So helikes making articles smaller as well as deleting them? That's a net figure; obviously, many of his enlargements will be adding deletion templates, so the true net figure will be even more negative.
Wikiscan was funded by the WMF, it was made in France.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:58 pm
by C&B
I apologise for my WP:ABF it's a smart bit of kit though, compared to what gets hosted at thingmy. Must be the French artistry!
What does the + / - mean, Bezdonmi?
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:12 pm
by Bezdomni
My assumption is that the + is for inclusionists and the - is for deletionists (whereas the previous figure is an absolute value). But I'm doing a lot of guessing with that tool, I've never found a manual. (I did post the grant info (probably late 2017) but I think that was on WR-2, which is no more.)
Also, I noticed recently that the "reverts" percentage is now 0 for all users. This may be due to the fact that I used the data at AN/I to identify someone for whom a (very) substantial portion of their edits were reverts (alternately, it may be due to a malfunction).
I like the blue drama ice-caps in the graphics, but haven't understood exactly what they refer to.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:58 pm
by C&B
Ah, the number of bytes added/removed?
Yes, that's the danger of highlighting management's faults in a suggestion box; they take the box away
Hahaha, just how pathetic can Chrissymad's "private" whining and this batch's incompetent and biased dysfunctional arbcom can get? Shouldn't have continued improving the encyclopedia, Ritchie.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:01 pm
by Carcharoth
Andrew D makes a good point about both editors doing New Page Patrolling being able to explain the interactions. I don't know whether those commenting there are just ignoring what Andrew D have said (which would be them engaging in groupthink), or whether they haven't noticed it yet. When you have very active users in a particular area, it is difficult to implement an interaction ban without causing problems.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:03 pm
by Mason
Mkdw wrote:If only it has been limited to that since his IBAN. Ritchie has continued to discuss Praxidicae on off-wiki forums, continues to discuss the matter with ArbCom, and now violated his sanction on-wiki. We have received several complaints from editors within the English Wikipedia community and it may very well escalate to a point beyond ArbCom's purview. Mkdw talk 06:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Bolding mine. Doesn't look like anyone on that talk page picked up on that bit, which I interpret as "knock it off or T&S is going to office-ban you."
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:08 pm
by Alex Shih
"We have received several complaints", again this is steaming pile of bullshit. We all know it's the same group of friends that chatters away constantly on IRC. I would love to see Mkdw makes his dumb threat become reality; can you imagine if T&S gets involved again? Gee
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:16 pm
by el84
Carcharoth wrote:Andrew D makes a good point about both editors doing New Page Patrolling being able to explain the interactions. I don't know whether those commenting there are just ignoring what Andrew D have said (which would be them engaging in groupthink), or whether they haven't noticed it yet. When you have very active users in a particular area, it is difficult to implement an interaction ban without causing problems.
I doubt they care enough beyond "must be showing to be tacking that evil stalking that is going on".
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:11 pm
by Vigilant
Mason wrote:
Mkdw wrote:If only it has been limited to that since his IBAN. Ritchie has continued to discuss Praxidicae on off-wiki forums, continues to discuss the matter with ArbCom, and now violated his sanction on-wiki. We have received several complaints from editors within the English Wikipedia community and it may very well escalate to a point beyond ArbCom's purview. Mkdw talk 06:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Bolding mine. Doesn't look like anyone on that talk page picked up on that bit, which I interpret as "knock it off or T&S is going to office-ban you."
That implies to me that mkdw knows that there is already a dossier on Ritchie at the WMF.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:23 pm
by Carcharoth
In related news (as this interaction ban was imposed in camera, IIRC):
I was wondering whether the RfC set to be taking place under ARBCOM auspices about private cases et al, is planned to be before or after the ARBCOM elections? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The original plan was to have it as soon as possible. Due to our reduced numbers right now we have not had the time to get it set up. We know how important this RFC will be and how patiently people have been waiting for it. It's something we will have to consider. Mkdw talk 03:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:28 pm
by el84
Carcharoth wrote:In related news (as this interaction ban was imposed in camera, IIRC):
I was wondering whether the RfC set to be taking place under ARBCOM auspices about private cases et al, is planned to be before or after the ARBCOM elections? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The original plan was to have it as soon as possible. Due to our reduced numbers right now we have not had the time to get it set up. We know how important this RFC will be and how patiently people have been waiting for it. It's something we will have to consider. Mkdw talk 03:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
1/4 of them (and an ex-arb) rushed over to Ritchie's page to defend their actions. I think their priorities are rather skewed at the moment.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:31 pm
by Vigilant
el84 wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:In related news (as this interaction ban was imposed in camera, IIRC):
I was wondering whether the RfC set to be taking place under ARBCOM auspices about private cases et al, is planned to be before or after the ARBCOM elections? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The original plan was to have it as soon as possible. Due to our reduced numbers right now we have not had the time to get it set up. We know how important this RFC will be and how patiently people have been waiting for it. It's something we will have to consider. Mkdw talk 03:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
1/4 of them (and an ex-arb) rushed over to Ritchie's page to defend their actions. I think their priorities are rather skewed at the moment.
They get distracted by shiny, jangled keys.
This ARBCOM is really pretty incredible in their comprehensive fail.
Mkdw wrote:Ritchie has continued to discuss Praxidicae on off-wiki forums
Coming up next: enforcement of interaction bans with the Alexa monitoring technology, donated by Amazon (along the 1 mill bucks). Proper, Chinese government surveillance - level shit.
Joke aside, boundaries has to be drawn to the policing. People need to and have a right to discuss their own sanctions, and people they get involved with. Ritchie did so respectfully. There's nothing punishable in his actions.
Mkdw wrote: continues to discuss the matter with ArbCom
Sounds like appealing an iban is now a violation of the iban... Intentionally created catch-22.
Mkdw wrote: and now violated his sanction on-wiki.
WP:5P5, aka. WP:IAR. The most agreed-upon policy, that's only used to game the rules, but never, when there's an edit undeniably improving the encyclopedia.
Mkdw wrote: it may very well escalate to a point beyond ArbCom's purview.
That would be fascinating. Child abusers? No problem for TnS. Admins violating ToU, CheckUser policy, Adminacct policy? No problem for TnS. Ritchie talking about his iban? That's a threat to the community.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 3:34 pm
by Ritchie333
I am not prepared to edit Wikipedia while the likes of PreMedicatedChaos are being incredibly rude and casting aspersions without evidence. I expect that sort of thing from people who support Trump.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:03 pm
by Osborne
Ritchie333 wrote:I am not prepared to edit Wikipedia while the likes of PreMedicatedChaos are being incredibly rude and casting aspersions without evidence. I expect that sort of thing from people who support Trump.
Wikipedia worked like that since the beginning: people take the toxicity, until they burn out. I would be surprised, if this is news to you. Let's see what's behind this punishment, instead:
1) Previously you refrained from removing a deletion tag, so to avoid violating your iban. I honestly wonder why did you remove it now, on a different article? The block was expected to happen.
2) This is a violation of some very strict rules, where a neutral person would apply ignore-all-rules, so what's the real reason for a one week punishment, and a threat of escalation from Mkdw? (without commenting on Prax...)
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:15 pm
by Alex Shih
This needs to escalate. This arbcom claims they are busy, but finds time to keep a list of people that they follow everywhere both on wiki and off wiki? Ridiculous.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:18 pm
by Ritchie333
Alex Shih wrote:This needs to escalate. This arbcom claims they are busy, but finds time to keep a list of people that they follow everywhere both on wiki and off wiki? Ridiculous.
You can escalate it if you like; I find the stupid drama on my talk page to be mentally exhausting and making me want to go and do something else. So I will.
I stated my position and how what I was doing was improving the encyclopedia. You can accept that or you can stick your fingers in your ears and shout "laa laa laaa".
Looks like Vigilant was right after all.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:26 pm
by Katie
DeltaQuad revdevelled a bit of text from Jbhunley's post about Chrissymad/Praxidicae - however, contrary to what she says, it was not a "hell of an accusation" - unless Jbhunley added something more to it, which isn't borne out by the history, he simply said the e-mail could show something about Chrissymad/Praxidicae's "real world behavioural pattern". DeltaQuad also messed up on the revdel, as the edit by Jbhunley is still able to be clicked on in the article history and thus I made an archive of it to prove what I said: linkhttp://archive.is/aYBoi[/link]. This is simply a horrible reason for revdelling, possibly out of favouritism.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:27 pm
by ReaperEternal
Ritchie333 wrote:Looks like Vigilant was right after all.
The current arbitration committee is doing their best to push me into the HTD camp.
Interesting. I am assuming the e-mail received by mistake was a e-mail sent to a member of ArbCom and forwarded by that committee member. Now I am really curious on what that is about.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:36 pm
by C&B
Ritchie333 wrote: I find the stupid drama on my talk page to be mentally exhausting and making me want to go and do something else
But You Must know This, it is the People on your Talk in your (V vociferous!) Defence, ex. Rambling Man
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:53 pm
by Vigilant
Ritchie333 wrote:
Alex Shih wrote:This needs to escalate. This arbcom claims they are busy, but finds time to keep a list of people that they follow everywhere both on wiki and off wiki? Ridiculous.
You can escalate it if you like; I find the stupid drama on my talk page to be mentally exhausting and making me want to go and do something else. So I will.
I stated my position and how what I was doing was improving the encyclopedia. You can accept that or you can stick your fingers in your ears and shout "laa laa laaa".
Looks like Vigilant was right after all.
Welcome home.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:17 pm
by Katie
Jbhunley made an edit, changing it from "Praxidicae" to "the author's", as it was unclear from context who the author was. The edit in question is here: linkhttp://archive.is/okuHM[/link]. He commented that it seemed as if it was being sent to the target, presumably himself since he said it was addressed to him, but that he could have been mistaken about it.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:21 pm
by C&B
Any idea the content?
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:01 pm
by Poetlister
Osborne wrote:
Mkdw wrote: it may very well escalate to a point beyond ArbCom's purview.
That would be fascinating. Child abusers? No problem for TnS. Admins violating ToU, CheckUser policy, Adminacct policy? No problem for TnS. Ritchie talking about his iban? That's a threat to the community.
Has Ritchie annoyed anyone with significant clout at WMF HQ? Has he been banned on severl sites? Those are the only possible reasons for T&S to intervene.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:30 am
by Ritchie333
Poetlister wrote:Has Ritchie annoyed anyone with significant clout at WMF HQ? Has he been banned on severl sites? Those are the only possible reasons for T&S to intervene.
I don’t think so; I have several emails from Sydney Poore and Claudia Lo asking me about how to improve the general shape of the community. I’ve not seriously followed up on them as I just don’t have the time.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:35 am
by Carcharoth
Alex Shih wrote:This needs to escalate. This arbcom claims they are busy, but finds time to keep a list of people that they follow everywhere both on wiki and off wiki? Ridiculous.
Can you kindly go do what your community actually voted you in for and deal with these Arbitration clarifications and amendments? None of you have responded there (once again) in over a week.
Thanks.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:48 pm
by Mason
Perhaps a clever coder can write a script that says "An editor you are banned from interacting with made the most recent edit to this article. Are you sure you want to save your changes?"
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:08 pm
by Poetlister
Mason wrote:Perhaps a clever coder can write a script that says "An editor you are banned from interacting with made the most recent edit to this article. Are you sure you want to save your changes?"
Would that be enough? Suppose the other editor made major changes, then there were a few other, maybe minor, changes, then you came along and interacted with the major edit.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:06 pm
by Mason
Poetlister wrote:
Mason wrote:Perhaps a clever coder can write a script that says "An editor you are banned from interacting with made the most recent edit to this article. Are you sure you want to save your changes?"
Would that be enough? Suppose the other editor made major changes, then there were a few other, maybe minor, changes, then you came along and interacted with the major edit.
With clever enough coding, you could get it to give a full analysis of the forbidden editor's contributions and even offer odds of getting a block if you proceed. Forbidden editor made one minor edit 3 years and 300 edits ago? 10% chance of a block. Forbidden editor made literally the previous edit? 100%.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:21 am
by Carcharoth
Not sure if anyone noticed, but an AN discussion that has been going for less than 24 hours has overtunrned the block and Ritchie has been unblocked by Thryduulf who has allowed discussion to continue. This is a real slap in the face to PMC, the arbitrator who blocked, and to a lesser extent a slap in the face to ArbCom.
Moot now as the block is overturned but since I said it on ACN, I'll repeat it here. Seen though the optics of additional information, I absolutely understand why PMC blocked Ritchie. There was consensus among the committee that he had overstepped the line with regards to following Praxidicae's edits - especially around CSD. It was also clear that both parties wanted to stop interacting with each other. As such, the committee implemented an IBAN, the same IBAN that had not quite gained community consensus at AN previously. Since then, Ritchie has referred to Praxidicae multiple times, leading to the first block - those are IBAN violations, plain and simple. Since his return, he has stopped referring to Praxidicae, but he has been making comments about her on an off wiki forum, ones that cross a line based on information Arbcom has received (and Ritchie is aware of). So when Ritchie directly reverted Praxidicae, I understand why PMC has blocked.
Personally, I believe this should have been passed to AE - I don't like Arbs enforcing their own decisions, but what's done is done. WormTT(talk) 08:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:42 am
by Dysklyver
Mason wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
Mason wrote:Perhaps a clever coder can write a script that says "An editor you are banned from interacting with made the most recent edit to this article. Are you sure you want to save your changes?"
Would that be enough? Suppose the other editor made major changes, then there were a few other, maybe minor, changes, then you came along and interacted with the major edit.
With clever enough coding, you could get it to give a full analysis of the forbidden editor's contributions and even offer odds of getting a block if you proceed. Forbidden editor made one minor edit 3 years and 300 edits ago? 10% chance of a block. Forbidden editor made literally the previous edit? 100%.
This is a very good idea.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 3:39 pm
by Vigilant
(after edit conflict) With respect, not a total fucking mess. It still has a lot of good editors and good admins, including Ritchie, who soldier on trying to write an encyclopaedia. This bunch of Arbs, on the other hand ... dredging up old diffs that can be plausibly explained by new page patrolling (which the encyclopaedia needs); bending over backwards to interpret fixing valid concerns flagged by another editor (and saving an article, both needed by the encyclopaedia) as malicious stalking; devaluing the concept of harassment by assuming bad faith to construct a pattern in bad faith; apparently taking all complaints as automatically justified, thereby throwing out the entire concept of blocking as prevention and further casting the concept of harassment in a dubious light that doesn't at all benefit the community; and as Ritchie says, steadfastly accusing him of lying. And if I understand the dark hints correctly, we're to abase ourselves before Arbcom's judgement and accept this abuse of the community and aspersions against the whole wiki collaborative ethos because they're just doing it before "Trust & Safety" does it? Arbcom are supposed to be upholding our rights and our mission in the face of WMF tyranny, not (as it appears to me from what has been said above) jumping in first saying "Like it or they'll do the same or worse." I hope Ritchie does return, again, because we need editors and admins who work for the good of the project. I don't always agree with Ritchie (or for that matter with Fram), but they aren't the problem with this place. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:07 pm
by Vigilant
It appears that ARBCOM is becoming the new Trust&Safety with secret emails and private 'hearings' and special friends who take your side adn block your enemies. All while completely ignoring the tasks that are on their plate.
Wheels within wheels of corruption and incompetence.
en.wp should change ARBCOM's marching orders and insist that all cases, hearings, motions, etc must be done on wiki, in public.
The current crop of ARBCOMmies are NOT to be trusted.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:53 pm
by Vigilant
Now we have a thread crossing.
Dubious “arbitration decision” that was short-circuited behind the scenes to avoid community scrutiny aside, we have a very troubling trend here. We have an arbitrator here that demonstrated zero understanding on how arbitration enforcement usually works, in addition to questionable understanding on common blocking practices, in particular Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Duration_of_blocks and WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. This is precisely why templates like {{Uw-aeblock}} exists. We initially had no idea whether or not the block was enforced as an arbitrator, or in their capacity as an administrator. We also initially had no idea whether or not the block was an arbitration enforcement over an arbitration decision on an interaction ban, or simply a block over violation of a mere interaction ban. All of these are important details that needs to be spelled out explicitly when the blocked is being made, not afterwards.
This ongoing trend of skipping over WP:AE for requesting arbitration enforcement, in addition to having arbitrators following editors around on and off Wikipedia, and hastily enacting disproportional sanctions while failing to follow any of the common administrative practices and procedures (instead of assessing the situation in order to make an informed decision that are explained with clarity and appears neutral to all parties), is frankly depressing. Alex Shih (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Odds that both Ritchie and Alex are gone from en.wp by Christmas?
Done in by the T&S Force Recon team?
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:36 pm
by Poetlister
Carcharoth wrote:Not sure if anyone noticed, but an AN discussion that has been going for less than 24 hours has overtunrned the block and Ritchie has been unblocked by Thryduulf who has allowed discussion to continue. This is a real slap in the face to PMC, the arbitrator who blocked, and to a lesser extent a slap in the face to ArbCom.
Jolly good. Nobody should be above the rules, not even an Arb, not even the ArbCom collectively. But alas this sort of thing is all too rare.
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:01 pm
by Moral Hazard
Vigilant wrote:Odds that both Ritchie and Alex are gone from en.wp by Christmas?
Done in by the T&S Force Recon team?
Rename Arbcom as Arbitration Kill
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:37 pm
by Poetlister
Would T&S really want another hoo-ha on the scale of Framgate, or maybe two in parallel? It would be a huge popcorn event, but it could be a turn-off for donors if this sort of thing keeps happening.
So far nine other editors have stuck their noses into this, including Floquenbeam (or Floq, as he describes himself).
Re: Ritchie333
Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:17 am
by Midsize Jake
I actually think the interaction ban should be "enhanced," so as to prevent Ritchie333 from using the bathroom for non-face-splashing purposes only between the hours of 12pm to 4pm.
who made it?
