Ritchie333
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:28 am
anyone see this coming? link
In general, people who really intend to leave, just leave.ZettaComposer wrote:I’ll believe it if a few months pass with no activity. For really active users that retired banner just as often means “I’m pissed off at the moment and will quietly return in a few weeks. Feel free to leave a message saying how much you miss me in the interim.”
He’s done a lot of good things and if this is for real I wish him well, but this sort of temporary disappearance after something happens on Wikipedia is all too common.
What they are supposed to do and what they actually do may well differ.mendaliv wrote:I guess that interaction ban with Praxidicae pissed him off?
I'm trying to figure out on what grounds the Committee did that anyway. It's just a motion out of nowhere. No findings of fact, no evidence. Exactly the opposite of what they're supposed to be doing.
Oh without a doubt, he's just being dramatic and throwing his toys out of the Pram. He'll wait for all the praises, we miss you's and hurry backs on his talk page to die down, then after a break resume editing.Alex Shih wrote:Ritchie will be back, but Praxidicae/Chrissymad's antagonistic approach to the project needs to be corrected at one point. While Ritchie should stop advocating that "content creators" are above everything, those users who does nothing but reverting vandalism should start to respect the fact that it takes much more work and effort to write content. I can understand Ritchie's frustration.
It's yet another farce to see Arbcom coming out to defend this poor wording of a motion that perfectly reflected the prejudgement of guilt.
Let's not forget that Ritchie333 was recently doxxed on WikipediaSucks, along with his girlfriend (or partner, if you prefer) - ostensibly because he supported Mr. Fram's ban. This interaction ban with Praxidicae might easily have contributed to his decision to "retire," but if he doesn't return in the relatively near future, I suspect that means he's either scared off completely or intends to start over with a better username.Dysklyver wrote:Well Praxidicae is kinda abrasive, not in a way really bad enough for me to go and doxx her on sucks or anything bad, but I am on the rather long list of people personally hurt by her.
Ritchie doxed himself regularly.Midsize Jake wrote:Let's not forget that Ritchie333 was recently doxxed on WikipediaSucks, along with his girlfriend.Dysklyver wrote:Well Praxidicae is kinda abrasive, not in a way really bad enough for me to go and doxx her on sucks or anything bad, but I am on the rather long list of people personally hurt by her.
Yes, and that's a serious problem for Wikipedia. On the other hand, the "hasten the day" crowd can cheer.10920 wrote:In terms of actual active admins, the number is more like 200.
Poetlister wrote:Yes, and that's a serious problem for Wikipedia.
On the other hand, the "hasten the day" crowd can cheer.
Smiley wrote: Ritchie doxed himself regularly.
Oh jeez, I didn't even notice that aspect of the motion wording.10920 wrote:ArbCom now lying about their statement; claiming it's really a two-way interaction ban.
You are absolutely right. As I've said before, part of the Committee's modern role is in mapping out the "lines" for conduct (i.e., those beyond which sanctions may or must lie), and its use in settling disputes which don't involve interpreting policy and setting such standards is contrary to the arbitration policy's standard that Committee cases should only lie in serious, intractable disputes. Otherwise the community should be expected to act, and when it doesn't, it's just as likely to be a sign that the dispute isn't that serious than a sign that the dispute is intractable.Alex Shih wrote:I think some of the discussion in WT:ACN relates to a point that I have been trying to get across, which is confidentiality should not mean that everything needs to be held in absolute secrecy; people/community should be able to have the option to know that a discussion/proceeding concerning them/wider community is taking place on the mailing list without knowing the contents of the discussion.
None of this stuff were unsuitable for public discussion; I am fairly certain Ritchie is comfortable and completely open about making whatever he had to say in public; the other party and ArbCom however is abusing this entire "confidentiality" term IMO.
Ah, is it a clean start?Alex Shih wrote:Praxidicae/Chrissymad
No, it's a global rename last October over some what I believe to be bogus "harassment" claims. They were making a fuss about suppressing the previous username even though it was glaringly obvious.C&B wrote:Ah, is it a clean start?Alex Shih wrote:Praxidicae/Chrissymad
Arbcom still handles disputes, recognising that many disputes can involve several parties. What has gone wrong is that it fancies itself as a court, so its rulings establish precedents of wide applicability. While there have been lawyers on it, such as Fred Bauder and NYB, basically it is unqualified for this role.mendaliv wrote:The most egregious aspect of these secret proceedings is how badly the Committee twists its role in the community. Historically, this should have been no problem to handle, since the Committee as originally understood should have been confined to settling disputes between parties rather than handling widespread disruption. But the changing role of the Committee over the years—and it has been this way for a very long time—means that there's an expectation of findings of fact such that the greater community can understand why decisions were made and take corrective action with respect to their own behavior, as well as, where one party truly engaged in misconduct, to curtail their interactions with that person.
The clean start policy on Wikipedia is a joke and everyone knows it. The reality is, people edit what they are interested in and even when the change accounts, they almost always go back to editing the things that interest them. For example, I was and still am interested in editing military history stuff, so I wouldn't be likely to start editing articles about butterflies after a clean start. This is exactly why at one point I created the KumiokoCleanStart username was because it became obvious that creating a new account wasn't possible. That goes for me and anyone else. Those who are able to pull it off are statistical outliers, not the norm. It's like Arbcom telling people they can be unblocked or unbanned in a year. Sure it's possible, but it's exceedingly unlikely.C&B wrote:Ah, is it a clean start?Alex Shih wrote:Praxidicae/Chrissymad
Ritchie333 wrote:Since Arbcom didn't or couldn't discuss anything with me in private, I'm posting my main email to them here in the hope somebody else can understand what I'm talking about.
The opening email from Arbcom basically said, neutrally and politely "Can you give some background behind these diffs?" So I did. The email, verbatim, is as follows:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =905951738
Praxidicae tagged an article for copyright violation. I agreed with their analysis, and redacted the parts of the article in question. Manifestation later pointed out I had incorrectly redacted the lead, which was not a copyvio, so I restored it.
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =906557291
I saw Bill Homewood's article tagged for G11 on my usual rounds at CAT:CSD. I didn't think it met the criteria, so removed it. I didn't think Praxidicae's tagging of the article with a summary "gutting all the unsourced promotional trash" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =906556535) was civil and polite, and referring to a new editor's good-faith creation on a (presumably) notable person as "promotional trash" falls below the standard of respect we should treat fellow editors, in my view.
3. (discussion about Bill Homewood generally)
I thought Praxidicae's conduct in the thread, starting "Since my removal of a bunch of totally unsourced puffery on a BLP is challenged" was confrontational and unlikely to lead to a satisfactory conclusion. After one comment, where I pointed out that they really should try and improve the article instead of leaving aggressive messages, I questioned why, if they had retired from the project (per the polemic on their user page "I have no interest in helping a project that willfully allows and condones harassment, intimidation and stalking."), why were they arguing with me here? I then disengaged from the discussion as it clearly was not going anywhere.
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =903930334
This follows on from 3, though it is more me getting cross generally with editors who put "This editor has retired due to Framgate" and then carry on editing. While editors are free to quit the project, if they carry on editing regardless then nobody will take their retirement seriously. I think I have called The Rambling Man out for similar behaviour. Anyway, blanking their user page was a stupid and idiotic thing to do, and I took the view if it was reverted (as it was) I would leave it be.
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =907073075
This is my personal opinion of Praxidicae following an unsolicited message they left on my talk page. I think it is civil and polite, if blunt and forthright.
From my point of view, I feel like I have been bullied by Praxidicae. I feel hurt and upset about how somebody can be so spiteful and malicious simply by somebody disagreeing with them and thinking that articles should be improved and not deleted, and how nobody else seems to understand my point of view. I don't want to interact them again and as you have probably seen, I have asked Praxidicae to stay off my talk page and not edit there. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =907109464). I apologise for rising to the bait on occasion and responding in kind to an argument; however, more often than not I agree with their deletion tags and delete the pages as requested. If you think my level of conduct falls below the expected standard of administrators, I'll draw your attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ritchie333/Recall - if two editors on that list tell me to resign, I will do so "under a cloud" and would not be able to-regain the tools without a fresh RfA.
As you can also see from this message (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =907130397) I have semi-retired from the project. I have a GA review to finish; but beyond that I don't feel like participating for a while. Not wishing to gather a sympathy vote, in the past year I have had a long-term relationship end and lost the family home, reducing me from living in a four bedroom house to a two bedroom flat, and contemplated suicide about this time last year. I come onto WP to learn about new things, write articles and research topics, and if it gets to the stage where I feel harassed and bullied by another editor with no obvious course of appeal, I am completely unmotivated to participate. In the wider world, I feel it's impossible for a man to claim they're being bullied by a woman and for it to be taken seriously.
As I said, I will admit fault for responding in kind in a heated discussion; administrators are expected to set a good example and calm down discussions and become trustworthy.
However, to give you an example of where the conflict is, I have reviewed a couple of Praxidicae's edits from today and can give the following example:Other editors do not agree with this view and would dismiss the edits as "SPAM" without a further comment. In my opinion, a discussion is required; it may require escalation to ANI as a single-purpose editor case, but we are not at that stage yet.
- At 12:42, the user Malik774 added a link to a Pakistani blog / news site that documented Imran Khan's speech at the Capital Centre, Landover, Maryland (https://www.newpakweb.com/imran-khan-sp ... =907665285). While I do not recognise NewPakWeb as a traditional reliable source, I am aware that the standard for online journalism in Pakistan is not as established as in the West, and consequently sites like this are left to fill the gap. Therefore, the editor is of low value and seems to be only here to cite from their favourite news site, this sounds like a good faith edit.
- At 13:38, Praxidicae reverts without comment, using the rollback tool (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =907665285) with no edit summary or messages on Malik774's talk page.
In my opinion, Malik774 is simply an inexperienced user attempt to add an event to an article and supplying a source. It does not look like vandalism, the account is not blocked, and none of the other exceptions for rollback appear to apply.
Additional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Specht
Under normal circumstances I would decline the G11 tag and add citations to the Broadway World and Los Angles Times that I discovered via a quick Google News search. This just happened to be the first article I look at at CAT:CSD just now; experience has told me that biographies of women are far more likely to be incorrectly tagged for deletion than just about any other subject.
I got a "thanks for your feedback" pro-forma email from Arbcom and nothing else whatsoever. I don't know what the problem is from their end, or even if they understand what the problem is at my end, which is simply - don't tag new users' articles for deletion with mild insults and don't abuse the rollback tool. Since this view cuts right to the heart of my views as expressed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ritchie333, if Arbcom don't want me doing it - then there is no point me editing here and I'll get on with my family, kids, paid work and whatever else brings me happiness in life.
At long last, Ritchie sees the light.Ritchie333 wrote:
There is no point me editing here
and I'll get on with my family, kids, paid work
and whatever else brings me happiness in life.
He's just resting.Vigilant wrote:Looks like Fram was just the canary in the coal mine.
I disagree, but it's not just about being "banned". Some people just change to avoid continued harassment, to remove themselves from mistakes they made when they were younger, etc. But speaking on the topic of being banned, in Wikipedia you don't have to do anything "wrong" to get banned, all you need to do is cross the wrong people. Once that happens, and with a culture that allows and even enables them to lie, cheat and manipulate policy to get what they want as long as there are a group of them willing to work together to do it, you're screwed. As much as I would like to be able to edit again because I believe in the goals of the project, the WMF and the community are both so F'ed up I can't imagine why anyone would want to be a part of either. Anyone who would willingly go along with the Wikipedia community or want to work for the WMF seriously must be a little off center on the autism scale!Poetlister wrote:Yes, they can edit much the same articles. However, if they have any sense they will know what got them banned, and will try hard to avoid the same mistakes.
Pinin' for the fjords...mendaliv wrote:He's just resting.Vigilant wrote:The Star Chamber is getting regular use these days.
After Fram, if they were trying to make nice with 'teh communitah' you'd think they wouldn't make use of private hearings where the respondent gets railroaded.
Looks like Fram was just the canary in the coal mine.
The bit removed has to do with something that is entirely Ritchie's business to disclose and had absolutely nothing to do with the privacy of anybody else.17:43, 7 August 2019 Worm That Turned talk contribs 177,360 bytes -193 →Response: removing some personal information which is not needed for Ritchie to make his point, which is well taken.
17:44, 7 August 2019 Vanamonde93 talk contribs changed visibility of 7 revisions on page Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: content hidden (RD5: Other valid deletion under deletion policy: Private information. Due apologies, Ritchie; if you really want to make it public I won't stand in your way.)
If a few dozen other people took that attitude, maybe the world would be a happier place.Smiley wrote:At long last, Ritchie sees the light.Ritchie333 wrote:There is no point me editing here and I'll get on with my family, kids, paid work and whatever else brings me happiness in life.
As you know, lawyers tend to assume that they know everything.mendaliv wrote:I am unsurprised that the lawyers who have been on the Committee don't. Good knowledge of how jurisdiction works isn't common among most practicing lawyers, particularly of the generation where NYB and Fred are from. You have to be a specialist or an academic to really get it.
lol, there goes the main point I was trying to illustrate about some of the lunacy from current power users.mendaliv wrote:AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA some of Ritchie's post has been revdel'd.The bit removed has to do with something that is entirely Ritchie's business to disclose and had absolutely nothing to do with the privacy of anybody else.17:43, 7 August 2019 Worm That Turned talk contribs 177,360 bytes -193 →Response: removing some personal information which is not needed for Ritchie to make his point, which is well taken.
17:44, 7 August 2019 Vanamonde93 talk contribs changed visibility of 7 revisions on page Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: content hidden (RD5: Other valid deletion under deletion policy: Private information. Due apologies, Ritchie; if you really want to make it public I won't stand in your way.)
So, ARBCOM collectively lied in their report.The section contains violations of an iBan and needs to be shut down, which I have done. As to your question regarding the amount of discussion with Ritchie, we asked for his opinion, he gave it. We were also aware of previous threads between the two, and this issue was brought to our attention in the past (I will have to check on what level of contact we had with Ritchie at the time). This was not a bolt from the blue for him and the above was a breach of the completely necessary interaction ban. WormTT(talk) 21:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)