Lunatic charlatan OWNS the page that claims Wikipedia is against lunatic charlatans

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

Lunatic charlatan OWNS the page that claims Wikipedia is against lunatic charlatans

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Sat Aug 14, 2021 1:10 pm

Oh Wikipedia. You are too stupid for words at times.

There I was, about to post on our dear forum the wondering, is Guy Macon actually dead? I had my concerns, since if you believe him, he does have a dodgy ticker, and for him to have gone missing from Wikipedia from the 5th to the 12th of August inclusive, was remarkable.

It's sad, I know, but we're talking about serious addicts here, and this one has it baaaad. Yes, he is technically retired, so nobody should really be surprised at his inactivity, but he has been retired for over a month, and up until then, he had been unable to stay away for more than a weekend.

So I was a little disappointed to see that no, he's not dead, and no, he wasn't even talking time off Wikipedia. Sad bastard that he is, he was still checking his watchlist, and so on 13 August, he noticed this within it.....
curprev 20:27, 13 August 2021‎ Anthony Appleyard talk contribs‎ m  3,652 bytes 0‎  Anthony Appleyard moved page User talk:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. to Wikipedia talk:Yes. We are biased. over a redirect without leaving a redirect:
And if you're thinking, well, go easy on the guy, checking in once a day to monitor things is not addiction. Orly?

It took this sad addict bastard just an hour to notice this move, figure out what happened and register his objection and request it be undone.....
Please do not move essays from my userspace to mainspace without discussing the move with me first. I have a talk page. Please use it. Guy Macon (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I guess we can't rule out the possibility his quick action was actually the result of an even sadder bastard who isn't retired having noticed and frantically emailing Macon to alert him that people were messing with his stuff.

But let us be clear, Guy Macon claims he only noticed this by monitoring his watchlist, and Guy Macon would never lie. He has too much respect for his Wikipedia colleagues. :lol:

And so, having perhaps been monitoring Wikipedia every hour or two for more days than he cared to be inactive, he seized on this flimsy excuse to plug back in. And with the dopamine hit of that first wonderful edit taking full effect, he wasn't satisfied with simply having undone the move, he had to go to great lengths to tell everyone his thoughts.....
Recently, this page was moved to mainspace without asking me. At my request, the move has been undone, but I would still like to go on the record as to why similar cases should not be handled this way.

As a general rule, it should never be the case where the first someone hears about a page being taken out of their userspace is seeing the move in their watchlist (and maybe not even then; not everyone knows to watchlist all of their userspace subpages). That's just rude.

In this particular case, I deliberately placed the page in my userspace. In my userspace, I own the essay and have the final say on content. In mainspace, anyone is free to edit the page to say that we are biased towards holocaust denial, biased against vaccination, etc. This is a very controversial essay, and there are acupuncturists, young earth creationists, scientologists, etc. who would prefer that it say the exact opposite of what it says now.

Also, the move was made with no redirect. This left 45 pages with dead links to User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased.

Finally, you should not move pages without checking the talk page bot settings and moving all subpages. As a result of this move old threads from Wikipedia talk:Yes. We are biased would have been archived to User talk:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased./Archive 1 --Guy Macon (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Just wow.

But hey, any excuse to get back in the game. That archive issue meant he also had a chance to come back and edit again on the 14th. How ironic that it should be with a self effacing joke about the perils of editing Wikipedia while on crack.

You are on crack, dude. Pure, Grade A, Silicon Valley white

So, what's so funny here? Other than that hilarious peek into the life of an addict.

That is a GREAT question, and I am glad you asked it, Stephen Harrison of Slate.

First, we have to ask the question, why was Guy Macon so upset at the given reason for this move.......
It's a commonly cited essay on Wikipedia articles about pseudoscience, so it should be in the Wikipedia namespace.
Since Guy Macon is on record as having said "I wrote this essay to be a teaching tool", he surely should have been glad that in the eyes of one editor, perhaps more if he had waited, it is seen as received wisdom.

Because the way Wikipedia is organised, any "essay" that remains in a user's personal space, is legitimately seen as perhaps nothing more than the ravings of a lunatic. Just one of many diverse opinions from the (not so) diverse Wikipedia community of volunteers editors. Something that all editors are free to take heed of or disregard at their leisure. Could be wise, could be fucking garbage, and for that reason alone, a personal essay officially carries no more weight in a debate than if the user who wrote had simply typed it out there and then. You take it as you find it.

And this is a great time to sidebar and note that Guy Macon is the only FREAK in the entire Wikipedia community who I have ever seen actually prefer to copy and paste the entire contents of the essay into a debate, rather than just offer a link, just so he could be sure people couldn't miss his wisdom. There is always one, as they say.

Anyway, so yes, if he were an ordinary normally functioning Wikipedia editor (and let's indulge ourselves with the idea there are any ordinary humans in that clown show), he could and should be proud and pleased at the thought of his personal essay being promoted to a little higher status.

Still not as important as an official Guideline or even Policy, but certainly official in the sense of being officially recognised as the received wisdom of the community. As in, you can't just ignore it because you want to if or when it is brought up in a debate, you'd have to have a legitimate reason, and offer it, if you wanted your opinion to count.

So here we are, at this curious point. Why is Guy Macon being such a selfish prick? Why won't he let the community receive and acknowledge his apparently accepted wisdom in the time honoured fashion?

Other than the minority of cranks who want to teach the controversy and such like, who are by definition not really a part of the Wikipedia community, I am aware of no actual controversy surrounding this essay. Indeed, if memory serves, this is not the first time it has seen the light of mainspace day, and that might even have been at Macon's proud hand himself. Albeit in better times, when he was a little less weighed down by matters of a personal protest nature.

After all, Wikipedia isn't meant to be about the individual, all your wisdom and effort and hard work as a volunteer is by necessity (an actual, legal necessity), subsumed into the common good. You don't own it. You gift it. Nice (if more than a little gullible) person that you are.

They even have a policy about such things, WP:OWN. It rightfully focuses on how bad it is to stake a personal claim over an article, but it is also quite clear that even for pages in an editor's user space, their essays and such like.....
Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. Nevertheless, they are not personal homepages, and are not owned by the user. They are still part of Wikipedia and must serve its primary purposes
Quite odd then, that Guy Macon would so boldly make a claim of ownership here. Although as its author and it being a personal essay, he would get the final say in pretty much all attempted changes if he simply disagreed, in certain crucial respects, no, he does not have the final say, and he is categorically wrong to make such a claim.

One such example of him probably not having a final say, would be if he were to go temporarily insane and edit the essay to say Wikipedia should in fact be all about vaccine denial.

Which is odd, to say the least, because as he is never slow to remind people, his fifteen year experience with Wikipedia does rather imply he has a certain competence I guess (just not enough to have convinced them he deserved the trusted status of Administrator). Administrators are trusted for example, to know the OWNership rules and so make wise decisions when it comes to who can and cannot have the final say over a personal essay, should such a thing descend into an actual dispute. Which, believe it or not, these sad bastards seem have time to do.

But we can forgive that erroneous claim, maybe. Certainly since he is just a mere rank and file editor, fifteen years or no fifteen years. As we have seen, even Guy Macon is not above being forcefully corrected by an Administrator, if necessary, if these erroneous beliefs become erroneous acts.

And it is perhaps to their credit that the community has stood firm in the face of what has been some pretty impressive and long lasting post block whining and general disruption and double talk, up to and including severe breaches of personal behaviour policy. Even if their collective inaction in terms of issuing further warnings much less sanctions has been a timely and always necessary reminder of what fifteen years service can actually buy you on Wikipedia.

But other things, well, we would be most silly to forgive.

Wikipedia is meant to operate at a high level. Theoretically. Debate is supposed to be intelligent and respectful. And yet here is Guy Macon making the UTTERLY ABSURD claim that he needs this easy to be in his user space rather than become part of the collective good, because of the apparently very real danger that if that were to happen, someone might edit it to say Wikipedia is biased against vaccines.

Obvious horseshit is obvious.

A rank insult to anyone's intelligence. If anything, if this essay were in collective ownership, such a preposterous change could be reversed even more quickly and even more vehemently, than if this were a personal essay and people therefore had to juggle whether Guy Macon wanted the honour of telling the miscreant to SHOO himself, and then use the occasion to write another thousand words about how vaccines are awesome, and anyone who thinks differently is such a poopie head.

(I'm down with all the vaccines btw, my intent here is only to pierce the infantile and patronising approach to those who aren't, of what is allegedly a serious intellectual enterprise, to the relatively minor problem of cranks).

Everyone would know, for example, that in such a situation, such are Guy Macon's, uh, problems, that after he had called the offender a poopie head, he would feel obligated to seize upon their crime to remind any and all peoples that THEY are why he had to write this ridiculous essay, because people need to know this stuff. It's IMPORTANT WISDOM.

I definitely think that when Jimmy Wales made the rather obvious one line statement that begat this nonsense cult within a cult, he really had no idea much less intent, that it would send people like Guy Macon off to battle in his stead. This essay being akin to a battle flag.

They want and need a purpose, and in large part I think because they already know most people have realised the whole "we're building an encyclopedia" stuff was just a sham. Protecting what shite they have managed to scrape together, from a largely imagined and easily defeated threat, is a next best alternative I guess.

Because let's have it right. If we were to actually believe the greatest threat to Wikipedia is editors trying to undermine the scientific consensus around vaccines, then people might start to wonder, what problems are they not wise to, and are not tackling?

Copyright and citogenisis are two things that are seriously undermining to an encyclopedia, and which are, as anyone who looks will tell you, problems that Wikipedia either can't or doesn't want to address in any meaningful way. The reason is rather obvious.

It's way above the skillset of a Guy Macon, and not nearly as attractive. No glory in it, see. And way harder to just bullshit and bluster your way through. Not here, can you say the sort of dumbass stupid shit he has said about the newspaper industry for example, and hope to not get called out on it.

To take my own example, I have expertise in both areas, and in another life, a very different life, I suppose I could be contributing handsomely in this area right now. I'd want no thanks or reward, just the good feels of knowing I was helping, if we must live in a nightmare future where Wikipedia is knowledge.

But do I want people to think that I would be happy with someone like Guy Macon being my peer? And would I want to give my free time to a project which has rules preventing me from speaking my mind about what is so wrong with seeing a person like Guy Macon as competent? No I do not.

If the Wikipedia community genuinely believes he is actually competent, and indeed is happy to block anyone who can offer the fact based argument that he is not, then, whatever their reason for such idiocy, and I think we all know why they are doing it (ironically, their desire and need to be biased, but not against nutbaggery, but the right wing in general), well, they can accept the hidden costs.

Wikipedia is and shall remain a pastime of those with limited intelligence and limited vision, producing an "encyclopedia" of limited use and with an obvious left wing slant (the latter not too unconnected to the former, obviously).

Because I would have thought that "figure out a way to stop lunatic charlatans editting their crap into our encyclopedia" would have been the very first thing to be settled at Wikipedia's very first meetings. That this wouldn't still apparently be a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER some twenty years on.

But no, it apparently is, and they have a battle flag and everything.

Just, y'know, maybe look past your suspicion it was written in crayon by a fourth grader who doesn't really know what bias actually means (you can't be biased against inanimate fact based logical constructs, like, I dunno, ALL OF SCIENCE, as if that somehow suggests you have a legitimate alternative viewpoint, you can only be, ironically, a lunatic).

Vaccines work. People who say they don't, are obviously insane. This is such an obvious fact, one wonders why people on Wikipedia have tolerated Guy Macon taking it and ironically turning it into some kind of foundational religion. Something that uniquely personally defines his net worth to Wikipedia.

And so, we are getting to the truth, are we not? If this essay were to be accepted and thus subsumed as collective wisdom, well, that's Guy Macon's chance to shine all gone.

Not a good look. Selfish, vain, egotistical, and above all, super addicted to having these feelings fed and reinforced. Everything you don't want from a Wikipedia editor.

But if they're not going to up the entry requirements beyond IS U A HUMAN BEAN?, and to be honest even that isn't an official requirement, it won't change.

These days you could probably train a monkey to make a passable impression of a Wikipedia editor. Sometimes the morons there don't even realise when they're talking to one of their automated users, that's how mindlessly easy some of their dipshit gruntwork is, and how often a Wikipedia editor will come across another human editor doing something just frankly insane. Even to do the stuff that you might think requires some level of intelligence, even that doesn't necessarily have to be a human or machine on Wikipedia. A lower order of life will do. Monkey or Macon.

A blunt tool like Guy Macon will always slip through the net, and become an ugly but ever present reminder that Wikipedia really isn't about harnessing the brightest and best. Nor is it about collectivising averagely intelligent humans. It's about attracting and extracting minimal useful effort from anyone who can't get gainfully employed anywhere, be that paid employment or legitimate charity work, on account of them being both criminally stupid and dangerously incapable of working with others.

A fucking freak show. It is Guy Macon's poor lot in life, that he he genuinely doesn't see how, in the field of freaks that is Wikipedia, he doth shine.

I mean, I hesitate to be cruel, I really do, but the brass neck of this Guy going on about what would be RUDE? He's a convicted transphobic troll. I know in his head he is trying to claim that only one Administrator believes this, but come on, look around. The broad community wants no part of objecting to, much less overturning, what seems to have been a pretty accurate description of what Guy did.

It's a little more than rude, to pointedly use someone's user name fifty times just because you refuse to use their preference of singular they. It's also pretty rude to repeatedly and quite absurdly claim said Administrator blocked you for having violated a rule he just made up. He only got blocked this time because this affected something Wikipedia cares about, transphobia. You can tell all the lies you want about those gainfully employed in the right wing media business, that is fair game.

It's actually borderline if not way over the line crazy to be claiming the reason you're no longer contributing to Wikipedia, is because you honestly, genuinely, live in constant fear that this one single Administrator might just make up another rule and block you indefinitely for breaking it. Like nobody would notice or care.

But we can only believe what Guy Macon tells us are his genuinely held believable and thoughts, as he goes about doing his Wikipedia business. We must accept this as readily as we must accept he does genuinely believe Marek Kukula might be innocent. We just can't know, see, and we shouldn't let the fact that in these and many other cases, Guy Macon has a clear personal motive to lie. That would be too.....intelligent.

For has he not chided us readily for daring to speculate about that which he hath not offered in print?

He has offered these claims though, I can only repeat what he has said, and repeat the idea that Guy Macon would never deliberately lie to his peers. Right?

So sayeth the Wikipedia doctrine. If he were a born liar, a fantasist who shapes his own reality to suit his own agendas, well, he would currently be blocked from editing, not merely voluntarily withholding. Right? You're not so sure, are you?

He is (a born liar) and he does (shape his own reality to suit his warped agendas). As he so brazenly suggested would be the business practice of the Daily Mail, without any shred of proof of his own of course, if it were ever to be the case that Guy Macon saw a potential profit in using the Wikipedia platform to rail agasint vaccines, he would do so.

And he would most likely do so in a personal essay. So he could have the final word. Perhaps the rules might stop that. And perhaps they wouldn't. You judge the Wikipedia editors not on their honestly and integrity in defending something you would expect them to defend, like a trans person's right to dignity, but in defending something that would be surprising for them to stand up for.

It would be a genuine surprise if the left leaning Wikipedia editors had a truthful and honest debate about not only what the objective reliability of the Daily Mail is, but also how it compares to other newspapers. To prove their case, and prove it well. Accepting as they must, that their decision has wide ranging repercussions not just for the quality of their encyclopedia but the real world lives of hundreds of journalists. I perhaps kid, on both counts. But the point stands, as a matter of theory.

As a matter of intellect.

Do they stand with the forces of rationality and evidence, or are they just another whackjob religion? Where it matters not what you say, only how earnestly you BELIEVE.

I mean, come on. It is so obvious. Too obvious. A very simple proof.

Only only actual lunatic charlatan says the things Guy Macon does. The lunacy being what he actually says, and perhaps believing other people ARE JUST THAT FUCKING STUPID, the charade being that he does so as someone competent to write an encyclopedia. An established, experienced and allegedly well respected editor.

And isn't that the tragic truth? The supreme irony.

The man who wrote the NO MONKEYS ALLOWED essay, is naught but a fucking monkey himself.

Not terribly unlike how Guy Chapman, author of the NO NAZIS ALLOWED essay, quite often gives off just a hint of black leather jackboot polish in how he chooses to exert his power and influence over Wikipedia. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, he too seems to be taking a self imposed break, after a mild wrist slap from the powers that be. Perhaps for self reflection, or perhaps just to wait until the community has forgotten the recent evidence that he is actually an absolute embarrassment.

Which is all perhaps unkind to monkeys. I know not where the research is at, but I'd be fucking surprised if monkeys are stupid enough to go for organised religion. They will fling poo at each other, but they will not refuse the offer of assistance from a higher ranking and wiser member of the group simply because of some shit they read on Monkey Facebook.

And yes, there's an orangutan gag to be made in there somewhere, but come on people, don't make me spoon feed you this shit. I do this for free as well, remember.

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

:deadbanana: :evil:

Feast your eyes upon the tragic charade that is Wikipedia.

They embarass themselves, so that we might laugh.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Knowledge is powah. The power to stop hearts, perhaps. Or was that the Magic Man, stepping up and doing humanity a solid? Just this once. I want to believe.

:ugeek: :twisted:

On a final note. Who was the brave lunatic charlatan fighting soldier who sought to rescue Guy Macon's battle flag from the gutter of transphobic trollery and claim it for the community?

The headline section of their user page.....
IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR THOSE COMING FROM SANTA-RELATED ARTICLES[edit]

Santa Claus is not real; he is a legendary character (i.e. he is a character from folk legends, fairy tales, etc.). This is a fact that many reliable sources state. "Legendary" in this context does not mean "very famous." Websites that supposedly let you contact or track Santa are merely simulations. Please do not attempt to censor the fact that Santa does not exist from Wikipedia.

See Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:SANTA for more information. (I am not against Christmas or Christianity, as I am Christian myself.)
Uh huh.

There aren't enough laughing smileys in the world, tbh.

Fox News have their War on Christmas, and.....Wikipedia has their War on Those Who Would Abuse Wikipedia To Claim Sante Is Real.

A good time to note Wikipedia considers the Daily Mail to be more unreliable than Fox News?

Guy Macon is a cancer. Look upon his mutant brood, and see your future, Wikisimians.

Post Reply