AndyTheGrump, a classic example of why Wikipediocracy in BEAST MODE, lacks all credibility

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

AndyTheGrump, a classic example of why Wikipediocracy in BEAST MODE, lacks all credibility

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:34 pm

So, I guess from the whole spectacle surrounding the Bill Stephenson case, we're meant to believe AndyTheGrump is a real hardliner on BLP.

That if you are a Wikipedia editor who deliberately and repeatedly violates BLP, if you are experienced enough to know better, if when challenged you don't immediately admit your error and instead offer a variety of implausible explanations, arrogant bluster and general cluelessness, you are in deep shit.

Andy will come for you, and he will destroy you.

Presumably because he has a care for the potential victims of Wikipedia, and a sincere belief that the effective and timely enforcement of BLP is a means to achieve that.

Yeah, OK.

While the crimes may not be comparable, when it comes to the manner in which Jess Wade edits, her attitude to policy and to other editors, she is guilty as charged. Regular and repeated violations of BLP, and all the bluster, bullshit and defiance when called out on it.

What did Andy do when this was brought to his attention at Wikipediocracy?

Fuck all.

He didn't stand up for BLP, he instead became the magical White Knight of Princess Wade.

Well, fuck him, and the unicorn he rode in on.

I hate people like that. People who think they can bullshit their way through anything, and so openly disrespect people who have done their research and presented their findings clearly, and have yet to be shown how they are wrong on the facts by anyone.

If you think I have no case, say it. Prove it. Be the man of facts and reason you seemed to want to be in that incident, and face me down. Line by line, point by point. Passionate, but factual.

Because I fucking remember what you did on Wikipediocracy, instead of that.

When the only thing you can probably say on this showing in Jess Wade's defence is, well, at least she isn't calling someone a criminal in the first line of a BLP to take advantage of Google juice in an apparent polical smear job, then you don't really have a case. That sort of thing is near the top end of violations, but it isn't the floor.

If you don't want to believe Jess Wade is the sort of person who might do that, that is your right. She's had great press, after all.

But if I show you she is pretty darn close to that sort of person at times, if I show you when she has used Wikipedia to advance dubious claims and take advantage of Google, all for reasons that are entirely against the ethos of Wikipedia, and you still deny it, I will remember that shit.

If you only needed to see what she was like in a quick random search, and when you saw no obvious issues you concluded this was a harassment campaign or worse, I will remember that shit.

Jess Wade is cleverer than you dopey cunts by half. She knows how to make her work look superficially compliant. She knows that burying her more severe fuck ups among a daily stream of only mildly problematic work is sufficient to fly under the radar, becuas surprise surprise, yes, Wikipedia is twenty years old, and it still can't even identify a serious problem like SecretName101 without the bloke self incriminating.

So you better wake up and smell what it means when you're being told Jess Wade is a fucking fraud of an editor, the exact sort of person who would be caught if Wikipedia was capable of enforcing BLP not just in this shit show way, but effectively.

She's high on the list of people who would be caught in a theoretically well run Wikipedia that is mindful and proactive when it comes to BLP.

Because, while it wasn't typical, it was inevitable and preventable, you go ask Katie Bouman if it was any fun being at the wrong end of Jess Wade's idea of a sound and ethical application of BLP. You ask her if she feels like the editor who lit her up and doggedly fought to have her biography retained to make some wider point, was any fun.

That's the real Jess Wade.

She'll do harm using Wikipedia if she wants. If you let her.

She knows how to do it, and how to get away with it.

That's the mark of true disregard. Contempt even.

It says a lot that an editor with the media profile of Jess Wade, some who has CALLED HERSELF AN AMBASSADOR of Wikipedia no less, thinking her work is that good apparently, would have to be as bad as this random fuckstick, before you even noticed.

You mocked SecretName101 for claiming he is a top editor. Well, and I fuckin bet you didn't know this, because you're an ignorant asswipe, no word of a lie, Jess Wade believed she was good enough to be an Administrator a long time ago, and the only reason she hasn't applied, is because sexism.

She would be destroyed at RfA. And rightly so. That it would come as a complete shock to her that she really is that bad, is the fault of people like you. Your expectations are so fucking low, it is unreal.

And you can only FUCKING DREAM of Jess Wade being as willing to explain herself as poor old SecretName101 when dragged in for interrogation. And she would have fucking exploded under even a tenth of that level of scrutiny, calling you all the names under the sun.

But of course you wouldn't even get the chance to wait around at AN/I and see what she had had say for herself so you could start dismantling it for plausibility, let alone start wondering if she is waiting it out.

She has full, complete, immunity. In no small part thanks to Wikipediocracy, of that I have no doubt.

I detailed only last night, a clear cut case of SYNTH, with the apparent intent to shame someone who wasn't even the article subject, for comments they made in 2005. It fits her long standing agenda, the one she wants Google juice to help expose. Men are bad, women are heroes. Read about it here, as a result of my own in depth personal research that goes far beyond anything sources are doing, because sexism. And she can hardly deny it has more than a whiff of self interest in it.

That's the sort of shit you find on a random check, her latest article at the time, if you do actually check. Not look, check.

Fuck you if you think that's minor, or raises no BLP red flags.

Fuck you if you think thst having ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY these days that every single Wikipedia biography posted by Jess Wade will have large chunks of it lacking a source, and knowing she doesn't give a flying fuck and indeed knows she doesn't need to because of wankers like you, isn't a BLP problem.

Her latest biography....
She was awarded a Medical Research Council Research Fellowship to work on Genetic Epidemiology. She was part of the Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics in genetic epidemiology. During this fellowship she earned an additional Master's degree in genetic epidemiology at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. She completed research projects at the Queensland Institute of Technology and University of Pittsburgh.
.....unsourced.

Stand up and be counted Andy, you fucking hero.

BLP/N awaits your report, Krina Zondervan needs someone to speak for her right to expect a BLP compliant biography straight out the box when it's coming from such supposedly experienced and media lauded editor, not simply when someone gets around to noticing and caring enough.

Because you better fucking believe I've been tracking how long BLP issues like this go unfixed on Wikipedia, perhaps precisely because they have the veneer of being a Jess Wade article. Pretty surprising how much damage one person can do at at this rate, when nobody cares to ensure that Wikipedia's celebrity editors are actually minimally competent in how they document people with little to no public profile before Jess Wade lights them up on Wikipedia.

You care, right?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Perhaps his real issue, as he hinted at on Wikipediocracy at the time, is with Wikipedia's policy of allowing anonymous editing. Perhaps he imagines "Jess Wade" is more entitled to a presumption of competence or a sense of responsibility than "SecretName101". Fool.

They had to look pretty fucking hard it seems, to identify multiple problematic articles from SecretName101. You don't even need more than a week's worth of BLPs by Jess Wade, to make the case she is a serial and serious offender. And she has written over a thousand.

I'm taking fucking names.

Fucking amateurs.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: AndyTheGrump, a classic example of why Wikipediocracy in BEAST MODE, lacks all credibility

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:40 pm

....As for an 'enhanced' new page patrol system, I proposed something along similar lines in an off-Wikipedia discussion: that biographies of living persons are not permitted to go 'live' until they have been vouched for as properly-sourced and policy-compliant by at least two established editors other than the article creator.....
AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
:lol:

Is Jess Wade good enough to be allowed to pass other people's articles?

Trick question.

Jess Wade gives no fucks about anyone but herself, and this is never clearer than when you examine her Wikipedia editing, where she is basically a mute who works alone, and isn't even bothering to acknowledge people who praise her!

The only substantive comment she has made recently, was to complain that someone else was tagging her articles. It unfairly maligned the editor, who like a lot of people, just seems used to the idea Wade is allowed to do whatever the fuck she likes, and their role is to clean up after her, and accept her snark. They do what that can, but adding categories is hardly what Wade's biographies really need to become minimally acceptable.

Just another little sign that shows how and why she is a BLP compliance problem.

But hey, doesn't show up on a random check, so whatevs.

Hilarious.

The very idea that AndyTheGrump has even the first clue just how deep the rot is, how institutionally accepted Wikipedia's disregard of BLP is, is fucking laughable on this showing.

I chose to target Wade because if she can get away with it, anyone can. She's famous for being a Wikipedia editor! It was implied she was good at it, and to be honest, I'd have settled for minimally competent. But she isn't even that. She is making work for other editors. Most of which isn't being done, but is simply filed in the ever growing backlogs.

And on the flip side, if others of her experience can't get away with what she can, if she can get a away being measured against the very low bar of just the average, they have every right to be fucking pissed off, because much of Jess Wade's shit editing is done to merely save her time and make her life easier, at the expense of article subjects.

Newsflash. Wikipedia editing is easy. BLP compliant editing is hard. Time consuming. Stressful.

Who knew? Everyone. Who cares. Nobody at Wikipediocracy when it came to Jess Wade. For them, mere editing is fine. And they generously class the routine failure to add categories or link articles or even use a spellchecker, as not being signs of deeper issues. Unsurprisingly, they are.

You would think Andy might know that. I suspect he does not. Hopefully he is angry to have been caught not appreciating the subtler signs of what makes a good editor. Sort of like not having noticed your dentist has his cock out. Understandable, but firmly placing you in the realm of dumb civilian, not dentist assessor.
To avoid any doubt, I will state outright that I am accusing you of ill-intent in your creation of the Stevenson biography. I find your going-in-circles explanations for why you "researched" Stevenson, and on why such research made you believe he met Wikipedia notability criteria, anything but credible.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Hey, big man.

Try asking Jess Wade why she created Clarice Phelps.

Quite the rabbit hole, that, a web of intrigue and baffling and contradictory explanations and all sorts of suspicious motives and a general undermining of Wikipedia.

I kid of course.

You'd be banned in seconds, or more likely, shut your trap the instant the heavy mob descended and told you there's nothing to see here, Jess Wade is beyond reproach.

Wikipedia loves Useful Idiots like you.

Black Kite will team up with you all day every day to smite a SecretName101. But he'll kill you as soon as let you kill the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg, whose feted editing allegedly proves Wikipedia no longer has a sexism problem dating back to the time when Black Kite et al were rising to power, and were busy cosetting and protecting sexists like Eric Corbett as they steadily undermined civility, entrenched elitism and generally lorded it as old white male geeky fucks.

People who will swallow any old shit and only target who Wikipedia can safely do without.

Jess Wade exposed as a fraud? Unthinkable. Absolute scandal. The things the media said about Saint Jess, they were they all LIES? No! She was just another self interested agenda pushing source abusing charlatan? Say it isn't so!

But hey, it checks out. He said it would be in the book, and it isn't in the book. Jess reviewed that book! She, she, she lied? Why!!!!!

You know why. Been open about it at times. On. The. Record.

Wait, is EVERYTHING the media tells us about the wonder of Wikipedia, just utter bullshit?

SecretName101 exposed as a negligent editor? Not bothered. Fucking Tuesday.

I hope you get my point.

But I know you didn't.

Swalllowed the party line completely didn't you, you little bitch. :oops:

Wikipediocracy does so love those who do what is convenient for Wikipedia.

Funny that.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: AndyTheGrump, a classic example of why Wikipediocracy in BEAST MODE, lacks all credibility

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:53 pm

Unfortunately, I've seen too many people using 'I'm autistic' as an excuse to necessarily take that at face value. Sometimes it can be a convenient self-diagnosis.

Either way, it isn't actually a valid argument for appealing a topic ban. Not one concerning writing about other people. Not if the argument is 'I'm not very good at it because I have autism'. The only appropriate response to that is that 'you are being blocked because you aren't very good at it, and it doesn't really matter why'. The harsh reality of the world is that people have to limit their activities to things they are actually able to do, sometimes, when it has impacts on other peoples' lives.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

The harsh reality of this pantomime, is that I've never even seen Jess Wade give an explanation for why she has such a scarily frequent rate of even simple mistakes like typos and randomly dropped clauses.

Oh wait, I have. Not so much of an explanation, as a FUCK YOU I'M THE BEST EDITOR THAT HAS EVER LIVED, LEAVE ME ALONE

Got a strong vibe of mental disorder that day.

Luckily for Jess, she's never put in any situation where she actually has to offer an actual explanation for what she does.

Which is good for her, because when the most obvious explanation, if she doesn't have an actual perception problem, is that she's a willfully negligent cow who considers her own time more valuable than other editors, is a bad look.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: AndyTheGrump, a classic example of why Wikipediocracy in BEAST MODE, lacks all credibility

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:02 pm

Wikipediocracy wants SecretName101 to offer a full and complete apology to Bill Stephenson.

Quick, everyone who has had to ask for their Wikipedia biography to be corrected because Jess Wade didn't accurately convey a source, wrongly synthesised conclusions from different sources, and in at least one hilarious case, WROTE ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN ONE BIOGRAPHY, quick, get your requests in now.

I hope you like being told to fuck off and to stop lying about and sexually harassing poor old Jess.

Wikipediocracy gave her a good once over, and she passed their smell test.

Can't get better than that. Clean bill of health.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: AndyTheGrump, a classic example of why Wikipediocracy in BEAST MODE, lacks all credibility

Post by ericbarbour » Wed Oct 27, 2021 4:44 am

Is this supposed to be an Andythetwatfister rant thread, or just another Jess Wade rant thread?

As a reminder:
viewtopic.php?p=20769#p20769

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: AndyTheGrump, a classic example of why Wikipediocracy in BEAST MODE, lacks all credibility

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:10 pm

I'm liking the make Andy look like a prat angle right now.

He definitely makes it sound like he's had legal issues.

What a donut.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: AndyTheGrump, a classic example of why Wikipediocracy in BEAST MODE, lacks all credibility

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:41 pm

Although Vigilant appears to be trying to outdo Andy....
When you libel someone, especially a non-notable person for a political hitjob, in a BLP, we don't fucking care what your disability is.
HEY DICKHEAD.

As someone has already pointed out, Wikipediocracy is now hosting the content Wikipedia has already deleted (and has helpfully provided archive links too). If Jake isn't too busy giving Beeblebrox neck massages and foot rubs, maybe that's somethings he can put his Administrative hand to.

And claiming they were libelled by calling him a convicted fraudster on Wikipedia, when your own postings seem to show this guy is a three time offender (settled out of court for violations of IRS rules, got a suspended sentence for passing dud cheques, and another suspended sentence for bank fraud), is pretty fucking ridiculous.

Welcome to America, fuckstick. No libel here, in my layman's view. If you wanted it to be relevant beyond a local policy level that these things happened a long time ago, they aren't major crimes, and he is a relative nobody who has a right to privacy and to be forgotten, well, fuck me if you shouldn't have tried just a little bit harder to not be such a hard core supporter of Wikipedia's right to do whatever Californian law let's it do and FUCK EVERYONE ELSE in previous incidents, because all that shit does actually matter in more evolved jurisdictions and could actually be pursued in their courts.

And lastly, fuck me sideways, but it shouldn't have to be pointed out in this day and age that "we don't care about your disability" is really not a phrase anyone should be using unless in a positive way, lest they actually want to be thought of as an absolute dick.

Not that you fucking care, because your brain is that fucking limited, but it strikes me that showing that the WMF cannot claim to be exempt from being held to be a publisher if it doesn't do things like make sure Autopatrolled can't be given to people whose declared disability might mean they aren't likely to ever be held personally liable, could be one of the ways that Wikipedia gets taken down a peg or three, through legal means.

But hey, we all know where you stand when it comes to using the law against Wikipedia, you fucking Quisling.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: AndyTheGrump, a classic example of why Wikipediocracy in BEAST MODE, lacks all credibility

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Oct 28, 2021 1:19 am

:lol:
....I simply don't consider it credible that someone with your broad experience on Wikipedia should be so utterly unaware of the basic tenets of core policy as to think the Stevenson bio even remotely appropriate. And if it is really true that someone can be as deeply involved in the project as you have been, and not get to understand what WP:BLP is all about, the project is deeply flawed, in the most fundamental ways. I've been a critic of Wikipedia's lack of care with regard to content concerning living persons for some time, but I never thought it was quite that bad. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
This is comedy gold.

I refuse to believe the author of this statement has nothing to say about Jess Wade, and given the specific information they were given regarding Wade's pattern of violations, didn't do more than a cursory check before giving her a clean bill of health.

If, as of this very day, in the year of our Lord 2021, someone with her media profile, with over a thousand biographies to her name, working exclusively on little known people, can get away with so blatantly, repeatedly and deliberately not adhering to the BLP requirement to source all notability affecting claims with an inline source at time of publication, on a literal daily basis, then yes, Wikipedia is deeply flawed, and you Andy, really probably genuinely don't have the first fucking clue how bad things really are.

Inconceivable, right?

I suspect nefarious intent.

Actually, I'll just come out and say it.

Andy, are you fucking Jess Wade?

:o

I joke. Because the reality, is no fucking laughing matter.

To have Jess Wade calling herself a Wikipedia Ambassador, genuinely believing she could be a Wikipedia Administrator, that's Trump Administration level delusion right there.

For the sake of all women, she better fucking hope I am right and she isn't actually incompetent, and instead she's smart enough to know what she is doing wrong but she's just a lazy selfish cow who seemingly knows she can get away with doing a half assed job because it's only Wikipedia and she has general immunity from even a serious policy like BLP because she's good PR.

Because here's the real fucking kicker. Here's what should interest Wikipediocracy, if they weren't sell out pieces of shit.

Nobody knew about SecretName101's violations. EVERY FUCKER THERE KNOWS ABOUT JESS WADE.

ArbCom knows. The WMF knows. Plenty of Administrators know. Your so called investigators at Wikipediocracy know.

Even the nearly got to be an admin sock Eostrix knew. He was the ONLY person on the whole of Wikipedia who actually did what the BLP policy says people should do, and SOURCED ONE OF JESS WADE'S SHITTY EDITS BEFORE RESTORING IT TO WIKIPEDIA.

Trying too hard to show he would make a good Administrator. Probably why he got caught. As if Wikipedia wants Admins who would prioritise BLP subjects over Jess Wade's happiness. Ha. Well, he knows for next time I guess.

Andy, you're a fucking pussy. I bet I could give you the name of the Wikipedia Administrator who directly violated BLP by putting Jess Wade created unsourced information back into a biography simply because the wikishits put more priority on BMB than BLP, and you wouldn't do a damn thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1035571483

On seeing that spectacular example of a dereliction of duty and contempt for BLP by someone who absolutely should know better, "User:AndyTheGrump" wouldn't be taking his hardman act to Acrorterian and be reading him the riot act about policy and competence. Too scared. Too afraid of what they will do to him.

Too aware of the fact that he is surrounded on Wikipediocracy by the very people who have already shown that even though their Wikipedia role and their copious amounts of ArbCom precedent demands they give Acrorterian a serious talking to for that blatant violation, they're gonna do nothing.

As if ArbCom 2021 wants Admins to listen to their edicts, or would ever enforce them when it comes to Jess Wade. Beeblebrox is ArbCom, and scum like that are just fine with what Acrorterian did. You see what Beeblebrox is on Wikipediocracy, and you see how not one of them has the backbone to call it out. Scum knows scum. Scum likes scum.

They all know what Acrorterian did, all the wikishits reading this thread right now, and they will do, NOTHING.

People like you, Andy, you are part of the problem. Critic? Ha.

Jake, are you seriously wondering why people hate you so much?

People who, to use Andy's words against him, because I'm a horrible bastard like that, really can't be dismissed as disabled based on solely the evidence of their written word.

I mean, shit, if you could discredit any of this stuff on the facts, you'd have done it by now.

Has Jess Wade violated BLP or not? And is it repeated, deliberate, and with full knowledge it is wrong? And is that what ArbCom typically gets all hot and bothered over, when it's being done by editors who aren't celebrities?

Those are some pretty simple questions Jake, an alleged investigator of Wikipedia like yourself should be able to answer them.

But no. Radio silence. Well, not quite...
 I have to admit that it's probably not optimal to have someone out there who's committed to writing a new BLP every day, because like all other human beings, she's going to have days that are a lot more stressful and full of distractions than others
Ouch.

I bet that sent them running for cover in San Francisco, right?

You stupid fuck.

It has already been shown, Jess Wade makes mistakes in her articles in a way and at a rate that suggests she is distracted EVERY SINGLE TIME she hits publish.

And we already know why she does such a crap job, over and above the fact she clearly set herself this goal before she knew how hard doing this correctly actually is, because she has already admitted that she treats writing Wikipedia biographies as something you do while waiting in an airport lounge or in a lab.

In theory, if he is being consistent, if your forum had any kind of purpose other than giving us reasons to hate you, then that's something that should really piss Andy off. And who knows, it might even push you to say something acutely critical about Jess, and those who protect her.

This is why people hate you Jake. Well, one of the reasons. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Not a fucking clue.

And yet you covet the power to ban people like me from your forum, lest my detailed knowledge of exactly what Jess Wade has said and done, embarrasses and shows up your bunch of so called investigators.

Tell me honestly, before you took over, would Wikipediocracy have sanctioned this level of utter cowardice and complete incompetence in a matter like Jess Wade?

You are a sell out Jake. This is what sell outs do.

This is what Uncle Tom's do.

They go after the people their masters want them to. They give free passes to those their masters have said aren't to be harmed. They see who the masters like, and subconsciously or not, they don't do as good job investigating them.

At this point, I'd be willing to bet you've been told to back off Wade by NewYorkBrad himself!

You know I'm right Jake. You know I don't mind a bit if you keep ignoring these charges, I'm just gonna keep saying it and saying it, waiting for someone, anyone, to prove me wrong.

To prove you aren't what I say you are.

Do you have anyone out there there who wants to defend your honour on the facts?

I don't think you do. And I think you know why.

You are and have long been, a Wikipedia type Administrator, caring more about who loves you and fears you, rather than who trusts you are more knowledgeable and diligent and committed than they are.

Fucking phoning it in, basically.

Me, I could care less who likes me. I only take note of who believes me, and whether or not they are doing so on the facts or the sort of lame ass bullshit you seem all too happy to let the the likes Andy get away with.

It flies on Wikipedia. Cult is as cult does.

Sold. Out. Hard.

HTD.

:flamingbanana:

User avatar
rog
Sucks Fan
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:36 am
Location: the dark and nasty regions
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: AndyTheGrump, a classic example of why Wikipediocracy in BEAST MODE, lacks all credibility

Post by rog » Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:54 am

Settle down, Beavis.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: AndyTheGrump, a classic example of why Wikipediocracy in BEAST MODE, lacks all credibility

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Oct 28, 2021 7:19 am

Andy, are you fucking Jess Wade?
Actually I would pay serious $$ to see a video of that. Bet she screams and thrashes around like a crazed animal during an orgasm. (Which she does in her stupid YT videos, so I'm extrapolating here.)

Locked