When is a pedophile not a pedophile? When he's got a profile on Wikipedia!

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: When is a pedophile not a pedophile? When he's got a profile on Wikipedia!

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:39 am

While we have a small underground scene of pedophile hunters who operate on Facebook et al, and have been got some acceptance from police where they confine themselves to evidence collection, it is generally accepted that even sex offenders have rights. Not many, but not getting lynched is one of them.

There will be an official record of this man's conviction somewhere, accessible by people who have a need to know it.

As such, nobody in Britain, unless they have been captured by the Wikipedia cult, will believe that these two tabloid reports are false. This is how newspaper media here works. They don't have First Amendment rights. If they wrote a false report of this nature, there would be consequences.

This is perhaps the problem. Because Wikipedia editors have got so used to living in a world where none of their disgusting acts carry any consequences, where you can say whatever you like about journalists and no Administrator is ever going to say, oh wait, hang on, didn't we have a policy around here that says don't defame people, then they readily assume everyone in the real world operates like that too.

They honestly can't get their heads around the fact tabloids in the main, don't lie, and if you use just a tiny little bit of brain power, you can usually tell which story is likely to be true. Especially in cases like this, where there is literally no reason to suspect a falsehood, other than prejudice against tabloids.

Guy Macon wants people to believe the British tabloid press print false stores about convictions, up to and including fabricated quotes. He doesn't have any proof, but hey, it's Wikipedia, he doesn't need any proof.

Guy Macon is going to get himself killed. If not by having a heart attack when a journalist inevitably doorsteps him and asks him what the fuck he thinks he is playing at, then when someone actually pays someone good money to shoot the bastard. It would be worth it, if you're one of the people who could lose their job, if this Grade A bullshit ever makes it's way out of the Wikipedia bubble, and becomes accepted wisdom. Thankfully, it has not, and probably never will.

What Guy Macon says about the Daily Mail, especially when he gets into specifics like the reliability of court reporting, like he knows shit about shit and isn't just a raging moron, is so fucking untrue, it can't even get edited into the Wikipedia article on the Daily Mail. And that's in an environment where leftists dominate and source abuse is readily accepted if it harms a right wing newspaper. Despite all his bullshit, his years long campaign against the Mail, his garbage claims about it still aren't even Wikipedia encyclopedia facts. Useless fucker.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: When is a pedophile not a pedophile? When he's got a profile on Wikipedia!

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Jun 10, 2021 8:01 am

Jake Is A Sellout wrote:
Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:39 am
Guy Macon is going to get himself killed. If not by having a heart attack when a journalist inevitably doorsteps him and asks him what the fuck he thinks he is playing at, then when someone actually pays someone good money to shoot the bastard. It would be worth it, if you're one of the people who could lose their job, if this Grade A bullshit ever makes it's way out of the Wikipedia bubble, and becomes accepted wisdom. Thankfully, it has not, and probably never will.
Sadly must disagree. People like Gerard, SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Jossi Fresco, and FT2 have gotten away with FAR WORSE things since 2004. Many many worse things. This is why Macon and MelanieN do this--like American police, they know the system is behind them. So they can ram a pregnant woman's car (or the online equivalent) without personal consequences.

Please believe me, I'm not here to tell you to lose all hope and jump off a building or whatever--only trying to convey the magnitude of the idiotic bureaucracy you are fighting with.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: When is a pedophile not a pedophile? When he's got a profile on Wikipedia!

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:02 am

No misplaced hopes here, believe me.

I think the Daily Mail thing is different. Guy Macon is trying in his own warped way, to give actual effect to Jimmy Wales' sincere but doomed effort that would have us believe citizen journalism and/or donor/crowdfunding can ever somehow replace the traditional newsprint model - paying trained journalists to write a news story that people want to read, and charge advertisers for access to those eyeballs.

This isn't Gerard going after crypto, or anything really like that at all. All those names, I recognise from internal abuse or more traditional encyclopedia cult building, not externally focused campaigns for a specific real world outcome.

This man, for undoubtedly very small minded personal reasons, wants to put thousands of people on the unemployment line. And he wants to use his perception of Wikipedia backed immunity to tell lies about the tabloid media, to achieve it. He has no such immunity. He merely currently flies under a flag of convenience, if you will. If he hits choppy waters, he's getting chucked overboard.

He has even tried to use the Wikipedia article space as his weapon, with only very limited effect, and clearly no success, which is what happens when you're trying to push things that are so obviously unsupportable with actual reliable sources.

He did get the source depreciated, a sort of victory, albeit not the game changing PR coup they had hoped, and when nobody was actually minded to give effect to their ban, appreciating that the whole exercise had indeed merely been a PR exercise cooked up with The Guardian, which rightfully got Hillbillyholiday exposed as a deviant, it has fell to David Gerard to do the heavy lifting. In which, he always looks like a man who is up to no good, one who likely does more damage than good, for clearly personal reasons. And with it, the community looks like a body happily standing buy and watching a FAIT ACCOMPLI unfold. Nothing has been done, that can't be undone.

Without these two men, and Hilbillyholiday and Guy Chapman, four men whose character and integrity are clear for all to see, there would be no Daily Mail ban. It is not a genuine community consensus. It was not well argued, and it was not well summarised. People lied. People cheated. The results are there for all to see.

A well run debate, aimed at establishing facts not amplifying prejudices, wouldn't have for example, just somehow FORGOT that there are two affected newspapers, the Daily Mail, and the Mail on Sunday. Two editors. Or that The Guardian isn't regulated by IPSO. The sort of broad knowledge that a man like Guy Macon could have been expected to know, had he ever actually done any research into the reliability of the DMGT stable, before he started gobbing off about killing things with fire.

It was a dirty tricks operation, targeting the livelihoods of thousands of people. It was just done largely out in the open. Because Wikipedia has no effective system of governance, when it comes to preventing drty tricks being waged against designated enemies.

For that, there is a price. It must be paid. It will be paid. One way or another.

I hope for their sake, but only slightly, and only out of concern for the potential victim, that this won't all come crashing down as a result of an incident like the Marek Kukula case blowing up badly in their faces.

Two of these dead men walking are Administrators, but only by the skin of their teeth, one having recently having to be topic banned from one of their chosen enemies, the other having to take an extended sabbatical given his inability to control his emotions in a topic he has strong feelings about.

These are not stable men. These are not model Administrators. These are picture postcards for the case for Admin reform, chiefly, removing the job for life protection. They are a looming problem for ArbCom, problems NewYorkBrad is unlikely to be able to protect forever. At least not without succumbing to a heart attack of his own.

People like him really shouldn't so readily accept the honour of a Wikipedia biography, when there is never any guarantee your deeds in an area you have so thoroughly wedded your real world persona to, are all public record, accessible to all, including journalists. Wikipedia never forgets. You said it. You own it. Especially when it comes to giving Administrators free passes on disreputable behaviour.

Hemiauchenia needs to have a word with himself, and think on about what a person would really try to do, if they wasted their time building up a Wikipedia account with an established record of HERE. Taking out Chapman and Gerard, would be the best use of such an account. Can he stop that? Is his Wikipediocracy level brain equipped for such deep cover operations? I suspect not.

But why bother when Wikipedia is doing fine in that regard anyway? As for the other two, people can do a lot about those sort of lesser actors, just from the sidelines. One is banned. The other had to fake a heart attack to avoid a humiliating defeat at RfA.

Hubris is a terrible thing. Guy Macon has now publicly admitted he would let a Daily Mail journalist interview him on his Wikipedia talk page. All it took was a couple of carefully engineered incidents, done when the good folk of Wikipediocracy were busy doing something entirely pointless, like slamming the media savvy always careful about what he says Jimmy for the millionth time, like that has any traction. Workplace bullying at a million dollar charity? Yeah, he had an easy out, obviously.

That Guy Macon accession to be publicly interviewed by the Mail in the manner he chooses, because he claims any other venue would be fabricated by the Mail journalist, that's public record now, and forever more. No take backs. Not without losing all credibility in the eyes of the people he wants and needs to draw support from, as well as, well, everybody else.

The Guardian won't ever want to associate itself with a man who backs out of a journalistic commitment in that manner. Macon is not Jimmy. He doesn't have that freedom. And this is the same Guardian that happily played ball with a deviant racist, Micheal Cockram, when it was made clear the effort would be damaging to a mutual enemy, the Mail.

It is their unfortunate lot that they didn't properly do a background check on their source, or indeed, check his source material. Or consider and perhaps retract the story that resulted, which of course is now being used improperly in the Wikipedia Daily Mail article. Thanks largely, to these four disreputable men.

All. Public. Record.

Only the complaints have ever really been revdelled. Complaints largely only levelled simply to see what they would do with the complaints. The acts, the attempted justifications for actual breaches of Wikipedia policy, they are all still there.

Dr Micheal Arj, former Wikipedia Arbitrator, his act of giving procedural cover to an edit made to Wikipedia's article on the Mail, by Macon, in pursuit of his agenda, and which was sourced only to the internal statements of Wikipedia editors, despite being an open and shut BLP violation, that is still public record.

We can count the days, and page views, and therefore damages, of that editorial decision. And factor in the fact that Wikipedia let that remain in the article for the full term of an RfC, despite it being so obviously against policy, serious, legal effect policy. Even though it died out within days, and had only ever seen Guy Macon support the edit, it went full term, before the edit was finally removed. That's how fucking obvious it was, that he was breaking the rules, he had stood alone.

Stuff like this is easy to explain to outsiders. Every man and his dog, knows what a cheat looks like. A chancer. A briggand. A cunt.

And this is Wikipedia, not Trump's America. The community will excuse a lot, try and explain away a lot, but they 'ain't flat Earthing shit for no man, not when the Mail asks for an explanation. Best Macon can expect there, in terms of support from the community, is a no comment. In other words, yes, we did that.

People don't forget that shit. Not stuff THAT blatant.

The fuck did he think a Mail journalist will be coming to ask him on his talk page? His favourite yoghurt?

The man is screwed. Not just hoisted by his own petard, but soon to be anally raped by it. In full, live, technicolor. Unless he does what he probably will do, and retract the offer as soon as that question is placed. He is good at finding excuses for having to leave Wikipedia suddenly, after all.

With the Hillbillyholiday affair, not checking their sources when there is an ideological prize in sight, is something even the esteemed Guardian are prone to do, something that more reliable sources are now aware of, and so presumably potential donors to the Guardian are now too, since they are unlikely to get their information solely from Wikipedia. And they can, y'know, read.

I hope the Guardian can survive on the generosity of the true believers, now that they have adopted the Wikipedia funding model. Stripped of bias, the Guardian offers reasonable if not outstanding breadth of coverage. The Mail does depth and breadth, because the Mail is broadly trusted in the way any actual newspaper should be, and so can secure the sort of access and talent the Guardian just can't buy, no matter how much they beg. I know this. The industry knows this.

The same goes for Wikipedia, which of course, much to Guy Macon's annoyance, has made plans to forestall the inevitable downturn in funding, when the efforts and tactics of volunteers like him become increasingly widely known. Such as if, for example, he were stupid enough to think he could go toe to toe with a Mail journalist, and survive.

Cockram didn't. Where is he now? Can't even salvage a reputation from Wikipediocracy, and they'll publish anybody, even Fram! Even me, if I acceeded to their interminable begging. They hate me, but they love them some DK bloggery. They know what sells. Too late Jake. Sellout mother fucker.

Macon will live to regret that acceptance of an interview in principle, if his heart lets him live for very long. Because the Daily Mail doesn't fuck around. He can't no comment his way out of that shit. He can't appeal to Jimmy for financial help, should that interview not go the way he expected and he can't actually get anyone to revision delete it. Indeed it would be FUCKING HILARIOUS if he did beg Jimmy for a slice of the fighting funds.

Jimmy's been burned before in exactly this area of combat. Got caught publicly offering the Foundation's sympathy and assistance to the racist deviant Hilbillyholiday when he felt the wrath of the Mail, who can and will and do doorstep their enemies. Bringing the consequences of your Wikipedia actions, right to your door. Ooops.

If Macon keeps lying, and with this level of sheer bravado, then the prospect of a Mail journo just turning up at his door only gets nearer, and probably only for the precise purpose of being able to photograph him red faced and angrily slamming the door and calling the police, all because the nasty man asked him if he could actually prove his defamatory and Wikipedia hosted statements, and didn't think it was necessary or expedient to call ahead and warn Macon to get his affairs in order. Next stop, the Wikimedia Press Office so they can go on record with a legally necessary endowment protecting public denial that they share Macon's views, restating the basic Wikipedia liability model, and then the print works.

Paging Jimmy Wales. Paging Jimmy Wales. Patient has coded, needs emergency assistance, STAT.

:lol:

Death comes to us all. It is ours to choose the manner of it. :twisted:

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: When is a pedophile not a pedophile? When he's got a profile on Wikipedia!

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:17 pm

The cult most definitely wants to harm children, that's for damn sure....

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... d=21567788

My suggested reply, in an alternate universe where people like GeneralNotability are dragged, kicking and screaming, from any and all positions of authority.....
The theory is simple. Wikipedia is currently the only biographer of this man. Your Wikipedia page, and those two tabloid reports, is the sum total of what a Google knows about this man. He could quite easily use it to further offend, simply by showing it to a child, while not showing them the tabloid reports. It would be a little more complex than that, but '''it is also as simple as that'''. Preventing that risk, matters more than Wikipedia editor's desire to see any and all tabloid reporting expunged from Wikipedia. That is their campaign. It ''is'' hateful. It uses pejorative terms like "Daily Fail" and "Kill It With Fire". It eschews facts and presents opinion instead. The single example of Amanda Knox, online for all of two minutes, is used by these local actors as their whole entire evidence base for believing one of these tabloids cannot be trusted not to fabricate quotes from judges. And they're proud of that logic, not ashamed. No action is taken. No Administrator discounts these arguments or their evident bias. It is generally accepted practice. It also has consequences like this, because the world of sourcing is not black and white, where sources are either reliable or unreliable. Context matters. Decisions must take account of circumstances and evidence (which is actual Wikipedia policy). One of which is that the likelihood of a false report goes down, as the predicted negative consequences for the publisher of a false report goes up. They don't get worse than here. Damages in the millions of pounds, would be due. Facts like that, do matter. The local reliable source dogma has failed here, because a scenario has been found where the typical reliable sources are staying silent, and Wikipedia editors simply blindly refuse to admit that the allegedly unreliable sources that are available, in context, would appear to be reliable, based on all available facts and context. Their only objection, is their prejudice. Deeply held and immovable. Not an aspersion, an evidence based observation. Dispute resolution doesn't work here, because people holding to dogma and prejudice, are by definition, not open to reason. Anyway, what do I know? I'm only a degree educated gainfully employed journalist. This is all probably far too complex for little old me. I can write about this man if you want, I am considered a reliable source when I put my mind to it, but it won't spare Wikipedia's blushes. I would rather be writing a piece about how Wikipedia was able to do the right thing in the end, once it had been shaken out if its stupor. Don't like tabloids? Fine. Deleting the article is literally a zero cost high reward solution. Seems obvious to me. What am I missing? ~~~~

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: When is a pedophile not a pedophile? When he's got a profile on Wikipedia!

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:15 pm

The appropriately named Moral Hazard, of Wikipediocracy.....
The last thing that the world needs is more Wikipedia attacks on living persons sourced only to tabloids (even if said attacks consist of truths).
This is why I am banned from that snowflake forum. Because they know what I do to Wikipedia applogist scum like this. I rip their guts out, and feast on the entrails.

And boy, do they not like it. Too hostile, apparently.

But I am feeling extraordinarily at peace right now. The darkness has been fed. So I will put it in a Midsize Jake approved nicey nicey every special flower needs their time in the Sun fashion......

A true report detailing a conviction for sexual offences involving children, is not an "attack".

Wikipedia editors need and want these reports to false, otherwise, they look like what they are. People who care more about attacking tabloids, than defending children.

Hasten the day, that Wikipediots and their apologists cease having any say over what words like attack actually mean. Maybe then we can also have "editor" and "encyclopedia" back too.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: When is a pedophile not a pedophile? When he's got a profile on Wikipedia!

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:31 pm

Giraffe Stapler is a fucking retard. Absolutely fits in at Wikipediocracy.
I am not saying this guy was framed. I am saying the reports aren't telling enough of the story to make sense of it
Or maybe you're too thick to understand a simple thing like a newspaper report?
Both the Sun and the Daily Mail said he pleaded guilty to "making" child porn images, but it sounds like just he downloaded them. 
That's because in British law, downloading abuse imagery is considered production. Presumably to hammer home the seriousness of the act, when calling it merely downloading might make it seem as benign as copyright infringement to some people, a victimless crime.
The sentence wouldn't be consistent with making child porn.
But it is consistent with downloading it. So maybe you should have read up on the relevant law, before assuming the cause of your confusion lay somewhere other than your own dumbassery?
It isn't clear if the images found on his devices were the images "downloaded and deleted" between 2006 and 2009.
It's perfectly clear. Read it again, specifically the part about having found them on an "old laptop".
 It is puzzling to me that the police would raid his home if he only accessed child porn almost a decade ago.
Not remotely puzzling. Especially given the reports make it clear the police were executing a search warrant on an address, not a person. They had clearly somehow come into possession of historical IP data regarding who had downloaded material from illegal servers, which necessarily can often take a long time to locate and take down, and were working their way through it. They would obviously raid any location where they knew (from easily obtained records) that there had been continuous occupancy since the offence.
I find the judge's comments surprisingly sympathetic, so I wonder if there are aspects that have been left out (such as he had sought treatment for porn addiction between 2009 and his arrest). 
The reports are clearly detailed enough regarding the mitigation, that it really would be a surprise if a detail like that was left out.
 I just get the feeling that there's more to this story.
A feeling which is mostly based on you not understanding the story in the first place.
I think tabloids pick and choose stories that will appeal to their readers, so sex crimes, grisly murders, etc. Whatever will arouse their readers either sexually or emotionally. 
No shit.
Local papers are the best sources for police blotter-type reporting, not tabloids.
Even if this was true historically, these days, local papers are shutting down or being consolidated all over the country, because there's little market for stuff like truly local court reporting (largely because it's likely already been put on Facebook before the paper is even online, let alone printed).

The Mail and Sun by contrast, are the two most widely read national newspapers. The Mail specifically is known for how deeply local or specialised their own directly employed journalists and freelance feeds can be. The reward for being a good newspaper - commercial success.

AndyTheGrump is no better......
Kukula seems to have "downloaded and deleted the images between 2006 and 2009", and have had the police raid him many years later. Do the Met Police have an almost ten-year backlog for investigating suspected illegal downloads? Or did they have some other reason to investigate Kuluka?.......Or maybe there was more to it that the two papers knew about, but chose to exclude in their coverage, since it didn't fit in with their tabloid agendas?
Typcial Wikipediot. Absolutely can't accept any scenario where a tabloid reports something accurately and completely. Has to be something more to it.

I mean for fuck's sake, anyone who watches the news would know that these timescales for these sort of offences aren't unusual. The police do actually have mountains of leads that need following up, just one raid can lead to millions of records going back decades. But even more likely here, they have come into possession of historical data only from a more recent seizure. People are saying computers can even store data for twenty years, now. Amazing! :roll:

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: When is a pedophile not a pedophile? When he's got a profile on Wikipedia!

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:10 pm

Guy Macon happily downgrading a reported conviction to a mere accusation, just to suit his anti-Mail crusade.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2030&p=20057#p20057

These sick fucks really don't want kids to be protected, do they?

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: When is a pedophile not a pedophile? When he's got a profile on Wikipedia!

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Sat Jun 19, 2021 7:19 am

Of all the ways I have observed the Wikishits justify their apparent desire to see children abused just to further their war agaisnt tabloids, this epic wierdness takes the biscuit.

Still, if anyone needed proof that Guy Macon is the sort of creep who keeps lists of the Daily Mail's coverage of underage girls on hand, here it is.

Does he strike you as the kind of guy who would want to prevent child abuse? Me neither.

Post Reply