The perpetually thirsty Paul Staines, who styles himself Guido Fawkes, attempted to brush off being caught creatively editing his Wikipedia entry – as I did the other day – but the attention thus garnered has demonstrated to Staines, if demonstration were necessary, that his view of history is not universally accepted. But it has generated some quite exceptional spectator sport.
Yeah, I had to spend all day drinking, shit, no, editing. It was a really long bottle, shit, no, edit, and I got really pissed, bollocks, no, annoyed. I mean, I nearly broke wind, oh shit no, I mean sweat
Following my post and its appearance in an edited form on Liberal Conspiracy – for which my thanks as ever to Sunny Hundal – Staines’ version of history did not survive for long. Late on Thursday – before anyone asks, I was at the excellent Cellar Bar on Chester’s City Road enjoying a chat and the live music from Mercy Louise Birch – someone objected to the Wiki entry reading like a CV.
The next morning, the editing to-and-fro continued, with one comment reading “Paul, you may not cite your own website as a reference, and MessageSpace clients bear no relevance to this page. Please do not undo this or we will be forced to lock the page”, and the same source asserting firmly “NO Paul you are not a factual resource. Just because you say or think it does not mean it has been verified”.
Staines, in fact, seems to have spent a considerable amount of time during yesterday trying in vain to impose his view of history on the Wikipedia community, characteristically threatening at one point to go to law over mention of the London Bridge incident where a camerawoman was knocked over. He is, as I pointed out previously, very sensitive about such matters.
Ultimately, the edit war was brought to a halt as the page was locked pending resolution of disputes over its veracity. But Staines was, by the iron code of The Great Guido, duty bound to spin the whole business as if it were some kind of great victory, and so he took to Twitter to proclaim “Small internet victory as Wikipedia blocks people”. I will leave others to decide on the accuracy of that one.
The Staines rewriting of history leaves many questions unanswered: his flirting with the BNP while a student, his styling of his name in a double-barrelled fashion, the detail of his descent into bankruptcy, the frequently dishonest nature of the content at the Guido Fawkes blog and the sexist and misogynist nature of much of that content, and of course the altercation at London Bridge Station.
Meanwhile, those of us who have been targeted by Staines and/or his deeply unsavoury tame gofer, the flannelled fool Henry Cole, can look forward to yet more excellent spectator sport – before the inevitable smears and accusations begin, I don’t edit, and never have edited, Wikipedia – until the folks that look after “the free encyclopaedia” have to decide if his entry is worth the candle.
That couldn’t happen to a more deserving bloke. Another fine mess, once again.
Post a Comment