His true self was of course eventually revealed when he got himself banned from Wikipedia as a serial violator of community trust (but even though his many deceits included making knowingly false statements about the Mail designed to sway voting in the ban proposal, funnily enough, nobody at Wikipedia has thought it wise to review that debate for honesty and integrity).
Actually, showing the true value of the Mail, his true self was revealed in their subsequent expose of the man, showing him to be a racist sexual deviant. Someone who, if they had treated their Wikipedia user page as their Facebook page, they would have been banned instantly by Wikipedia, without ever making a single edit, let alone launching any faux moralistic campaigns.
The exact sort of scum you would imagine becomes a committed Wikipedia editor, simply because they can't find anywhere else remotely serious that will take them seriously. A sad, pathetic, intellectualy dishonest fraud of a man. The sort of person who Jimmy Wales would offer financial help to without doing his due diligence, simply because he thought it could hurt the Daily Mail. Luckily for Jimmy, the poor granny he claimed the Mail had harassed, was probably as fictional as the lies he told about the Mail, and so he was forced to decline the offer.
Unsurprisingly, this and all other Mail stories, are assumed by Wikipedia editors to be lies. Apparently because there is a profit to be had in writing false stories about random people with zero public profile. I'm not making this up, they actually believe this shit. Or at least they claim to.
Obviously Wikipedia editors want people to think reports like that about their star editors are lies, because they show the dark side of what the Wikipedia community really is. Dirty self interested liars. The exact thing they claim a Mail journalist is. Of course, Wikipedia editors are under even less regulation and scrutiny, and perhaps have even more power than a Mail journalist, or at least they think they do.
Unsurprisingly, allegedly moral Wikipedia editor Hillbillyholiday had always been living a double life as a Wikipediocracy poster. Sometimes as himself, sometimes not, whichever suited him. The mark of the man.
He has just launched a thread with the rather useless title, "Bad BLP stuff". I guess that's because an accurate title would be a little embarrassing. The very first post is about Katie Price, a British celebrity who makes a living from being a celebrity. Like it or not, the very person seen as a role model by children these days. Someone to emulate if you want fame and success.
She's been in the news recently because, of course, she's trod the path of many a celebrity, from fame, to less fame, to financial trouble, to rock bottom. She has most recently plead guilty to drink driving, having been caught the way a lot of drunk drivers are caught, once they had had a crash. Luckily nobody was hurt other than her.
So, why is Hillbillyholiday interested? Well, bizarrely, he took issue with the rather long "Legal issues" section of her Wikipedia biography. And while it is long, that's about all you can say about it. It is otherwise quite factual, neutral and impeccably sourced.
It's a mark of her fame that her troubles have been documented at length by the BBC and highbrow papers. I probably don't need to tell you that every single sentence in that section has probably spawned multiple articles in the celebrity media, and has been much fodder for her own efforts to keep herself relevant to popular culture.
That's probably where Hillbillyholiday should have stopped. Arguing that the section could perhaps be pruned, perhaps taking it solely down to what was covered in national newspapers, is reasonable.
But of course, he didn't. He is and always was, an extremist. And so when a Wikipedia editor saw his Wikipediocracy thread and acted by simply removing the entire section, he was really quite pleased with himself.
In effect, he showed what an absolute piece of shit he really is.
There is a case to be made that the responsibile act when faced with a potential BLP issue is to act fast and potentially with a broad brush, then work backwards to add back what can be justified. But that really only makes sense for the people the BLP policy was written for - those who are little known, whose lives would be disproportionately affected by a false or misleading Wikipedia biography.
But this is Katie Price. You can pretty much guarantee that her Wikipedia biography has no effect on her life. The only people it can influence, are fans of Katie Price.
Which is why it is so fucked up that Hillbillyholiday seems proud of the fact he created a situation where for a brief moment, and for who knows how long, Wikipedia made no mention of Katie Price's legal issues. Literally none. Her long list of driving convictions, her bankruptcy and her self admitted drug use. All gone. Whitewashed.
Apparently to him, these are unimportant details, things that Katie Price can and should be entitled to hide from public view, especially when all eyes are on her, for all the wrong reasons.
Worse, if only the convictions were restored, you can see from the rest of the material that there is a story to be told here. A warning. Because this person didn't one day just get behind the wheel of a car drunk and have a crash. She was arguably only allowed to get that far due to a littany of failures by the criminal justice system to ensure someone who was a danger to herself and the public, was appropriately dealt with.
Knowing what I do about Hillbillyholiday and Wikipediocracy, I can absolutely believe that they would rather an impressionable young driver get the wrong idea from a false biography of Katie Price and end up killing an innocent person, in an effort to make some kind of irrelevant point in their half assed alleged criticism of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia does have BLP issues, but the problem has always been worst for people of limited or only wholly negative public profile. Celebrities like Price, are frankly irrelevant.
Wikipediocracy doesn't care about the real victims of Wikipedia's failure to enforce its own BLP policy. And they can protest all they like, I have proven it. A core tenet of BLP policy is proper sourcing. I have shown how the celebrity Wikipedia editor Jess Wade fails to meet the minimal standard of BLP souring on a daily basis. Literally every day.
Every single day, without fail, she posts another biography of a little known person, without meeting that minimal standard. Namely, every single claim, positive, negative or neutral, that speaks to a person's notability or core characteristics, must be sourced at time of publication, and it must be in the form of an inline citation at the end of the sentence it supports. No exceptions.
Repeated failures by experienced editors are inexcusable, and must be met with a series of escalating blocks by Wikipedia Administrators. Sometimes Wade's sources are there, just not in the right place. But sometimes she just forgets to include them at all. You never know until you check, and that takes a significant amount of time, time that quite clearly, other Wikipedia editors cannot be bothered to spend.
Why is she doing this? Because she is hasty and sloppy. She knows what the requirement is and how to meet it, she simply chooses to sometimes ignore It because it is inconvenient to her. Doing it right all the time, would mean she can't keep to her self set goal of publishing one biography a day. She prefers to think it is other people's job to finish her work, her idea of collaboration, and has said as much.
Policy is crystal clear, this is solely her responsibility, as is Jess Wade's failure to meet it, as is the Wikipedia community's decision to rally around Jess and shield her from the inevitable consequences of her own shit editing, and the reason why. She is good PR.
Did Wikipediocracy care when they were presented with these basic facts about a famous Wikipedia editor who apparently think she is so good at Wikipedia editing she calls herself an "Ambassador"? Did they fuck. They actually think Wade is doing a good job!
Sellout scum.
Because let's have it right, before Jake took over and set about turning that forum into a home from home for the scummier elements of the Wikidata community, this was exactly the sort of thing Wikipediocracy would get mad about. Because it matters. Now he spends his days sucking their dicks. He literally stands by and let's Wikipedia Administrators claim on that very forum that Wade is doing nothing wrong. So he is either incompetent, or he really does like the taste of Wiki Admin cock.
Wikipediocracy members, Wikipedia Administrators no less, even responed to those facts by cheering Jess on. Apparently not realising that one of Jess' many character flaws, is that she ignores all other editors, including those trying to put their tongues up her anus.
Still, what would Wikipediocracy be, without an endless stream of morons who never realise when they're making themselves look like fools?
Wikipediocracy weren't done there either, as if that wasn't bad enough. The biography of Marek Kukula is a perfect example of why people on that alleged Wikipedia criticism site should have really cared when it became crystal clear that scum like Hillbillyholiday were telling obvious lies on Wikipedia about the Daily Mail, for nakedly political purposes, and the Wikipedia community were letting them slide, for the same reasons.
It is not a theoretical point. Read up on the case. It shows who he is and what he has said, good and bad, and ironically a major source for the good is the holy Guardian. We know he likes teaching kids, and there is high demand for tutors now. And so a child might be abused because the Wikipedia biography of Marek Kukula is giving a false impression of what is known about the man.
It cannot be made whole, because Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia would rather a child is abused, than accept that the Mail can be trusted, certainly for reporting of that nature, and certainly when all the facts of that case are considered.
Hillbillyholiday is pure scum. Why? Because before he told his lies, before he invoked the name of Jimmy Wales to get the Mail classified on Wikipedia as deprecated, the situation on Wikipedia was that for uses like that, a sensible debate would be had, the facts in the round would be considered, and the right answer would be reached for that specific use. A finding that that report is likely true, and thus it should be used to make that biography an accurate picture of the man.
Worse, he knows all this, and rather than explaining himself or perhaps offering a mea culpa and an apology, he laughs and plays silly games. Such is the culture of Wikipediocracy these days under Jake, who has done such a good job of ensuring they emulate Wikipedia when it comes to how they take responsibility for their own screw-ups. Or rather, don't.
The cases of Price and Kukula are quite similar when it comes to Hillbillyholiday's warped sense of morality. Under the masquerade that he actually cares about the potential harm done by Wikipedia, he creates situations that puts real people at risk. Entirely innocent people. For zero beneficial change in Wikipedia either. In reality, he is probably just attention seeking. What would a racist sexual deviant care for the safety of children, after all?
We can all see what Guy Macon is. He wafflles and plays word games, but he hardly hides what he is and what he does. We can all see the dishonesty of his arguments, and the real motives for his actions. Some of us have the maturity to realise that it hardly matters if we like the target of his lies or not, we recognise that he represents what is wrong with Wikipedia, and we make sure hs suffers the true consequences.
Scum is scum.
Just like Macon, Hillbillyholiday represents everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. Never in a million years could a person like that ever gain a job writing an actual encyclopedia. Wouldn't even pass the background check, obviously. He is so bad, not even Wikipedia wants him, but it sure took them a heck of a long time to realise what he was, and know they know, they simply want to brush it all under the carpet, rather than reasses the likely damage he has done in the years when he was considered an upstanding citizen.
It says everything that he finds a natural home on Wikipediocracy, alongside high ranking Wikipedia scum like Beeblebrox, who also play a full part part in protecting people like Wade and suppressing factual reporting by the Mail for political reasons.
At this point, it's fair to ask, whose side is Wikipediocracy on? The victims, or the perpetrators.
Who is more likely to be welcomed into the fold of Wikipediocracy next under the esteemed leadership of Jake? To join Hillbillyholiday, Beeblebrox, and an assortment of Wikipedia editors, admitted and clandestine. An absolute scumbag like Guy Macon, someone to whom deceit and game playing to achieve their goals is second nature, or a serious critic like me, who long ago realised the value of only ever making fact based critiques?
I mean, sure, I guess I can't prove Jake sucks Beebledick, but if it looks like he has Beeblecum on his breath, and he smells like he has Beeblecum on his breath, then what the fuck else is he up to?
You already know.
They have had their chance. No point waking up now and realising that you can hardly write about supposed BLP issues in Katie Price's article, if you don't give a flying fuck about the way Wikipedia has protected Jess Wade or the lies they have told about the Daily Mail, and more importantly, the reasons why.
The enemy is the enemy. Wrong is wrong.
We must have ideological purity.
HTD.
