Ritchie333

Jans Hammer · Unread post by **Jans Hammer** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 11:49 am

WBG wrote:
WormThatTurned wrote: ....The history between Praxidicae and Ritchie was highlighted to the committee, for a second time (in the past year). On the previous occasion, a single arbitrator dealt with the issue off list. This time, we followed the WP:LEVEL2 process for desysop. Ritchie was asked for his point of view, and the committee deliberated over whether it was appropriate to remove his sysop user-right. There was consensus that Ritchie's behaviour did not warrant removal of permissions at this time ...
Interesting ....

I am looking forward to 12 months time when some of the whinging, whining, ever-complaining, never satisfied, wikilawyering, borish loudmouths are elected in ACE2019 and have served 7 months. Yes, the current AC is poor by virtually any standard, but the future.... could be even worse.

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 11:58 am

WBG wrote:
WormThatTurned wrote: ....The history between Praxidicae and Ritchie was highlighted to the committee, for a second time (in the past year). On the previous occasion, a single arbitrator dealt with the issue off list. This time, we followed the WP:LEVEL2 process for desysop. Ritchie was asked for his point of view, and the committee deliberated over whether it was appropriate to remove his sysop user-right. There was consensus that Ritchie's behaviour did not warrant removal of permissions at this time ...
Interesting ....

That strikes me as a bit of after-the-fact reasoning. "We were thinking about desysopping and it just so happens that we have a procedure for that, but we did something else instead."

The next questions that should be asked are, (1) "Who was the 'initiating arbitrator' for the purposes of WP:LEVEL2?" (2) "Did the 'initiating arbitrator' receive a private complaint directly, or was the complaint presented as a generalized grievance upon which the 'initiating arbitrator' felt there was cause to call for a vote on desysopping?" (3) "Why was any other remedy under consideration using the WP:LEVEL2 process when that process does not provide for any lesser or greater action by motion alone?"

I'm still cooking what I plan on bringing up with WTT. I've had to crack a couple books to make sure I get certain things explained just right. My intention is to approach the privacy problem as a symptom of an overarching disorder in the arbitration process caused by failure to adhere to best practices for adjudication, and proceedings being insufficiently analytical in general, and to present parallels from the world of litigation (especially before administrative agencies) in crafting recommendations. One of the core issues with the Ritchie case, in my view, is the failure of the Committee to make the formal findings of fact necessary to justify the remedy as appropriate under policy. A lot of people, unfortunately, seem to think this means disclosing private information.

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:00 pm

Jans Hammer wrote:I am looking forward to 12 months time when some of the whinging, whining, ever-complaining, never satisfied, wikilawyering, borish loudmouths are elected in ACE2019 and have served 7 months. Yes, the current AC is poor by virtually any standard, but the future.... could be even worse.

Yeah, I'm confident it's going to be a shitshow of monumental proportions. I expect to see a number of former arbs returning to the role, and a bunch of younger admins trying to climb the ladder. Not one of them will really understand the arbitration policy.

I think a key question for all candidates needs to be to ask them to give examples of "policymaking by fiat".

Jans Hammer · Unread post by **Jans Hammer** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:06 pm

Why do you think challenging a bunch of volunteers without (this year AFAICS) a token legal qualification between them with what will be perceived as clever, tortuous, legally crafted challenge from a qualified (if rather barrack room) lawyer remotely helpful? What's the big deal with you whinging lot? 2 people don't like each other, they have been told to stop sharing the same space, one has thrown his toys out of his pram. So fucking what?

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:12 pm

I really don't see why poking holes in the WP:LEVEL2 excuse would be any worse than accepting the line of tripe.

Jans Hammer · Unread post by **Jans Hammer** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:15 pm

It might be because you are publically coming across as a massive tit by trying to turn everything you see wrong into a Supreme Court decision instead of letting ordinary people play out the issues in their own humdrum fashion?

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:24 pm

Letting the Committee make things up as they go along is how we got into this mess. Especially as we're seeing the emergence of new Committee procedures, many actions are being taken, perhaps by analogy to real-world situations, without fully understanding those situations. I just want to see consistent use of best practices, and an actual understanding of why particular practices should be favored or disfavored. It doesn't require three years of law school to get. Most of this stuff is straightforward enough, it just requires a willingness to look at some fine details of the process.

Jans Hammer · Unread post by **Jans Hammer** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:31 pm

From everything we have seen this version of the AC seems inherently incapable of learning anything new process-wise. They have only 5 months left, I doubt any of Tranche B will stand for a further term and others might step down.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:24 pm

My take away from the dual Fram and Ritchie333 debacles is, if ARBCOM tries to talk to you, refuse.
Do not engage, especially in a private setting like email.
They are not to be trusted.

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 4:25 pm

Honestly that isn't a bad idea. In fact, cases are typically held in abeyance when the "target" disappears.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 4:47 pm

Jans Hammer wrote:I am looking forward to 12 months time when some of the whinging, whining, ever-complaining, never satisfied, wikilawyering, borish loudmouths are elected in ACE2019 and have served 7 months. Yes, the current AC is poor by virtually any standard, but the future.... could be even worse.

Has there ever been an Arbcom that we didn't think was worse than the previous one?

10920 · Unread post by **10920** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 5:28 pm

I don't know but you'd be hard-pressed to come up with any iteration of ArbCom that has done worse than the current one.

They are constantly lying and contradicting one another, not to mention deciding that they determine their remit, not the community or policy. It's sad to say that the best member has been Courcelles, because he/she has been "too busy" to bother doing anything whatsoever despite swearing up and down s/he'd be very active (in order to get elected).

The cherry on top will be when it eventually comes out that the "Fram case" was not a case at all. It was merely ArbCom acting as stooges for the WMF.

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 5:51 pm

10920 wrote:They are constantly lying and contradicting one another

Yep. This has by far been the worst part of it.

not to mention deciding that they determine their remit, not the community or policy.

To be fair, every adjudicative body worth anything has some form of Kompetenz-kompetenz (T-H-L). But they still need to follow the arbitration policy, and they're not doing so.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 8:13 pm

mendaliv wrote:But they still need to follow the arbitration policy, and they're not doing so.

Take them to Arbcom!

WBG · Unread post by **WBG** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 8:42 pm

Fram did it and his current fate is not particularly endearing .....

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 8:51 pm

Poetlister wrote:
mendaliv wrote:But they still need to follow the arbitration policy, and they're not doing so.
Take them to Arbcom!

LOL

There was a case before the Supreme Court recently, earlier this term, that got dispensed of on the shadow docket (i.e., the sheet of orders denying things without opinion) in a way that caught my eye.

Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. §1, and since the only qualified Justice is of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U. S. C. §2109, which provides that under these circumstances “the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court.” The Chief Justice, Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Alito, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

In case you're counting, that's 7 recusals, and this was October 1, 2018 (so before Kavanaugh took office). The case is just titled Johnson v. United States, so I got curious and checked the docket.

This guy must've thought he was really clever. It turns out he named all the justices except Gorsuch as parties (I believe because he filed the original suit before Gorsuch took office), as well as a bunch of judges on the Federal Circuit and Court of Federal Claims (the orders of which are appealed to the Federal Circuit). So what happened was the justices who were named in the suit recused, because they shouldn't preside over a case involving themselves (no matter how frivolous and vexatious it is), and the one remaining justice determined there was no quorum, and therefore by law the appeal was to be affirmed (but not in a way that made it national precedent). It's quite a clever way of dealing with someone trying to be clever.

And for those in doubt, the lawsuit was absolutely frivolous.

Alex Shih · Unread post by **Alex Shih** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:38 pm

WTT is once again revealing his true hypocritical face that I have been criticising in WT:ACN. PMC screwed up big time, and was rightly scrutinised. To bring up Level 2 nonsense this time is really strange; just because one particular user cries foul exceptionally loud in a hysterical manner does not mean something egregious is taking place. Throwing shade at Ritchie saying that "Level 2 desysop was being considered by the committee", while quietly noting Ritchie was not never aware of what was being discussed by this particularly incompetent "committee", is almost identical to the same tactics of outright lying WTT employed against me previously.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:44 pm

Yeah I admit I once respected WTT and he showed his true colors to me as well when he Fucked me over and left me hanging after he unbanned me. At this point I have respect for less than a dozen people on Wikipedia anymore. I could count on one hand the people I would trust on that project.

But yeah it commenting about an Arbcom discussion that was done in private should earn him a desysop or at least have that conversation. Again, just proof that people shouldn't be trusting him or the Arbcom with ANYTHING.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:54 pm

David Craven(Worm that turned) is a protege of Demiurge1000

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2760&p=57398

Names to faces: David Craven

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 11:28 pm

Vigilant wrote:protege of Demiurge1000 (T-C-L)

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2760&p=57398

Another thread on "The Wikipedia Adventure", with links to the for-deletion discussions.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6470

Peter Damian wrote a Wikipediocracy blog post that briefly discussed WP:The Wikipedia Adventure (T-H-L).
http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/08/26/wi ... tleblower/

Notice how many of the accounts mentioned have been banned, because of the "CPP" (child protection policy?).

I told you so, You fucking fools!

Robert Conquest wrote:Kingsley Amis (T-H-L) and ‘The Great Terror’
Robert Conquest (T-H-L) APRIL 12, 2007 ISSUE
In response to:
Executioner Songs from the March 1, 2007 issue

To the Editors:

In a footnote to John Banville (T-H-L)’s review of Martin Amis (T-H-L)’s House of Meetings (T-H-L) [“Executioner Songs,” NYR, March 1] I am quoted as having suggested, for a title for a new edition of The Great Terror (T-H-L), “How about I Told You So, You Fucking Fools?”

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2007/0 ... at-terror/

Ritchie333 · Unread post by **Ritchie333** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:58 am

Hello everyone,

I have been "head hunted" over many years to join the Wikipediocracy forums, but generally declined as I prefer to be able to criticise Wikipedia on-wiki as it's more effective. Since that doesn't seem to be possible right now, I'm coming here instead as a "safe haven" to state my point of view without fear of getting blocked or booted off.

The basic problem of Praxidicae (T-C-L) is one that has (IMHO) caused terminal damage to Wikipedia for at least 12 years and shows no signs of stopping. New users typically only want to write one article to start with, and the resulting experience will decide whether or not they want to contribute again, or recommend it to anyone else. They typically don't complain about over-aggressive behaviour from "hit and run" editors who tag stuff without thinking about the person behind the content and what they might feel about it. Praxidicae's modus operandi is to run around putting speedy deletion tags on new users' articles without really thinking about whether it might be possible to rewrite / improve them. Then when they get complaints, the third party gets some boilerplate policy text thrown at them and is good as told to fuck off. They're not the only offender at this; there are numerous hit and run editors active on the project who take strong exception when anyone suggests they might be in the wrong.

There has been a lot of hysteria about my conduct with Praxidicae being "toxic" (without much in the way of diffs), but as far as I am aware, there are only two flare ups. I looked back through my talk page archives and certainly found conversation at other times was pleasant and amenable.

The first of these was in the aftermath of Donna Strickland AfC submission, where I commented (I forget where) (mod note: probably here) that while Praxidicae didn't decline the Strickland AfC, that was more by luck than judgement given their tendency to decline AfCs as "spam" or "trash", and I suspected they could generate a similar incident if they didn't proceed more carefully. That's fair comment. Praxidicae then came onto my talk page shouting like a trooper; I told them to calm down, then when that didn't work I told them to get lost. A whole bunch of people lost their heads about "doubling down on personal attacks", but Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Responding_to_personal_attacks (T-H-L) says "Sometimes personal attacks are not meant as attacks at all, and during heated and stressful debates editors tend to overreact. Additionally, because Wikipedia discussions are in a text-only medium, nuances, and emotions are often conveyed poorly which can easily lead to misunderstanding." If I wanted to personally attack Praxidicae, I'd have just told them to fuck off from the get go.

The second incident was when Praxidicae speedy tagged Bill Homewood (T-H-L). Now you have to be a certain age and from the right country to remember The Adventure Game (T-H-L), a classic kid's TV show that was one of the first to make prominent use of BBC Micro computer graphics, and that Homewood was one of the characters in it, as well as starring in other 1980s kid's TV shows. As a general heuristic, "I've heard of them" probably doesn't warrant a speedy tag. After a bit of argy-bargy on the talk page, I gave up after one reply as nothing I said was going to make any difference. This continued onto my talk page where I said:

Your problem is you appear to go around looking for trouble, defacing articles and nominating them for deletion, and when you are challenged on it, you get angry and upset and start insulting the other parties. You need to assume more good faith."

I can't see any way that that's toxic, incivil or a personal attack. Praxidicae then saying "If you truly believe my intent is nefarious and that I am a vandal" shows they don't get it - Hanlon's razor says it's far more likely that one-track minded incompetence will lead to new users work getting wrongly deleted.

Look carefully in the discussions under contention. By and large they were started by Praxidicae, and have the final comment from Praxidicae. That shows I can ignore them and walk away from a discussion that's a waste of time, while they are very much up for the debate. I am not happy to hear that Arbcom (or some of them) wanted to remove my tools for this. I'm a reasonable person (well, most of the time) and generally do try and work with other people, but Arbcom have created this mess for themselves. They could have replied in private, and we could have started a conversation; they might have understood my point of view. But they stuck their fingers in their ears, so I don't trust them anymore.

The problem here is that, as somebody else said, some admins and arbs couldn't write an encyclopedia article if you put a gun to their head; consequently when you actually start a conversation that's to do with encyclopedia content, they don't know what you're talking about and misunderstand it's about editors and conduct. I realise that some of you might be saying "Come on Ritchie, it took you - what - ten years to figure this out? Some of us had cottoned on about it ages ago", but there you go.

I realise much of the above is long-winded and goes into excessive detail, but you can't reduce something like this to simple slogans and soundbites.

Unread post by **Smiley** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:12 am

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:30 am

Welcome!

Ritchie333 · Unread post by **Ritchie333** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:02 pm

What I really want to know is - does anyone agree with anything I wrote above? When I talked about it on-wiki, I think two people said there might be a problem; everyone else then argued the merits over whether it was an interaction ban violation or not.

TheElusiveClaw · Unread post by **TheElusiveClaw** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:11 pm

I think you've caught the bad end of the Fram situation. Praxidicae is a a-hole and always has been, regardless of the name they use. Now anyone who isn't very good at writing for the 'pedia, and attracts the attentions of an Admin can go running to T&S or ArbCom and scream "Harrassment!" and they are halfway home to having the case decided in their favour. If they ask it should be held in private, so much the better: the result can be given as a fait accompli and ArbCom wil never, ever, ever back down, even if they are shown they've made the entirely the wrong decision

Unread post by **Smiley** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:19 pm

Ritchie333 wrote:What I really want to know is - does anyone agree with anything I wrote above? When I talked about it on-wiki, I think two people said there might be a problem; everyone else then argued the merits over whether it was an interaction ban violation or not.

You are right about Chrissy, but in my opinion, you lack the shark-like ruthlessness needed to counteract someone like that.

Plus, politically, your hands are far from clean, what with those blatantly partisan Fuck Donald Trump antics.

As an admin, I think you tried to have your cake and eat it, but ultimately you overindulged and finished lying in a pool of your own vomit, face smeared with crumbs.

Earthy Astringent · Unread post by **Earthy Astringent** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:23 pm

As an admin, I think you tried to have your cake and eat it, but ultimately you overindulged and finished lying in a pool of your own vomit, face smeared with crumbs.

Is that before or after a guy dressed like Batman pops out of the closet and hold up a sign reading “I can haz sodomee?”

Ritchie333 · Unread post by **Ritchie333** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:37 pm

Smiley wrote:As an admin, I think you tried to have your cake and eat it, but ultimately you overindulged and finished lying in a pool of your own vomit, face smeared with crumbs.

That's the problem; you can't really dust for vomit.

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:58 pm

Ritchie333 wrote:
Smiley wrote:As an admin, I think you tried to have your cake and eat it, but ultimately you overindulged and finished lying in a pool of your own vomit, face smeared with crumbs.
That's the problem; you can't really dust for vomit.

I always appreciate a good Spinal Tap reference.

So my recent impression of you was that you didn't seem particularly fussed at the secret, unappealable, unaccountable etc office action to ban Fram, and indeed worked to nominate admins to replace those of us who resigned in protest. And that now that ArbCom has slapped you with a far, far milder sanction than what Fram got, you're a bit more bothered by private evidence, to the point of "retiring" but not actually turning in your tools.

Reminds me a bit of the "I never thought leopards would eat MY face" lady, in a sense.

Do you think that's a fair impression, or unfair?

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:30 pm

I'll throw my 2 cents in here to.

Let me start off by saying welcome and I hope you stick around and comment on some other topics.

Obviously we are not fans of each other so it may shock you to hear that I agree with almost everything you said above. Almost!

Prax is toxic, I agree, but so are a lot of other users and admins, many of which have been discussed here. I also believe that some of this was due to retaliation by arbcom for supporting the WMF more than the house POV. That's the Arbcom the community selected and put into positions of power though, so now they have to live with it, including you.

Having said all that, I also think that this is a perfect example of the frequently seen attitude on Wikipedia that "I don't care about what happens to others until it happens to me". Many other users have been wrongfully sanctioned, blocked and banned by arbcom and others due to lies, manipulation of policy, secret evidence, etc. and you and others stood by and let it happen because it didn't affect you. Now it does and you storm off in a huff and retire. Having been the target of a long term campaign to keep me out of the site due to my outspoken criticism of toxic admins and trying to improve WikiProject United States, it's impossible for me to be sympathetic.

Welcome to the club though, you're no longer an editor in good standing!

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:07 pm

First they came...

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 6:57 pm

Welcome. We are glad that you are here, but please realize this is a very busy time with Wikimania only two days away.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:41 pm

eagle wrote:Welcome. We are glad that you are here, but please realize this is a very busy time with Wikimania only two days away.

What's that got to do with anything? I doubt anyone that actively comments here is going! So other than sniping comments about KayMah using donations to build up her frequent flyer miles and drink the tainted Wikipedia Koolaid, there should be more than enough opportunity for anyone to comment if they choose to do so.

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:46 pm

For insight into your role at Wikipediocracy, watch Gérard Depardieu in Roman Polanski's film "A Pure Formality".

Eric Corbett · Unread post by **Eric Corbett** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:23 pm

Kumioko wrote:
eagle wrote:Welcome. We are glad that you are here, but please realize this is a very busy time with Wikimania only two days away.
What's that got to do with anything? I doubt anyone that actively comments here is going! So other than sniping comments about KayMah using donations to build up her frequent flyer miles and drink the tainted Wikipedia Koolaid, there should be more than enough opportunity for anyone to comment if they choose to do so.

Perhaps eagle means that Wikimania is set to provide some diverting entertainment?

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:45 pm

Kumioko wrote:
eagle wrote:Welcome. We are glad that you are here, but please realize this is a very busy time with Wikimania only two days away.
What's that got to do with anything? I doubt anyone that actively comments here is going! So other than sniping comments about KayMah using donations to build up her frequent flyer miles and drink the tainted Wikipedia Koolaid, there should be more than enough opportunity for anyone to comment if they choose to do so.

The site does seem to have been more active than usual lately. That may be due at least partly to Fram, or the rush of RfAs.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:44 pm

Eric Corbett wrote:
Kumioko wrote:
eagle wrote:Welcome. We are glad that you are here, but please realize this is a very busy time with Wikimania only two days away.
What's that got to do with anything? I doubt anyone that actively comments here is going! So other than sniping comments about KayMah using donations to build up her frequent flyer miles and drink the tainted Wikipedia Koolaid, there should be more than enough opportunity for anyone to comment if they choose to do so.
Perhaps eagle means that Wikimania is set to provide some diverting entertainment?

You could be right. Something stupid is said or done at all of them so we are likely to see some shenanigans at this one as well. Maybe Katherine Maher will announce she is quitting to work as a Donation manager for the democratic national convention.

Poetlister wrote:
Kumioko wrote:
eagle wrote:Welcome. We are glad that you are here, but please realize this is a very busy time with Wikimania only two days away.
What's that got to do with anything? I doubt anyone that actively comments here is going! So other than sniping comments about KayMah using donations to build up her frequent flyer miles and drink the tainted Wikipedia Koolaid, there should be more than enough opportunity for anyone to comment if they choose to do so.
The site does seem to have been more active than usual lately. That may be due at least partly to Fram, or the rush of RfAs.

There seems to be more drama than normal. Shocking as that is.

ZettaComposer · Unread post by **ZettaComposer** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:15 am

Ritchie333 wrote:What I really want to know is - does anyone agree with anything I wrote above? When I talked about it on-wiki, I think two people said there might be a problem; everyone else then argued the merits over whether it was an interaction ban violation or not.

I agree, generally, with your point on new users. Unfortunately, many new users are only want to use Wikipedia to promote their brand/company/themselves on Wikipedia. I say go ahead with templating and driving those users away with extreme prejudice because these people have no interest in actually being meaningful contributors to Wikipedia outside of their one specific article and simply want some free advertising. They aren't here to collaborate and help Wikipedia - they are only trying to help themselves.

Experienced wikipedians need to be more careful about identifying and helping new users who actually want to promote Wikipedia's goals. Don't treat every new user like a threat.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:27 am

Kumioko wrote:Maybe Katherine Maher will announce she is quitting to work as a Donation manager for the democratic national convention.

She seems to be well qualified. She can get donors to believe all sorts of things.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:28 am

Kumioko wrote:There seems to be more drama than normal. Shocking as that is.

Maybe Zoloft and Mr. Midsize are cleverly manipulating things behind the scenes to improve the site's ratings.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:05 am

manip.png

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:13 am

Poetlister wrote:
Kumioko wrote:Maybe Katherine Maher will announce she is quitting to work as a Donation manager for the democratic national convention.
She seems to be well qualified. She can get donors to believe all sorts of things.

She's good at getting donations...and spending them. Not so good at being an executive director or CEO.

Ritchie333 · Unread post by **Ritchie333** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:55 am

Kumioko wrote:Obviously we are not fans of each other so it may shock you to hear that I agree with almost everything you said above. Almost!

Well I know you've asserted you're not a fan of me, but neither is my ex-wife, people who want a hard Brexit or Trump supporters. People are entitled to hold their own views. However, I can't ever recall interacting with you more than once, when I did, I got jumped on by 2-3 other admins for simply giving a sympathetic reply. I don't really see why you were banned, I do remember you did a lot of work on US history, and in my view the decision to ban you has caused more long-term harm than good. As I understand it (without looking it up), the banning policy says something like "no user is incapable of reform", or to put it another way - it's better to have editors inside the tent pissing out than on the outside pissing in.

As for ignoring difficult situations and silently watching users get banned, there's a simpler solution to that. I don't have much free time anymore, and while in the past I have made time to sorting out content and trying to defuse situations because I like doing it, my enthusiasm has taken a serious hit in the last few months and I'm struggling to think what to write about anymore. I don't like spending time on the "drama" area of the project, and only do so when I feel I can make a difference. At all other times, I think that wandering into a debate you know nothing about and throwing your 2c would show me up as naive, ignorant and an opportunist to at least some people in the debate. Unfortunately, by the time I've mulled over a situation carefully and decided what to do, another less reflective admin has overtaken me and taken action anyway.

Ironically enough, I'd be more motivated to spend time on WP if I got paid to do it, but that's another hot topic for another time.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:16 pm

First, welcome Ritchie.

I echo the criticism voiced above that your rush to nominate new Admin candidates in the middle of the Fram-related war for survival of community autonomy was tantamount to strikebreaking. Really bad timing and really counterproductive. But at this juncture..... water under the bridge.

Hopefully you'll be back to contributing content at WP shortly and have seen the light on the on the matter of "Secret Evidence and Arbitrary Procedure to Protect Special People." Leave all site maintenance tasks undone. If WMF is so convinced that they are the alpha and omega of Wikipedia, let them do their own damned janitorial work. And for the love of god, stop making things easier for them by finding new administrative candidates...

tim

Jans Hammer · Unread post by **Jans Hammer** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:27 pm

Ritchie333 wrote:
Kumioko wrote:Obviously we are not fans of each other so it may shock you to hear that I agree with almost everything you said above. Almost!
Well I know you've asserted you're not a fan of me, but neither is my ex-wife, people who want a hard Brexit or Trump supporters.

Well I want a hard Brexit (any type will do), I cannot stand Trump and I don't have an ex-wife. I also disagree with Tim above regarding new candidates. Many people are on "no side" of the WMF / WP tussle and life goes on. They deserve to have effective Admin. support uncluttered by having to choose sides in a factional war which will not affect them one iota.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:05 pm

Ritchie333 wrote:I can't ever recall interacting with you more than once, when I did, I got jumped on by 2-3 other admins for simply giving a sympathetic reply.

Well I recall you Supporting a ban on my in at least 2 discussions and I know you're a Roady and the members of the USRoads project used every tactic they could to kill WikiProject United States and the hundred or so associated projects (and succeeded I might add) but maybe you do agree I got screwed. With regards to policy, they had to violate it multiple ways and multiple times to get me banned and keep the ban in place, and the WMF was willing to ignore, and cherry pick the evidence they want to implement their ban on me with no regard to the negative impact on me, the projects or the communities. So Wikipedia policy isn't anymore reliable as the rest of the information in there.

As for editing, I hope you find something more productive to do with your time, like commenting here about all the dirty, underhanded, backstabbing that goes on like we do. Wikipedia doesn't deserve editors anymore, it's just turned into a political POV pushing enterprise at this point. You should turn in your admin tools and tell them to take a hike!

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:12 pm

Ritchie333 wrote: Ironically enough, I'd be more motivated to spend time on WP if I got paid to do it, but that's another hot topic for another time.

Thank you for your honesty. Please read Recommendation C of the Resource Allocation Working Group. If their recommendations are adopted there will be funding, but it would be allocated in a manner that promotes diversity. Please consider your self-indemnifying characteristics accordingly.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:43 pm

eagle wrote:
Ritchie333 wrote: Ironically enough, I'd be more motivated to spend time on WP if I got paid to do it, but that's another hot topic for another time.
Thank you for your honesty. Please read Recommendation C of the Resource Allocation Working Group. If their recommendations are adopted there will be funding, but it would be allocated in a manner that promotes diversity. Please consider your self-indemnifying characteristics accordingly.

If they are paying by the Demographic you can sign me up as an African-American, Jewish, Transgender female, Chinese, Indian, Muslim!

10920 · Unread post by **10920** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:13 pm

Kumioko wrote:
eagle wrote:
Ritchie333 wrote: Ironically enough, I'd be more motivated to spend time on WP if I got paid to do it, but that's another hot topic for another time.
Thank you for your honesty. Please read Recommendation C of the Resource Allocation Working Group. If their recommendations are adopted there will be funding, but it would be allocated in a manner that promotes diversity. Please consider your self-indemnifying characteristics accordingly.
If they are paying by the Demographic you can sign me up as an African-American, Jewish, Transgender female, Chinese, Indian, Muslim!

Being Jewish is not going to help your cause. In the WMF's view, there are already too many Jews editing.

Transgender African is probably a good place to begin.

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:27 pm

Chinese sex-worker from Mars