Looks even more ridiculous in hindsight, after the surprising end to Wikipedia's war against the Mail forced them to revisit why they hadn't also banned the likes of InfoWars, and belatedly, saw them make status of InfoWars and the Mail equal.Even using The Daily Mail as a source about itself, something that we allow even on unreliable sites like InfoWars.com, should not be allowed in the case of The Daily Mail. The claim "Alex Jones founded Infowars" can be cited with a link to Infowars making that claim, on the reasonable assumption that they are not lying about themselves. The claim "The Daily Mail is owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust and published in London" cannot be supported in the same way -- with a link to The daily Mail saying that -- because The Daily mail lies about everything and plagiarizes everything and we are not allowed to guess whether or not any one particular claim is a lie or is plagiarism. If you can find the claim in another source, use that other source. If the claim is found only in The Daily Mail, don't make the claim on wikipedia. We have no way of knowing that it is true. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The fact that the Wikishits probably still secretly think, on some level, that Alex Jones is probably more trustworthy than the Editor-in-Chief of the Mail, tells you everything you need to know about what this bullshit ban was all about.
If I had to guess, they think that a crazy bastard who wants a crazy bastard to be US President, and who is unconstrained by any kind of legal framework (because America), is somehow less motivated to lie, than a historic mainstream newspaper incorporated in Britain, whose motives might be as benign as making a profit.
The fact that Guy Macon slipped up here, and revealed that the aim was not just to obtain a finding that the Mail is unreliable just like InfoWars, it was to obtain an even worse classification, says it all.
We can only guess what that classification is. In Guy Macon's infamous words though, the Mail is an evil that can only be killed by fire, apparently. Perhaps he would even celebrate if the journalists and their families burned in the inferno too. Harsh? You're wondering, aren't you?
For that alone, I suspect it involves some religious level shit. Because for all their obvious nonsense about how they're biased toward science and the analytical method, his lunatic fringe conduct as he worked toward bringing about the Daily Mail ban, for this was by no means an exception, showed rather clearly, that when it really matters, when it's a matter he really cares about, Guy Macon is all about the zealotry.
Which is hardly a shock. Wikipedia is a cult, after all. Crazy is what they do.
Buying into this shit, all of it, is the price of admission. Don't believe me? Try being a Wikipedia editor who queries whether DAILYMAIL really was an exercise in sage, sober analysis, and see how long you last. These people are for real, legit, cult bastards.
And as we know, fire is pretty effective on cults.