MelanieN is probably a child abuser

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

MelanieN is probably a child abuser

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:20 pm

This is a very sick fallout from the whole Marek Kukula affair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =118459164

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1027467649

MelanieN actually threatened the editor wishing to ensure the biography of that man was complete. And they have subsequently even removed their proposed addition from the article history, on the disgusting justification that it is a BLP violation.

Nobody in their right mind thinks this man is not guilty of downloading images of boys aged between 10 to 14 having sex with each other. He was taken to court, and convicted. Fact.

Not an accusation, not a rumour, an actual outcome of a criminal trial. An outcome reported in the two most widely read newspapers in Britain, reports which could and would have been challenged by any of the many people directly quoted, if there was even a single inaccuracy.

Reports whose contents are not contrdicted by a single iota of evidence to be found anywhere on the entire internet. Reports that match what appears to have happened to his public profile as a result of the conviction. He has been erased from his employer's website, and he is no longer to be seen being quoted as an expert. If anyone disputes these reports, or has an alternative reason for these events, they have stayed silent.

Anyone who thinks there is even a 1% chance those reports are false, fabricated, or otherwise in error, is probably either retarded, or is being paid to manage the reputation of the man, or the institutions who failed to detect he was a danger to children. Which admittedly they probably lacked the power to investigate.

The only reason Wikipedia editors who do not meet those criteria, want to entertain any possibility the tablid reports detailing this conviction might be untrue, is their maniacal prejudice against tabloids. It has to be maintained, at all costs. Even if it leads to absurd and even dangerous outcomes.

The end result, a Wikipedia biography that still portrays him as a man who poses no threat to children, is entirely on them. A flaw of Wikipedia being that the editors can do shameful things, and be entirely insulated from the consequences.

He committed this crime BEFORE he was appointed Public Astronomer at the Royal Observatory. Sources Wikipedia actually considers reliable, make it clear that engaging with children was a part of this job that he really enjoyed. He visited schools, for fuck's sake.

Those tabloid reports make it clear, quoting an actual judge no less, he turned to child porn as a way to relieve stress of work pressures and financial worries. Well, he can't be doing too well right now, with his preferred career in ruins, stress wise.

As such, knowing all this, it is not beyond the realms of possibility, that this man might now see no real reason not to take his interests to the next level. That he might want to actually start grooming and abusing kids.

And if we assume he would do as those reports suggest he would, and seek these children out online, then he would obviously find it quite advantageous, to be able to point them to a Wikipedia biography that makes it sound like he has a cool job and is the exact sort of person a child might want to impress online.

Children don't know Wikipedia can't be trusted (although I suspect even most adults dint realise the Widipedoa disclaimer means it might not even tell you if a notable person has been convicted of a serious criminal offence that was reported in the mainstream media and was totally relevant to their life's work).

It doesn't need explaining what can happen next, once this bond has been established.

I cannot accept MelanieN thinks what she has just done, is right. She has placed the non existent risk to this man's reputation of these tabloid reports being reflected in his Wikipedia biography, over and above the very real risk to children that I have just outlined, of them not being included.

The irony? The reports are still visible on the talk page. MelanieN hasn't removed them. But children access Wikipedia on their phones, and the mobile browser of course, doesn't expose the talk page.

The only way it makes sense, is if she is acting on something worse than just this Wikipedia wide prejudice against tabloids. I think she feels sympathy with child abusers exposed by tabloids. Not that this was even an expose. It's basic court reporting. Public interest journalism. And the only people who think like that, are probably secret child abusers themselves.

Wikipedia editors are sick. In so many ways.

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

Re: MelanieN is probably a child abuser

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Jun 10, 2021 12:52 am

The Knights of the Darkness have had their say......
I have no doubt you think you are enforcing policy, but it is indisputable that the risk to Marek Kukula in a BLP sense, is extremely low, if not zero. By contrast, there is a far higher, albeit still quite low, risk of this incomplete biography being used to assist in further online or real life child abuse. The correct outcome here, is clear and obvious. You have probably put children at increased risk, and for no good reason. Not that there ever could be a good reason for that. I would say reconsider, if I remotely thought you were even capable of it. What you have done, was done for reasons of prejudice. You actually want those reports to be false, and you refuse to accept all evidence that they are not. And that is why you would never consider the possibility that you are wrong. I'll be keeping an eye on the court reports, and if a child is abused and this man's name is involved, and it turns out they used this biography to help groom his victim, I'll remember this moment well. Nobody would ever forget this. You have acted unconscionably. 
....but what will the sick bitch do?

TO THE MEMORY HOLE.

It must be fucking great being a Wikipedia editor. Can always just wipe your conscience clean, and/or blame it on groupthink.

Wikipedia is in the real world. This is not a drill.

Nobody should be empowered with advanced tools, if they don't know what they really mean, in practice.

She could of course have asked whatever the WMF has going on now as far as a child protection office goes. Might not get a helpful answer, but that would at least show she was capable of considering the potential harm to a child here.

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: MelanieN is probably a child abuser

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:31 am

well, is that account yours or not?

If you're gonna do this, free advice: work on a few dozen random unrelated articles before plunging into a content area that someone will object to. The "SPA" label is easy to slap on but also not difficult to avoid. And then, don't come here to rage about Melanie. They unquestionably watch this forum, despite it being a "BADSITE".....

Every day hundreds of anonymous IP addresses read the new posts here. Scattered all over the world, but mostly in the US, and at least some of them are unquestionably Wikipedia nerds. (A few use TOR or VPNs to hide their identity, which is even sillier. The assholes think we are logging IPs and browser data. Could not give a rat's ass.)

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

Re: MelanieN is probably a child abuser

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:19 am

A magician never reveals his secrets.

Your information might be outdated. In this day and age, a Wikishit will accuse someone of being an SPA if they simply edit the same topic for a week.

As of now, you could work on Wikipedia for a year, and the second you mention the magic phrases Daily Mail and are you all fucking idiots or what, you will be CheckUsered. You will be assumed to be the enemy.

They are bears of little brains. Only slightly smarter than the Admin wikishits, who never seem to actually realise that, not unlike the other trigger word "sock", just because someone is doing something that fits a definition, doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad thing. You do actually need to show harmful behaviour, or harmful outcomes.

MelanieN's warning there typifies the current Wikipedia culture of even their highest ranking users, the ones that are theoretically their best and brightest, being intolerant of reason, ESPECIALLY when it contradicts learned phrases.

Blah blah reliable sources blah blah blah reliable sources blah blah blah reliable sources.

Absolute dip shits. Mindless automatons at this stage.

It's the way even this sort of crap is de-evolving (ten years ago, wikishits definitely understood that you could be an SPA and still be helping Wikipedia) that shows Wikipedia is dying. If they can't get simple concepts like that anymore, what can they do? Nothing.

Just a bunch of ignorant monkeys exchanging a few stock phrases learned by rote, and calling the result, "consensus". It's monkey poop. Blended and simmered, yes, but monkey poop all the same.

The world would not miss their collective wisdom, if all their tiny little brains were smashed in by super angry, but super intelligent, people. Or just people who have actually read pages like SPA.

That is why they fear smart people, and are intimidated by long well thought out posts that speak directly to actual policy, not their half remembered bingo phrase garbage, and try to get them blocked as fast as possible. They constantly wonder, is this guy holding a rock behind his back? Not that it really restrains them in the sheer level of stupid they are prepared to bring to bear to any and all debates.

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

Re: MelanieN is probably a child abuser

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:07 am

Well, that's one way to deal with someone saying you have probably put kids at risk.....
04:49, 10 June 2021 MelanieN talk contribs blocked Christian Murray talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Sock puppetry)
....but it isn't exactly what a person who isn't a child abuser would do, is it?

Child abuse is about power, after all.

It isn't a CheckUser block either.

The block is presumably to prevent the statement being made elsewhere, where others might see it and realise what their giant mistake has been. Given the child abuse risk angle behind all this prejudicial bullshit was rather buried in all the other previous posts.

She is keeping it on her talk page though. Which is kind of wierd. If it's not simply a case of her getting off on the power. I mean, if you disagreed with it, you would remove it, right?

Maybe she is having seconds thoughts, and wants to carefully consider the content of the message.

As if.

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

Re: MelanieN is probably a child abuser

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:21 am

Holy fucking shit.
Immediately after the block of User:Mr Happy Shoes, this new user showed up at my talk page making exactly the same kind of post as Mr Happy Shoes - defending the Daily Mail and arguing for the inclusion of alleged criminal charges against Marek Kukula. [1] That is the new user's only edit so far and it was enough for me. I went ahead and sock-blocked them. Reporting here for the record. IMO it is very likely that similar socks will turn up shortly. If I see any before this is acted on, I will add them to this report. MelanieN (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
What's going on here then?

Either she ready hasn't looked at this closely enough to realise the article details a CONVICTION not a charge, and thus couldn't possibly have thought about the risk she has put children under, or she knows fine well these reports are about a conviction, but her instinct is to defend a fellow child abuser, and amp up the triggering of everyone's prejudices agaisnt the Mail.

This dumb bitch hasn't even realised that I am defending TWO newspapers here. The two most widely read newspapers in Britain. Again, is that just a mistake because she hasn't bothered to study the facts, or is it again part of her disturbed agenda?

Christ, the message on her page doesn't even mention the Mail, and it wasn't part of the content of the article she used her advanced powers to revision delete, that the post talks about. The software automatically rejected the Mail.

That is how deep their insane Daily Mail prejudice goes. They see it everywhere.

Notice how she doesn't mention anywhere, that this new user turned up at her page not to defend the Mail specifically, or at all actually given it never made it into the article for her to take out permanently, but to call her out for potentially putting children at risk because of it.

She doesn't want anyone knowing what the actual grievance is. Putting kids at risk.

Sneaky. Deceitful. Controlling.

Post Reply