The wannabe Admin Eostrix fixed one (and only one) of the identified problems in the Catherine Chesla biography, the aims and objectives of a throwaway account named "Chesla Defender" being not very hard to fathom. Eostrix are entitled to their view that this was a "nothing much" problem, hopefully a run at RfA will correct their misconceptions of the seriousness of the BLP policy.
I think this rather showed where Eostrix stands on the whole issue.....
Wow. A real life Wikipedia rosette.The Barnstar of Diligence
For making women in science shine not just in the real world but on Wikipedia too. Eostrix 10:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Whose a good girl? Who is a good girl? You are! Yes you are!
Apparently, there are still people in this world that don't know that on Wikipedia, Jess Wade is a mute, and by choice. You can send her all the praise and good wishes you want, you're getting nothing in return. Not even a thank you.
Why is she being such a stone cold bitch even to those who are trying their hardest to protect and encourage her? Why is she seemingly going out of her way to disprove the claim that Wikipedia is about collaboration and mutual respect? A community, if you will.
It's simple. You haven't given her EVERYTHING she wanted. She thinks she's an AMAZING editor, certainly good enough to be an Administrator, remember. That it is only the patriarchy keeping her from it. And you fools, you stupid fucking bastards, you've never really given her any reason to think she's not correct in these delusions, have you? It's just an endless stream of treats and tummy tickles.
Jess Wade is not entitled to a media darling exception to BLP, and RfA would figure out that is how she views herself, and act accordingly. She would be crushed. And it's starting to look like they know that, because the next two or three biographies that stupid bitch published, didn't at first sight (and I stress, literally only on a five second look) have any (lack of) sourcing issues.
But of course, it didn't last.
For as night follows day, only a few days later, and here she is posting a biography of Michelle Albert which has the more usual Jess Wade standard of two sentences that appear to lack any kind of source at all.
They'll be in there somewhere, perhaps, but you're going to have to find them yourself, because Princess Wikipedia is FAR TOO BUSY to do a proper job and comply with a basic and important policy.
I wonder if Eostrix is free to do a little spot of cleanup work? For the next FIVE OR TEN years. No? I didn't think so.
If this temporary, momentary, improvement was the result of someone having a quiet word, they're a fool. Why would you assume this woman is capable of change now, when you have seen so many examples that show she isn't? She has a preferred way of doing things, a BLP policy violating way of doing things, and she will keep on doing it unless or until you force her to stop doing it.
A puppy learns to stop shitting on the carpet faster than this woman learns that BLP is not optional, and the community doesn't exist to follow her around, cleaning her poop off the rug.
And it won't really cut any ice with anyone if they want to claim it doesn't really matter, that you can hardly tell a Jess Wade poop from any of the other dubious stains on the Wikipedia rug, because for reasons that aren't too hard to fathom, you all willingly went along with all the fake news reporting that this little puppy is somehow a Crufts Best In Show winner. An example to all future show entrants.
To focus only on what feaces is directly attributable to Wade, the scale of the cleanup task is already huge, far beyond one handler alone. And it is only getting bigger by the day. It does indeed appear, that you all really are that stupid to think this is a problem you can ignore forever.
Black women scientists deserve better. It remains the case that if they want to just keep covering this shit up and protect Wade from her own choices, for these are obviously deliberate acts of negligence in furtherance of her personal goals, the fastest way to make this thing blow up in all their faces, is to show the world that Wikipedia's idea of helping worthy black women become more visible, is to get a privileged little white women to do a half-assed rush job, and protect her candy ass from any and all criticism.
Not to make accusations of racism lightly, but I wonder if the very white privileged Jess Wade makes less mistakes when she's writing about similar white women, and indeed, as I have observed, when she's writing about white women who she knows, and thus presumably is in their case at least worrying what might happen if their biography was more easily vandalised because of a sloppy initial effort that makes it quite easy to insert or change a rubbish fact, and harder than it should be to detect it?
And that she isn't showing that same concern for black women who she doesn't know, and are to her, evidently, just another stick in a pile of hurriedly fetched sticks, as she works tirelessly but sloppily, for ever more attagirls? Wouldn't that be hilarious? That Wade is guilty of the very bias she claims to be fixing, and she doesn't know it because she's never checked herself.
How ironic that she herself has a puppy these days. I guess she needed a dumb animal in her life, something that would love her unconditionally, no matter what her flaws. Can't think why.
I really do wonder why people like Antradus think this "harassment" of Wade is ever going to stop unless or until the Jess Wade Problem is fixed at source.
I note that the Wikipediocracy fools have even stopped defending this woman and her enablers now. Not yet prepared to criticise, but not overtly supporting those who would have the world believe there is nothing to see here.
Finally caught on, have you? Ah well. At least you're learning.
Don't fuck with the Crow. He's a very nasty man, and he ALWAYS takes that shit personal, like. He can peck the eyes out of a little puppy's head from fifty thousand feet, and make no mistake.