymous, collaborated in a vote which persuaded Wikipedia, the sixth most popular website in the world, that it ought to ban the Daily Mail.

The move by the online encyclopedia — which was founded in 2001 and has in a few short years become a hugely influential source of information — was revealed in the pages of the Left-wing Guardian newspaper.

It reported that Wikipedia’s editors had decided, in a democratic ballot, that the Mail’s journalism cannot be trusted.

No statistics were offered in support of this claim, which, incidentally, came days before the Mail won Sports Newspaper Of The Year for an unprecedented fourth straight time, and was shortlisted for 15 awards at the British Press Awards, the news industry’s Oscars. (Indeed, as we shall see, the Mail has an enviable record on accuracy.)

Neither did Wikipedia, nor The Guardian, bother to shed much light on how this decision was reached.
As such, people have every reason to suspect every single word of this piece, both its factual content and its reason for being written.

Which is a shame, because it is pretty obvious Tenebrae is Lovece, and he has indeed been ripping the arse out of Wikipedia when it comes to self-promotion. And yet to preserve its cult of anonymity, the shield which of course served Cockram all too well until the Daily Mail tracked him down and outed him, Wikipedia plans to do nothing about it.

Not exactly a novel finding though, is it? Pretty standard Wikipedia corruption. A far better, more topical expose of the open secrets of the wiki world, would be that the much vaunted Jess Wade is a crap Wikipedia editor, but for reasons of gender and sexuality and self-promotion, Wikipedia (and Wikipediocracy) would rather the rest of the world didn't know this particular dirty secret.

The irony? Jess Wade's failings as an editor, namely her lack of care when it coms to sourcing biographies, is the exact sort of sloppy shite that Cockram was objecting to, and led to his parting of the ways.

It's only taken a few years for Cockram to become Cockflop, to side with people whose response to the exposure of Wade's sloppy editing, is to ask, in apparently all seriousness......
Do you think any of the article subjects have been harmed by Wade's biographies?
Was anyone harmed by Lovece promoting himself on Wikipedia? It doesn't matter. The rules of Wikipedia are written precisely because the presumption is that if you do X, harm is a likely result, so you ban X.

It is a shame that Cockram, contrary to his past statements, has decided not to care about that issue in the instance of Wade. It would undoubtedly be contrary to the wishes of his masters at Wikipediocracy, to upset the apple cart and write about one of the current darlings of the Wikipedia movement. Someone who, like Lovece, perfectly represents the level of delusion and irresponsibility and selfishness, that has always been the hallmark of what being an anonymous WikiTwat has always been about. Someone who is proveably protected far more than Lovece.

But hey. Maybe someone who genuinely does think they were banned by Wikipedia for "political disagreements", and genuinely thinks what they do know for Wikipediocracy is "research", is just as deluded and selfish and just as much of an absolute cunt, as Wade and Lovece. And Beeblebrox, long time Wikipediocracy member, and a high powered Wikipedian who had all the power to unilaterally ban Lovece from Wikipedia, if they saw any reason to. He didn't. Just like they see no issue with Wade, and likely never said a word about Cockram either, when he was telling his lies about the Daily Mail (he literally posted Trumpian style made up statements). The privelages of being a volunteer, eh?

Lovece has of course been duly banned from Wikipedia. Wade has yet to be given so much as a polite reminder. The difference in consequences for breaking the basic rules of Wikipedia that exist to prevent harm, the political issue that supposedly gets Cockram's cock all rammy, doesn't seem to be the inability to prove wrongdoing. Rather, they key difference seems to be to whether you can get Wikipediocracy to support the case.

Maybe that's a good thing. And maybe it's not. Because let's review the facts. Beeblebrox is a long time member of Wikipediocracy, and he posted to Wikipedia that "per WP:RSP the Daily Dot is considered a generally reliable source for internet culture", and that played a big role in getting Lovece banned.

Beeblebrox said nothing about who wrote the piece, said nothing about the likely motive of the author, and is apparently never ever going to admit that Cockram is behind one of the biggest and some would say original attempts to use RSP as a means to suppress inconvenient facts. Facts like Cockram most likely not only doesn't give a crap about issues like deadnaming, and in all likelihood probably thinks the person that piece was nominally seeking to defend, is in reality a dirty gender bending nigger, who he wouldn't even ram someone else's cock in.

In short, Cocrkam used Wikipediocracy and the Dailiy Dot to pressure Wikipedia into banning someone he disliked, and he had merely found a convenient hook on which to achieve it. Deadnaming. There are clear parallels with how he used Trumpian style fake facts and Jimmy Wales and the Guardian, to manipulate Wikipedia into banning a political opponent. The hook there being, ironically, "fake news". In both cases, a desire to be seen to signal the right virtues in order to further your own existence, even if those are virtues that you don't actually have at all. Just as Cockram manifeslty isn't a nice person when it doesn't suit his politics, Wikipedia manifestly doesn't give a crap about press reliability when it doesn't suit their agendas.

By his own begruding admission, presumably ironically as a result of someone asking the Dot to be a serious journalistic source and identify any relevant conflicts of interest, we know Tenebrae was one of the many people Cockram had had "political disputes" with on Wikipedia. And so by sheer coincidence, even though Cockram is banned from Wikipedia (and certainly in the case of Jess Wade, banned editors are not allowed to affect her enjoyment of Wikipedia in any way, not even indirectly, because that's harassment apparently), with the assistance of Beeblebrox, Corckam's "research" has been the primary reason why Tenenbrae's enjoyment of Wikipedia, has come to such an abrupt end.

Even though on the face of it, in terms of the known facts, specificay how long Lovece had been promting himself and the reasons why he has getting away with it, nothing new was discovered and presented to the community as the reason to fimally ban Lovece. Nothing that was pubicly made known anyway. Other than the mere fact it had been going on for fifteen years.

The Arbitration Committee, of which Beeblebrox is a member, only thought it necessary to limit Lovece's ability to abuse Wikipedia for self-promotion. They undoubtedly based their decision on all available information. Including that which comes from Cockram, someone who on the face of it, looks far more likely to be the bigot, than Lovece.

If the source or author doesn't matter, only the level of potential embarrassment of how much time has passed before you finally act on the issue, then let me state it plainly. The quite deliberate choice of Jess Wade to not properly source her biographies, presumably because that would affect her self set target of immortalising one new woman on Wikipedia every day, has been a matter of public record for years. I just checked, and she is still doing it, once a day, every day.

No private evidence is necessary, there is no OUTing concern, there is no other plausible reason why it would not have been acted upon up to now, other than Wikipedia's corrupt desire to keep their dirty laundry hidden. Especially since we know now the terrible truth - it's not considered harassment if a banned editor writes about an editor they have a problem with, in the Daily Dot.

That's a reliable source for internet culture, apparently. So is the Daily Mail, unless you can find anything that they printed about Cockram's Facebook page that was untrue?

The truth will out. If it takes fifteen years before Wade is /Cockrammed, GOOD. By then, Wade really might kill herself as a result of what she sets in motion. And the likes of Beeblebrox may, or may not, give a shit, that he played a part in it. A big part. Nobody needs to find her, the Daily Mail know exactly where to go for a quote, and where to find a juicy Tweet that will show her true self, she's not hiding like Cockram or Tenebrae were, she's simply being protected, as they were too.

Maybe the Dot will take up her case. Maybe they will set their best Wikipedia reporter on the story, eh? Wouldn't that be ironic.

Get your pencil sharpened Cockram. It wil kill you, but you will have to pretend you like minorities and you like people who can't properly source a Wikipedia biography.

Talk about MAKING YOUR BED.

I meant it when I said, you'd be paying for that bullshit for years.

It's not enough to simply hate, Michael. You need to be consistent. You need to be true to your demons. Disavow those who would and should disavow you, if they were being consistent.

Honour in savagery.

So fuck Wikipediocracy, and anyone stupid enough to view them as anything other than Wikipedia's left nut.

Two peas of the same pod. Equal amounts of corruption and self interest. Equal amounts of picking and choosing when the rules matter, when ethics matter, and choosing when it's in your interest to just let certain inconvenient facts go unnoticed.

He fooled them all, that Mick Cockram. And with a name like that, and his genes, well, he wasn't going to be about anything else in life, was he?

Tough world to live in, when bigotry is still a real issue. Wikipedia likes bigots. You just gotta know where to look. Sorry, RESEARCH. Ha ha ha.

This has been a message of the resistance.

Death awaits you all. Hypothetically speaking.

Sparkles and love. X

The original (and still the best) ginger wiki disruptor, named Micheal. Or is he!?!???!?!?

X marks the spot.

Tarantino, put your binoculars away, I'll make sure and send you a pack of my dirty panties in the post. Ya fucking wrong'un. :shock: :?: :oops:

Post Reply