Giraffe Stapler rushes to defend Jess Wade

[ChaosMeRee]

It took the Giraffe only an hour to notice an edit made to an obscure deletion request on Commons.

He must be absolutely desperate to get into her knickers. Just like Ritchie333. Too bad she's not interested in anyone who is sad enough to be a proper Wikipedia editor. One that actually communicates and takes responsibility for their screw ups. Not that that really describes Ritchie333 or the Stapler, but it isn't exactly hard to look good compared to the mute that is Wade.

He looks as pathetic as GR Ruben right now....

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

I did that.

I saw a man whose blind loyalty to Wade far exceeded his sense of right and wrong when it comes to Wikipedia.

So I took his loyalty and I stuck a knife into it. And I twisted it.

This is what I do.

This is what happens to people who make the mistake of thinking I fell off the back of a turnip truck.

I'm a horrible fucking bastard.

Come one come all. Wade needs defender and protectors. She's too busy collecting medals and being interviewed for puff pieces to be a proper Wikipedia editor. She leaves that shit to you stupid fuckers. Your pay is zero dollars and zero cents. Your chance of death, 100%.

[ChaosMeRee]

What a surprise. The image has now been kept, the decision being explained by someone WHO CAN'T EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH PROPERLY. He's some fucking retard from Estonia.

I mean I ask you, what the actual fuck does any of this even mean?

Kept. I reviewed the license. Wikimedia movement is generally very competent in copyright matters and I see no reason to doubt in license. Taivo (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The words are English and they are almost even full sentences, but in context, THIS IS MEANINGLESS GARBAGE.

If you asked this stupid fuck if he even knows the difference between the "Wikipedia movement" and the "Wikipedia Foundation", would he even have the first clue what you were on about?

And of course, to anyone who is fluent in English and understands Commons, reviewing a license involves checking the release against Commons requirements. As has already been explained in very plain English, the release is not legal. It DOES NOT SPECIFY IF WADE IS THE AUTHOR, LICENSOR, OR BOTH. This is a requirement of the CC license being invoked. So if he actually means what he says, which is by no means a safe assumption (maybe this is Estonian for I read this debate), he has already seen a reason to doubt the license and so his assumption that the Foundation? are "very competent" is complete horseshit. And if he is doing his job properly, he would have explained why these doubts are apparently ignorable.

Moron.

I'd love to believe this was a mistake. It is far more likely an English speaking Administrator has asked this fuckwit to close it, knowing they are incapable of doing a proper job.

But the point is proven yet again.

Jess Wade gets away with MURDER yet again.

And the great and the good of Wikipedia go to extraordinary and frankly illegal lengths to ensure she can.

And this time, it isn't even in doubt that the outcome was also a result of the long standing mutual assitance agreement that exists between Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy.

The Jess Wade problem is real. Proven fact as of 2023. Not that proving it again was even necessary.

Giraffe Stapler, you better hope your identity is never revealed.

This might be a game to you. I'm playing for real.

[ericbarbour]

I'm a horrible fucking bastard.

Not horrible enough and not enough supporters anyway. The cult wins again.

Come one come all. Wade needs defender and protectors. She's too busy collecting medals and being interviewed for puff pieces to be a proper Wikipedia editor. She leaves that shit to you stupid fuckers. Your pay is zero dollars and zero cents. Your chance of death, 100%.

Things they would deny "hotly". If they didn't, the sucker well would dry up. Cults must have cannon fodder. Suckers and fools are always plentiful--IF you can trick them.

[ChaosMeRee]

Still, you never know — this could be the lawsuit that finally takes down Wikipedia and the WMF for good, forcing all of their websites and related entities off the internet forever and ever. You just have to wait and let these things play out... Legal costs? Pshaw! It's only money. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again — and remember, it's not over until the fat lady sings! (Please excuse me for body-shaming, I'm sure she's a very nice and desirable lady!) The war isn't over until we say so! The fight must go on... Never give up! Never surrrender!

Hey dickhead. Aren't you the same fuckers who said you could prove corruption at the highest level of the WMF?

We're still waiting for that blog post, you cowardly pieces of shit.

If what happened in that affair had actually happened, as I told you then, it would be the biggest scandal in Wikipedia history. It definitely had the potential to bring the who!e thing down.

But we know you didn't have the proof. We know it was a conspiracy theory that originated in the warped mind of Vigilant.

Your boy Vigilant. Your little bitch Vigilant. The once fearsome but now flaccid Vigilant.

The man who, at another time, when given a choice to support a lawsuit that had the potential to strike down one of the main legal instruments that the cult uses to protect itself from scrutiny, didn't just pour cold water on it, he WHOLEHEARTEDLY fell into line with the cult's very expensive legal arguments.

What a sorry son of a bitch he looked that day. A real fucking ho, with you as the madame.

This is your problem Jake. You use humour to replace the void on your forum where there is supposed to be some goddamned honest to goodness actual Wikipedia criticism.

Like it or not, and your girlfriend Giraffe Stapler clearly does not because he's Wikipedia's most devoted fan, a lawsuit that proves Jess Wade stole an image from professional photographer David Guttridge and THEN nearly TWENTY Wikipedia insiders, including some of the highest ranking in the movement, the ones trusted with user privacy and ensuring Wikipedia adheres to copyright law, moved heaven and Earth to cover it up? That would create big waves.

You better believe that's a threat to Wikipedia. If you don't, prove it. Run a blog post, a truthful blog post, that outlines EXACTLY what is and is not known about the licensing status of that image and details EXACTLY what Wikipedia insiders have said and more importantly done about it.

Write a blog post that simply states the facts. No opinion, no bias, no conclusion. Just the facts.

They will try to rip your fucking face off. Beeblebrox will go fucking ape. Giraffe Stapler with burn all your belongings.

Not that you even have the backbone to run a 100% truthful blog post about one very illuminating aspect of how Jess Wade interacts with the Wikipedia community, how she adheres do its principles and values and legal obligations. Or rather, doesn't.

I bet you don't even have the backbone to say for the benefit of all who are interested in where you stand, that the closure by Taivo doesn't even make any sense. But it happened as a direct result of your boy Giraffe.

Jekarran
User: Jekarran (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Reason for reporting: Posted a long-winded diatribe attacking Jess Wade immediately after registering. An obvious behavior match for AttackTheMoonNow. Will be requesting a lock on SRG shortly. SamX [talk · contribs] 04:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. User is globally locked and I closed the DR as kept. Taivo (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I have now identified the master (as AttackTheMoonNow is not registered here) and created a sockpuppet category. Taivo (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That so called long winded diatribe attacking Jess Wade? Here it is....

Delete with prejudice Jess Wade was directly asked to comment here on 20th Ocotber. She has completely ignored it. This shows a flagrant disregard of the issues raised, namely what, if anything, did she do to reassure the blog author she was legally entitled to release that image on a free license. The blog author no longer works for the Foundation, and the absence of any proof she filed paperwork with the Foundation to demonstrate she had satisfied herself Wade was legally entitled to release it, combined with Wade's silence, leads to only one logical conclusion. This image represents both a legal risk and a reputations risk to Commons, precisely because it involves a corporation and an editor who absolutely should know better. And to state the obvious, no, trusting large organizations to just know what they are doing when it comes to licensing, is not Commons policy. You don't even need to see proof that even the Foundation doesn't necessarily know what it's obligations are to know that, but thankfully someone has provided it. Jekarran (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be a 100% factual post, no?

That was what was said, and now we know what Commons did when your boy alerted them to the danger.

The very real danger. That's what I bring to the party. I don't just claim to have the proof, I get the fucking proof.

Will someone sue Taivo? Probably not. Will someone make sure he ends up dead in an Estonian ditch for thinking he could treat the Mighty Crow with such disdain? Probably not.

Will someone ring David Guttridge and Imperial University and Melody Kramer and whoever else can be contacted in real life so they can be dragged into this matter and cause them hassle and maybe even harm, all because the Wikipedia editors absolutely refused to carry out their legal obligations that could have seen them left entirely out of it? Seems like a pretty easy way to cause real distress to a Wikipedian who thinks she's untouchable and a movement that continually seems to forget it is part of the real world, don't you? Low effort, high return.

NewYorkBrad, Jytdog and whoever else, had no right taking Wikipedia disputes into meatspace. The person contacting Guttridge has every right. This is not an internal Wikipedia dispute, this is ALREADY a dispute with legal implications. The CC license is a real legal instrument. Jess Wade really was directly asked to provide information only she can provide to clear up a serious matter, and she really did just straight up ignore that request.

Will people end up wondering why the fuck shit has to go this far when there is a fully working Wikipedia criticism blog out there that apparently some people even still read?

Abso-fucking-lutely.

When are you gonna learn Jake? Everything I do is basically an exercise in proving you are a turncoat to the cause, if you were even ever really a part of it. The world's biggest supporter and defender of Wikipedia. Maybe I have other objectives too, and maybe I don't.

You live in America. A lawless shithole with a crumbling democracy, second rate schools, two tier health, guns, guns, guns, and absolutely, positively, no tradition let alone law that guarantees citizens have access to unbiased media.

A media that would report such a blog post in a factual way. Media that would send a journalist to Jess Wade's doorstep and make sure she answered questions that if you weren't so busy sucking Wikipedian dick you would realise she HAS to answer or she faces ACTUAL legal liability.

Me, not so much. I live in a civilised country, a place where Wikipedia is easily ignored.

So If you want Wikipedia to survive and thrive, that's fine by me. It will hurt you more than it will me.

You dumb fucker. A man so incapable of dealing with the real world, he went and hid in his cabin when Trump got elected. Holy fucking hell.

And now you're making a living hosting the Giraffe.

Don't talk about shit you don't understand, you fool.

I understand how to threaten Wikipedians. You only understand how to sooth them, pander to them, make them feel safe.

Just stick to what you obviously want to do in life and don't waste a second of anyone's time thinking you know shit about shit when it comes to Wikipedia criticism or strategies likely to succeed in taking down the cult.

The Mighty Crow, whoever he is, is causing panic in Wikipedia even with the handicap of having your forum snitching on all our secret operations.

I will say it again, because I don't think your resident retards understood the point. A man who knows Wikipedia knows how to hide a sock. If you catch a sock and you think it is being run by the Big Bad Wolf, it's because that serves a wolf's purpose (or is immaterial).

I mean for fuck's sake, the Wikipedians themselves even admit this. They didn't catch Lourdes, did they? Not even when I raised the alarm. That is perhaps what you were looking for when you were hunting for examples of where I apparently influence Wikipedia into performing acts of self harm. The cult bastards don't ignore Wade's blinding!y obvious failures to piss me off, they do it because it has value to them. Ignoring me about Lourdes has no value to them. Just as me keeping quiet about Lourdes had no value to me.

I shouted it from the rooftops, because I absolutely love proving I am as smart as I say I am.

You catch what is meant to be caught. Because it suits an agenda.

While you're busy tracking someone causing a nuisance to Jess Wade and her sycophants, I'm out here buying Catfish Jim's Admin tools so I can take down the Queen herself. Gonna start me a fire and watch that witch burn.

[Ognistysztorm]

Still, you never know — this could be the lawsuit that finally takes down Wikipedia and the WMF for good, forcing all of their websites and related entities off the internet forever and ever. You just have to wait and let these things play out... Legal costs? Pshaw! It's only money. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again — and remember, it's not over until the fat lady sings! (Please excuse me for body-shaming, I'm sure she's a very nice and desirable lady!) The war isn't over until we say so! The fight must go on... Never give up! Never surrrender!

Hey dickhead. Aren't you the same fuckers who said you could prove corruption at the highest level of the WMF?

We're still waiting for that blog post, you cowardly pieces of shit.
<shortened>

Woah! You got proofs which will really surpass even the sexual harassment scandals uncovered by Jennsaurus, and which will definitely bring down Wikipedia for good?

[ChaosMeRee]

No, that was what Wikipediocracy was claiming to have, but it turned out to be nothing more than the fever dreams of the has-been Vigilant. They said they had decided not to publish what that had In a blog post because they through they would get sued. You can't be sued for publishing the truth.

I have proof that the famous Jess Wade is a serial violator of some of Wikipedia's most important policies. She famously attributed all her early difficulties with Wikipedia to sexism. I attribute the fact that these days she is allowed to do whatever she wants, to the fear Wikipedians have of being accused of sexism.

[Ognistysztorm]

No, that was what Wikipediocracy was claiming to have, but it turned out to be nothing more than the fever dreams of the has-been Vigilant. They said they had decided not to publish what that had In a blog post because they through they would get sued. You can't be sued for publishing the truth.

I have proof that the famous Jess Wade is a serial violator of some of Wikipedia's most important policies. She famously attributed all her early difficulties with Wikipedia to sexism. I attribute the fact that these days she is allowed to do whatever she wants, to the fear Wikipedians have of being accused of sexism.

In other news the CBC news article about the WikiConference bomb threat still contains the following:

More to come.

Still horrific though, particular for non-Wikipedians who happened to be there at the wrong time.

[ericbarbour]

Dear Sweet Little Jessie certainly provides a considerable number of lulz, doesn't she?

Almost would swear it was "deliberate" or something.

Still don't know what to make of the bloody Stapler, except: SOCK.

[Ognistysztorm]

Jesus this guy talks some absolute crap.
<shortened>

So the simplest way to take down Jess Wade and Wikipedia is to send emails to David Guttridge and then an academic conduct panel?

[ChaosMeRee]

So the simplest way to take down Jess Wade and Wikipedia is to send emails to David Guttridge and then an academic conduct panel?

Yes.

A concerned citizen need only send the following to Guttridge....

--------

Copyright status of image of Jess Wade

Hi David. I am trying to ascertain the copyright status of [image] in this [blog post] written for the Wikimedia Foundation's "Diff" blog by Melody Kramer (who no longer works for the Foundation). It depicts Jess Wade, who was and still is a scientist at Imperial. Per the metadata it was taken by you on [date1] with a NIKON D810, but wasn't used in [blog post] until [date2].

This is presumaby because it was created for a different purpose and has perhaps been published before then, possibly in a print work for Imperial or even as a personal commission for Jess Wade? The composition suggests it was meant to have something else added later, to make it seem as If it were being held by the subject. A book or a piece of equipment perhaps.

If Jess Wade and the blog author were fully aware of what they were doing in their assignment of the credit line "Photo via Jess Wade, CC-BY-SA 4.0" in that blog post, as I am sure you know, that means that since at least [date2] you have had no commercial rights in that photograph and it can be freely copied and modified by anyone for any purpose, including commercial uses.

Although one would hope it weren't the case, especially not for employees of the Foundation, misunderstandings are common in the field of Creative commons free licensing. Many institutions for example wrongly assume Wikipedia would by default accept non-commercial free licensing. They do not.

The existence of the credit line however, Is why the image has been subsequently uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons free image repository and cropped so as to illustrate Jess Wade's Wikipedia biography page (as you may or may not know, she is quite a famous Wikipedian as well as an Imperial scientist). In addition to that, by virtue of this free license, it has been widely used in the Wikimedia projects, such as in this internal newsletter....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _the_media

You will note that the images directly above and below yours both have clear licensing statuses, requiring no proof of permission. The fact that the lower image is potentially a copyright violation for depicting a 3D model hopefully illustrates the difficulties a group of volunteers have in ensuring the Commons is complying with all relevant laws and respecting the rights of professionals (many of whom of course gladly work with the projects to their mutual benefit).

As well as providing imagery for Wikipedia, the Commons is intended as a free repository allowing its media to be copied and used by anyone for any purppse. Hence their choice to use one of the least restrictive licensing options, where you are essentially only retaining credit rights.

On its face, this licensing option as applied would appear to contradict your standard practice of All Rights Reserved. But of course it could quite easily be the case that you are fully aware of this license status for this specific image and it was either arranged with you at the time or you have subsequently made an appropriate release. Alternatively, you may have never even held the rights by virtue of the manner of creation or contractual arrangements.

As such, any information you can provide from either your memory, business records or even just your standard working practices that can shed light on how this image came to be published on this license on [date2], and any instance of prior publishing in print or online that you might be aware of, would be greatly appreciated.

I am seeking clarity because in cases where the chain of custody of rights is not clear and the manner in which an image was uploaded and certified as free use at Commons is not one of the usual ways (trusted Commons volunteer takes and licenses their own work, trusted Commons volunteer uploads feely licensed works from machine readable repository, etc), then Commons requires proof in the form of an email that shows the rights holders gave the uploader (themselves a third party, Commons User Sikander) permission to release an image on a free license and they are fully aware of the implications of that act.

Depending on your answer, I can advise you on the next steps, whether that is submitting proof of permission after the fact, removing the image as lacking in permission, or if you aren't the rights holder (free or reserved), just leaving you in peace while I pursue this enquiry with whoever you indicate that might be.

To be clear, I am not affiliated in any way with Jess Wade, Imperial, Melody Kramer or the Wikimedia Foundation, nor does this email mean to imply they have committed any offence. At least not knowingly. It would be for them to account for any apparent ignorance of the finer points of copyright, If that is what transpired has happened here.

I am making enquiries solely in my capacity as a volunteer at the Commons. As is standard practice for most of us, we operate using pseudonymous handles and we do not use email address that are connected to our personal information. As such, if you would rather not deal with me for whatever reason, feel free to instead pursue this matter through the slightly more official channels, via the email address permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Although it should be noted they too are only volunteers so (hopefully) they won't contradict or otherwise identify any shortcomings in what I have said above.

Please note that the Wikimedia Foundation, the owners of Commons, do not as a matter of course get involved in editorial matters such as this, since that would threaten their Section 230 immunity. But of course if you have reason to believe your legal rights have been infringed and you do wish to pursue that in an official way, they are legally obliged to respond. But in situations like this, non-emergency routine matters, in the first instance, they will likely direct you to the volunteers anyway, to see if they can resolve the situation on their behalf.

Hopefully none of the last part is relevant and you are in a position to provide the proof needed to host this image on Commons. If you have fully understood this message and wish to proceed directly to that action, you can do so by simply sending an email to the above permissions address, and they will make the necessary changes. If it helps, there is an email template for exactly these situations that can be found near the bottom of this commons advice page.....

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Comm ... ponse_Team

Yours, [insert name here].

----------

It's come out rather longer than I imagined, but hopefully that serves to remind people just how much absolute bullshit has been spread around by those who would see Jess protected from the consequences of her actions. And of her rank ignorance of the very thing the projects she is a superstar role model for, rely on to do what they do.

I could of course have sent this myself long ago, but alas, all that would happen then would be that some sniivelling little cunt from Wikipedia or more likely Wikipediocracy would alert David, making big noises about harassment etc, and that would be that!

I could do it privately I guess, and not tell anyone here I had even done it, but that would go against my long standing policy of ensuring the little guy (powerless critic) can use all the weapons available to him to defeat the big guy (all powerful unaccountable cult). One of which of course is being a very visible nuisance by merely using indisputable facts and evidence of their own corruption against them. When they ignore such facts because It is inconvenient, it alerts others to their corruption.

It isn't harassment, I would simply be doing my duty as a Commons volunteer. And if they think I am not entitled to do so because I am GLOBALLY BANNED (duh duh duuuh!), that is where I apply the ONE TWO PUNCH of...

1. Pointing out that it is a legal fact (precedent set by an actual Californian judge) that you can be GLOBALLY BANNED (duh duh duuuh!) for "any reason", including "no reason at all". So why would anyone give a shit about that when it is being uttered by the very people trying to hide their own corruption from the world?

2. Kindly ask them to prove that I, a humble observer and documenter of things that happen around me, is in any way connected to a GLOBALLY BANNED (duh duh duuuh!) Wikimedian. Up to and including a 100% genetic match (mental note, craft an experiment to ascertain Wikipedia's vulnerability to WP:MYCLONEDIDIT).

The reason people like Vigilant should really pay more respect to their betters like the Mighty Crow and the "loony" lunar General, is that as far as I can tell, he would never be so stupid as to merely get GLOBALLY BANNED (duh duh duuuh!) in a way that wasn't entirely beneficial to the forces of Wikipedia destruction.

He would make sure that the manner of his global ban was such that it isn't possible to prove I am he and he is me and we are all together, without showing that quite a few Wikipedia CheckUsers and Stewards are not only routinely breaking Californian law, far far worse than that, showing that cooperation and indeed cohabitation with Wikipediocracy has become an integral and indeed essential component of Wikipedia governance such as it is (is it even rightly called "governance" if you mark your own homework, count your own votes and police your own police?).

Wikipedia is not exercise in justice, natch. Which becomes clear to David and others who are harmed by Wikipedia, when they ask a simple question like, but what did this Crow geezer actually do to get banned and how can you prove this email is from him and that he is lying?

Feel free to answer honestly and truthfully, Hemiauenchenia. Speak your truth, show your evidence, and do not let it worry you that this was your fate all along. The terrible choice.

The trap was set years ago, the experiment designed even longer ago. You were not even the intended target. The trap is generic. It will catch anyone who fits the profile of a corrupt Wikipedian whose confidence betrays them. They trap themselves, the cocky little wankers. Pity them not, these cockroaches of the interwebs.

So no, no proof will be forthcoming, and David, smart as surely is, will realise exactly why Beeblebrox, Hemiauchenia and all the others do what they do.

They screw him over, piss on his legal rights, violate their own policies and gaslight their own community, simply because they can. Because Wikipedia is a cult.

Because nobody can stop them. Because Wikipediocracy long ago stopped even trying, and worse, slid right into bed with them, the dirty filthy turncoat slags that they are.

Of course, If David emails back, "yeah dude, I totally assigned rights to that photo over to Jess, thanks for tellIng me I need to email proof to Commons, I'll get right on that" and the proof appears, then I guess that would be that.

(I'm quite sure that once things have got this far, a Commons VRT operative would not be prepared to risk exposure by falsifying a permission. But if they do, catching them with their hand in the cookie jar is as easy as sending a second email. David Guttridge has no reason to lie to protect a maggot like that.)

Jess Wade's honour is restored (or as far as it can be for a Wikipedian guilty of routinely flouting the BLP sourcing requirements).

Well, not quite. It can still be shown that the Wikimedia movement dragged out a simple matter of ensuring Commons followed their own policy to a ridiculous degree, leaving people with no other option but to bother David with lengthy emails when he has clearly got better shit to be doing, like running a business.

The question will be asked .... why?

Why would you do that!

Why?

(evoking feelings of shame from public urination on one's Friends, intentional)

The answer will not help Wikipedia reverse its declining brand value.

And that is one heck of an understatement.

Resistance is not futile.

Their arrogance is their weakness.

Go forth, winged monkeys, and WREAK HAVOC.

HTD.

Not you Zoloft. You go sit over there in your comfy chair and have a nice nap.

Beeblebrox will ask you if he needs any help. Personal information, doxx, weapons. A clue. The usual. x