MelanieN is probably a child abuser
Posted: 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.
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.