Ritchie333

Discussions on Wikimedia governance
User avatar
Jans Hammer
Gregarious
Posts: 835
kołdry
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:59 am

Ritchie333

Unread post by Jans Hammer » Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:28 am

anyone see this coming? link
Last edited by Smiley on Fri Mar 04, 2022 4:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Replace link

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by mendaliv » Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:34 am

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.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
Jans Hammer
Gregarious
Posts: 835
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:59 am

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Jans Hammer » Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:53 am

Hmmm. Hadn't seen that. He has not yet relinquished his Admin. bits.

ZettaComposer
Contributor
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:28 pm

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by ZettaComposer » Tue Aug 06, 2019 9:19 am

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.

User avatar
Jans Hammer
Gregarious
Posts: 835
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:59 am

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Jans Hammer » Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:19 am

It has quickly brought rent-a-mob out with their pitchforks

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:40 pm

Smells like T&S fuckery to me.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Jans Hammer
Gregarious
Posts: 835
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:59 am

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Jans Hammer » Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:12 pm

Feel free to disagree but IMO it is rank fucking hypocrisy for Floquenbeam of all people to be the one pouring oil on troubled waters here. Yes, there is no comparison to the Fram case, but enough people are concerned about what looks like a handed down, unannounced decision. Ritchie was obviously not a close enough friend. :evilgrin:

User avatar
Kumioko
Muted
Posts: 6609
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
Nom de plume: Persona non grata

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Kumioko » Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:48 pm

Ritchie is just another one of those do as I say not as I do a-hole admins that causes more trouble than he's worth. He was a defending of the US Roads WikiProject that itself has severe article ownership issues and has a record of bullying smaller and less active projects. Retiring from editing, regardless of the reason is probably the most useful thing he has done for the community in years.

10920
Gregarious
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:01 pm

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by 10920 » Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:51 pm

No, I didn't see it coming.

I guess ArbCom decided that since they can do star chamber fake proceedings now, they can do it with others too, not just Fram.

Like I said before, this has to be the most inept and incompetent ArbCom in history.

10920
Gregarious
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:01 pm

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by 10920 » Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:12 pm

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.
In general, people who really intend to leave, just leave.

The "retired" banner is for people who want drama/attention (and for people to beg for them to stay).

In the majority of cases, people who post "retired" end up resuming editing. Some of the more dramatic editors on Wikipedia have retired and unretired 5+ times.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Poetlister » Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:04 pm

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.
What they are supposed to do and what they actually do may well differ.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

ZettaComposer
Contributor
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:28 pm

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by ZettaComposer » Tue Aug 06, 2019 5:16 pm

The arbs have provided some details regarding the interaction ban. Apparently it was discussed privately in order to allow for a…candid conversation. Ritchie is considered the main aggressor, with Praxidicae agreeing to a mutual interaction ban to avoid the awkwardness of a one-way interaction ban.

I've always considered Ritchie to be a generally good person. He has had a few notable moments (a scathing comment to Oshwah at a recent RFA comes to mind) but every super active person in Wikipedia's dramatic areas end up losing their cool at some point or another.

Incidentally, that's one of the reasons why I like this site. You can have a normal conversation without worrying about getting blocked because you dipped even one toe out of line.

User avatar
Dysklyver
Cornishman
Posts: 2337
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:02 pm
Actual Name: Arthur Kerensa
Nom de plume: Dysk
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Dysklyver » Tue Aug 06, 2019 6:15 pm

So it's highly probable he is just being grouchy after Fram and everything has worn him down, and that he will return pronto.
Globally banned after 7 years.

Alex Shih
Regular
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 4:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Alex Shih
Actual Name: Alex Shih
Location: Japan

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Alex Shih » Tue Aug 06, 2019 6:18 pm

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.

User avatar
Dysklyver
Cornishman
Posts: 2337
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:02 pm
Actual Name: Arthur Kerensa
Nom de plume: Dysk
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Dysklyver » Tue Aug 06, 2019 6:24 pm

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.

Now arguably this kind of person is useful for the anti-vandalism and such, but on the other hand having to ever talk to them is something to be avoided.
Globally banned after 7 years.

User avatar
Kumioko
Muted
Posts: 6609
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
Nom de plume: Persona non grata

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Kumioko » Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:40 pm

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.
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.

I also agree that Praxidicae/Chrissymad is very antagonistic but that's true of a lot of editors these days so they are hardly alone. The project would be a lot better if they got rid of a bunch of these characters and degenerates but that's pretty unlikely. Then there would be less drama, the admins wouldn't have anything to do and wouldn't have anyone to block.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:41 pm

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.
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.

User avatar
Smiley
(Not a cat)
Posts: 2910
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 5:59 am

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Smiley » Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:51 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
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.
Let's not forget that Ritchie333 was recently doxxed on WikipediaSucks, along with his girlfriend.
Ritchie doxed himself regularly.


Maybe it was this?

Image

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Hillbillyholiday
They have now protected my sockpuppet page to prevent me from reporting my own socks.

User avatar
Kumioko
Muted
Posts: 6609
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
Nom de plume: Persona non grata

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Kumioko » Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:58 pm

Yeah it's pretty easy really to find out who a lot of these people are. Most of the very active admins are on Facebook, twitter, Quora, etc. talking about Wikipedia stuff. So anyone who does ten minutes research can piece a lot of them together fairly quickly.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Poetlister » Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:35 pm

10920 wrote:In terms of actual active admins, the number is more like 200.
Yes, and that's a serious problem for Wikipedia. On the other hand, the "hasten the day" crowd can cheer.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Smiley
(Not a cat)
Posts: 2910
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 5:59 am

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Smiley » Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:47 pm

Poetlister wrote:Yes, and that's a serious problem for Wikipedia.
On the other hand, the "hasten the day" crowd can cheer.
Image

User avatar
tarantino
Habitué
Posts: 4697
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:19 pm

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by tarantino » Tue Aug 06, 2019 10:03 pm

Smiley wrote: Ritchie doxed himself regularly.


Yes, his user page used to link to his eponymous website.

10920
Gregarious
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:01 pm

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by 10920 » Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:50 am

ArbCom now lying about their statement; claiming it's really a two-way interaction ban.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by mendaliv » Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:05 am

10920 wrote:ArbCom now lying about their statement; claiming it's really a two-way interaction ban.
Oh jeez, I didn't even notice that aspect of the motion wording.

My take from the wording is that it's a two-way but that Praxidicae stipulated to the IBAN while Ritchie did not... which is an incredibly pointless distinction for the purposes of the motion wording. Assuming that this is even legitimate (and I really don't think it is in the absence of findings of fact on the record) it should have simply been worded "Upon due consideration by the Arbitration Committee, X and Y are indefinitely banned from interacting with each other, subject to the usual exceptions for interaction bans."

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.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

Alex Shih
Regular
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 4:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Alex Shih
Actual Name: Alex Shih
Location: Japan

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Alex Shih » Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:27 am

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.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by mendaliv » Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:51 am

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.
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.

In this case, the Committee is failing even that role by refusing to publish any information about the dispute in question or the standard upon which they decided that an IBAN was warranted. The community does not benefit other than from, perhaps, the ending of disruption caused by the interaction of those two (to the extent there was any—in the absence of public FOFs that there was disruption we have no idea why the Committee did anything!).

The whole point that the secrecy of e-mails to the Committee is somehow sacrosanct is frankly moronic, and moreover contrary to the entire concept of the functioning of an adjudicative system.

I'm honestly of the opinion that the entire Arbitration Policy needs to be rewritten. The people who are in there now are treating it like a dais from which they can promulgate anything about anybody without any accountability. The whole secrecy thing needs to be heavily checked, as must the whole discretionary sanctions system and the capacity to do injunction-like things and other "creative" remedies. The entire system needs to be rethought of in terms of a functional adjudicative body without any policymaking authority beyond its own internal procedures. And by adjudication, I mean adjudication: a retrospective view and a narrow scope of applicability, rather than rulemaking, which tends to have a prospective view and a broad scope of applicability. That is, more cases like "Fram", "Fae", or "Betacommand", and fewer cases like "Biographies of Living Persons", "Arbitration Enforcement", and "Eastern Europe". The community must be the body to regulate these enormous topic areas with massive sanctions regimes. The Committee can't be engaged in that role as it's properly constituted.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
C&B
Habitué
Posts: 1369
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 2:16 pm
Location: with cheese.

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by C&B » Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:20 am

Alex Shih wrote:Praxidicae/Chrissymad
Ah, is it a clean start?
"Someone requests clarification and before you know it you find yourself in the Star Chamber."

Alex Shih
Regular
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 4:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Alex Shih
Actual Name: Alex Shih
Location: Japan

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Alex Shih » Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:17 am

C&B wrote:
Alex Shih wrote:Praxidicae/Chrissymad
Ah, is it a clean start?
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.

User avatar
C&B
Habitué
Posts: 1369
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 2:16 pm
Location: with cheese.

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by C&B » Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:01 am

Ah. I suppose that means that unlike WP:VANISH, they are allowed t return to previous areas of conflict, etc., and continue to cause the same trouble as before :D
"Someone requests clarification and before you know it you find yourself in the Star Chamber."

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Poetlister » Wed Aug 07, 2019 3:02 pm

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.
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.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Kumioko
Muted
Posts: 6609
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
Nom de plume: Persona non grata

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Kumioko » Wed Aug 07, 2019 3:16 pm

C&B wrote:
Alex Shih wrote:Praxidicae/Chrissymad
Ah, is it a clean start?
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.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Poetlister » Wed Aug 07, 2019 3:33 pm

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.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by mendaliv » Wed Aug 07, 2019 3:54 pm

It fancies itself a court, but it's not acting like one. The rulings of "wide applicability" it's making are pure rulemaking, and not adjudication. When common law courts make precedent the way it works is completely different.

But, like many state trial courts, nobody seems to really understand jurisdiction. 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.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by mendaliv » Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:09 pm

Ritchie333 has broken silence. Here's the full quote in case it gets removed for some insane reason.
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:
  • 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.
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.

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.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
Smiley
(Not a cat)
Posts: 2910
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 5:59 am

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Smiley » Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:20 pm

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.

At long last, Ritchie sees the light.

What are the odds that he'll be editing again by the end of the week?

:hamsterwheel:

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:23 pm

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.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by mendaliv » Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:34 pm

Vigilant wrote:Looks like Fram was just the canary in the coal mine.
He's just resting.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
Kumioko
Muted
Posts: 6609
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
Nom de plume: Persona non grata

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Kumioko » Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:36 pm

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.
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!

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:46 pm

mendaliv wrote:
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.
He's just resting.
Pinin' for the fjords...

While these new protocols are wildly amusing to me, I can imagine they are setting off anxiety alarms all over wikiland.
I doubt Hanlon's_razor (T-H-L) applies here as these acts by ARBCOM seem premeditated.
Operation Hummingbird for the sped set.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by mendaliv » Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:49 pm

Eh, I'm a strong believer in incompetence.

Sure there might also be some nefarious intent, but I really think at most levels it's pure incompetence and a fundamental inability or unwillingness to understand the purposes of arbitration.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Aug 07, 2019 5:54 pm

I disagree and that's all right.

Fram's case was a wild departure from previous practice.
Ritchie333's post makes it clear he was blindsided too.

There was so much pushback after FramGate that it's hard, even for me, to imagine that the WMF/T&S/ARBCOM wouldn't see how this handling of Ritchie333 was going to look.

Given the origination of the Fram case and the newfound interest by the WMF in civility and anti-harassment, I see a larger mechanic at work with Fram and Ritchie333 as the first bails to fall.

Begun, the era of secret trials has.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by mendaliv » Wed Aug 07, 2019 6:03 pm

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA some of Ritchie's post has been revdel'd.
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.)
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.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Poetlister » Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:54 pm

Smiley wrote:
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.
At long last, Ritchie sees the light.
If a few dozen other people took that attitude, maybe the world would be a happier place.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Poetlister » Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:55 pm

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.
As you know, lawyers tend to assume that they know everything.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

Alex Shih
Regular
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 4:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Alex Shih
Actual Name: Alex Shih
Location: Japan

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Alex Shih » Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:10 pm

mendaliv wrote:AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA some of Ritchie's post has been revdel'd.
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.)
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.
lol, there goes the main point I was trying to illustrate about some of the lunacy from current power users.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by mendaliv » Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:29 pm

WTT has now hatted the entire section containing Ritchie's post claiming it's an IBAN violation. diff diff

I am at a loss.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

MrErnie
Habitué
Posts: 1172
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:15 am

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by MrErnie » Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:38 pm

If this is the new normal, Fram doesn’t stand a chance. It’s now open season on admins. If you’ve acted up and been sanctioned then just fire off an email about harassment and safe space violations.

el84
Gregarious
Posts: 627
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:59 pm
Actual Name: Andy E
Location: イギリス

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by el84 » Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:42 pm

I am a tad confused.

I remember an AN/ANI thread between Ritchie and Chrissymad, and there were three options on the table of "1-way interaction ban for Ritchie", a "two-way interaction ban" and "grow the fuck up". The community declined to impose anything in these situations. Did Chrissymad then go running off to Arbcom, who then decided to impose their judgement over what the community had decided?

Ritchie said that he didn't mind the 1-way interaction ban as long as it didn't mean that he had to triple check everything he worked on in the deletion area on the offchance that Chrissymad had nominated it.

Seems like Arbcom overreaching here.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by mendaliv » Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:45 pm

Yeah, that's the real problem: When the community does nothing, sometimes it's not because they're powerless to act, but because the complainant needs to act like an adult. Now, I'm not saying that's the case here, but this is why there need to be public FoFs in these cases that address the past attempts to resolve the dispute in the community, the failure of such attempts (rather than the resolution of such attempts with an admonishment to "cut it out"), and a conclusion that intervention is necessary.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Ritchie333

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:47 pm

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)
So, ARBCOM collectively lied in their report.

Nice.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

Post Reply