Ritchie333

[mendaliv]

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.

If I were Ritchie I'd be considering litigation to remedy the tarnishment of his reputation from this.

[Vigilant]

Looks like Chrissy might have been a bit of a dick with rollback...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ode=source

[mendaliv]

The bootlicker award needs to be given for this pair of diffs: (diff), adding a comment praising WTT, but doing so between Mkdw's {{hat}} and comment (so the post came up in the hatted section), and then (diff) reverting his own comment with the edit summary of "closed" (i.e., because it was posted in a closed section of the discussion). What in the world are you doing Alanscottwalker (T-C-L)?

[10920]

The members of ArbCom continue to provide more and more evidence that they're either extremely incompetent or downright corrupt.

I also lean towards incompetence and ineptitude rather than some kind of conspiracy.

Thank you for posting the original before it was made to vanish. Nothing in there violated anyone's "privacy" and nothing needed to be rev-deleted.

[Alex Shih]

Wow, Ritchie makes a response, and ArbCom is trying to shut down the conversation using heavy handed approach? Looks like WTT is revealing his true face. I've long said the "nice guy" persona that he tries to play on Wikipedia has deceived many.

[Vigilant]

He is demiurge’s protege.

[Smiley]

Chrissy and Ritchie were playing power politics: bidding to position themselves as favoured narks and lickspittles of the neo-stalinist anti-harassment brigade.

Ritchie Swann happily admitted emailing the arbs volumes of evidence about Fram's misdeeds, apophatically denying any airing of dirty laundry. Chrissy zealously supported the WMF during the whole affair and has helped implement secret SanFrans in the past.

As so very often, it's hard to know who looks worse.

But they don't know
There can be no show
And if there's a hell below
We're all gonna go.

[Osborne]

Thank you for posting the original before it was made to vanish. Nothing in there violated anyone's "privacy" and nothing needed to be rev-deleted.

Was it archived by any chance?

[TheElusiveClaw]

Thank you for posting the original before it was made to vanish. Nothing in there violated anyone's "privacy" and nothing needed to be rev-deleted.

Was it archived by any chance?

Yes, at https://web.archive.org/web/20190807171 ... oticeboard

I would feel sorry for ArbCom if it wasn't for the fact it's their own fault for shooting themselves in the foot

[mendaliv]

Oh my god PMC is getting roasted. The sort of angry, hurt, FUD-ridden tirade that never failed to drag ArbCom bootlickers out of the woods (I guess Alanscottwalker is asleep) has attracted nine consecutive responses from editors in good standing effectively telling her off.

[Poetlister]

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.

That's a bit weak. How long does it take to check who nominated an AfD?

[Poetlister]

The bootlicker award needs to be given for this pair of diffs ... What in the world are you doing Alanscottwalker (T-C-L)?

Bootlicking?

[Kumioko]

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.

That's a bit weak. How long does it take to check who nominated an AfD?

About 1 millisecond. It's right on the top of the nomination.

[Moral Hazard]

Thank you for posting the original before it was made to vanish. Nothing in there violated anyone's "privacy" and nothing needed to be rev-deleted.

Was it archived by any chance?

If Ritchie333 was truthful, he seems depressed and in a tough place, and removing his details seems a kindness.

In this case, WTT seems to have behaved honorably/honourably.

[Vigilant]

Hey Crow,

I see your 'notice me, senpai' antics over on sucks.
I'm kind of busy here right now.
Just chill out and I'll get to you when I've got some time.

P.S. Martin doesn't seem to be getting any better.

[Poetlister]

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.

That's a bit weak. How long does it take to check who nominated an AfD?

About 1 millisecond. It's right on the top of the nomination.

Exactly! He'll have to do better than that.

[10920]

The bootlicker award needs to be given for this pair of diffs ... What in the world are you doing Alanscottwalker (T-C-L)?

Bootlicking?

I don't know if English is his first language, but if it is, he's a total dolt. The fact that he's a dolt is sort of self-evident, though, given the constant bootlicking.

He struggles mightily with English and makes errors in every post. It's not even fifth grade level American English.

[10920]

In this case, WTT seems to have behaved honorably/honourably.

I fail to see how shutting down the conversation is honorable.

Ritchie wanted to point out that ArbCom was lying and Worm did not like that.

[mendaliv]

The bootlicker award needs to be given for this pair of diffs ... What in the world are you doing Alanscottwalker (T-C-L)?

Bootlicking?

I don't know if English is his first language, but if it is, he's a total dolt. The fact that he's a dolt is sort of self-evident, though, given the constant bootlicking.

He struggles mightily with English and makes errors in every post. It's not even fifth grade level American English.

Yeah I get the same vibe. Normally not a problem if it's a bit idiosyncratic, but ASW is trying to argue fine points and ... is just so BAD at it.

It's to the point that the Committee should feel bad that this is who's rallying to their defense.

[Vigilant]

The bootlicker award needs to be given for this pair of diffs ... What in the world are you doing Alanscottwalker (T-C-L)?

Bootlicking?

I don't know if English is his first language, but if it is, he's a total dolt. The fact that he's a dolt is sort of self-evident, though, given the constant bootlicking.

He struggles mightily with English and makes errors in every post. It's not even fifth grade level American English.

Yeah I get the same vibe. Normally not a problem if it's a bit idiosyncratic, but ASW is trying to argue fine points and ... is just so BAD at it.

It's to the point that the Committee should feel bad that this is who's rallying to their defense.

<snip> Too many choices

[Smiley]

Basic quantum bogodynamics:

• When the bogon encounters its antiparticle, the cluon, they mutually annihilate each other, releasing magic smoke.

• Psytons are an elementary particle carrying the sinister force. The probability of a process losing is proportional to the number of psytons falling on it. They are generated by observers, which is why demos are more likely to fail when lots of people are watching.


Advanced quantum bogodynamics:

• While the precise mechanics of the bogon-psyton interaction are not yet understood and remain to be elucidated, experiments reveal that when two negatively charged bogon-emitters collide within a decoherent cluon field, the resulting influx of psytons will produce extremely high frequency bogon waves capable of shattering a poorly designed cloud chamber.

[Vigilant]

Your diagram is woefully incomplete, sir.

You have missed the fact that the primary energy output for this bogon-cluon reaction is the Lulz quark, which are emitted in quantity and energy proportional to the square of the velocity of the initial collision.

Secondary reactions can often produce hadrons known as Shriekings which amplify the production of the Lulz.

Care must be taken when setting up this reaction to avoid exhausting the experimenter of tears and oxygen from interacting with the Lulz.

[Smiley]

I bow to my learned colleague's vast knowledge and experience of QBD interactions.

[Vigilant]

I bow to my learned colleague's vast knowledge and experience of QBD interactions.

I have made the study of this science an integral part of my waking day.
I believe, if I may be so immodest, that I have materially advanced the world's understanding of these interactions.

One day, inshallah, we shall find a way to safely harness the Lulz for electricity production.
An endless, carbon free energy source to share with the world.
As it stands now, the mass production of Shriekings hadrons make this energy source too dangerous for large scale adoption.

I stand eager by my mailbox, daily, awaiting my Nobel Prize.
Alas.

[Smiley]

I have made the study of this science an integral part of my waking day.
I believe, if I may be so immodest, that I have materially advanced the world's understanding of these interactions.

Louis Armstrong is allowed to blow his own trumpet.

[Smiley]

Ritchie's already back and dropping c-bombs.

It's cunts o'clock!

[Vigilant]

Well, that's some petty grave-dancing.

Pretty sure Eric falls afoul of his editing restriction right there.

[Smiley]

Negatively charged bogon-emitter down!

[Smiley]

Of all the fucking brain-dead, knuckle-dragging, triple-arsed monumentally small-brained knee-jerk idiocy I've seen today (and there's been a fuck of a lot of that going on) this really takes the biscuit. I cannot remember a time when I've been more disappointed with Wikipedians than right now. With this block we seem to have scraped the barrel and then kept going.

SchroCat (T-C-L) 00:35, 9 August 2019

Worry not, biscuit lovers... this barrel has no bottom.

[Vigilant]

Someone needs to block Eric and Huon right about now.

Schroecat's page is a disaster as well.

ARBCOM, this is all at your tiny, cloven feet.

[Vigilant]

And a sitting arbiter comes to the talk page of the recently sentenced, taunted, blocked, and taunted again to vent her spleen...

Such discretion shown in time of crisis.

No words for Eric Corbett for his WP:AE violating grave-dancing?
Is hypocrisy a necessary trait to be elected to ARBCOM or do they provide on the job training?

[10920]

I am hoping to get some admin resignations over this ArbCom fiasco.

Why would anyone want to be an admin with T&S watching, with their witless ArbCom accomplices?

Until the current ArbCom is voted out, it'd be downright foolish to involve yourself in any sysopping.

[Midsize Jake]

And a sitting arbiter comes to the talk page of the recently sentenced, taunted, blocked, and taunted again to vent her spleen...

Are you referring to this little revert-war situation in which they're trying to expunge Mr. SchroCat's outburst (quoted above)...?

I'm not sure I'd call that spleen-venting, so I guess I just wanted to make sure.

[Vigilant]

How dare a friend of the recently convicted by her and her posse say mean things about an admin who blocked him for a minor infraction with no warning?

00:44, 9 August 2019‎ GorillaWarfare talk contribs‎ 5,281 bytes -455‎ Undid revision 910000172 by SchroCat (talk) I am sure you are able to criticize without making personal attacks this egregious. undo Tag: Undo

Yeah, I'd say spleen venting is pretty on target.
Given how quick Huon showed up, I'm guessing IRC/Skype/slack gangs.

Why hasn't Eric been blocked for his part there?

[Smiley]

Why hasn't Eric been blocked for his part there?

Corbett's got form when it comes to bullying people on the verge of suicide.

As far as I'm concerned he's an evil bullying bastard who should have been
drowned at birth! He hounded poor Jenny, the editor of Ferrets First, until
she eventually pulled the plug on the magazine just to get rid of him. He
does, of course, deny that he was responsible for the closure. I then
took over publishing the magazine on-line, so needless to say he then
started on me about that as well as all the other stuff.

On occasions I actually felt suicidal because of the on-line bullying I had
to put up with. The police refused to help, my MP did his best but even
couldn't do anything. I eventually consulted a solicitor and Gobbit and
others on his Flaming Ferret forum received solicitors letters but even
then it didn't stop.

Interesting snippet for you - he has his computer in the basement, his
wife has her's upstairs. They communicate via email. I don't think he
ever switches his computer off as he's on at all hours of the night, says
he has a sleep disorder!

Of course, you know he is never wrong... Gobbit can never be wrong.

I reckon it's true to say that Gobbit has more enemies than friends.

[10920]

The bootlicker award needs to be given for this pair of diffs ... What in the world are you doing Alanscottwalker (T-C-L)?

Bootlicking?

I don't know if English is his first language, but if it is, he's a total dolt. The fact that he's a dolt is sort of self-evident, though, given the constant bootlicking.

He struggles mightily with English and makes errors in every post. It's not even fifth grade level American English.

Yeah I get the same vibe. Normally not a problem if it's a bit idiosyncratic, but ASW is trying to argue fine points and ... is just so BAD at it.

It's to the point that the Committee should feel bad that this is who's rallying to their defense.

I need this run through some kind of idiot translator:

Well it's good then that we already have all that. 1) These people on the committee are known. 2) These people are accountable. 3) And anyone of any reason knows what was done here and why. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

On the bright side, he finally figured out how to spell "committee", after roughly 100 failed attempts.

[mendaliv]

ffs, and of course Ritchie is probably going to be awol for the foreseeable future. I would encourage him to call for a review of the block at AN/ANI (or maybe AE, not sure about that). Current practice is to close third-party block review threads as non-actionable on something analogous to a legal standing standard...

But I thought Wikipedia wasn't a court!

[10920]

Stop. You just said basically nothing except to demonstrate poor temper or your lack of grasp of issues, and more importantly illustrated an assumption that 15 "good a true" Arbcom members cannot and do not exist in English Wikipedia who would work to protect everyone before them, under the existing privacy provisions of Arbcom policy. If you have not noticed, in almost all Arbcom cases, all parties stand accused in some way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Why don't you stop? At least stop telling other people just how wrong they are, when you have only a passing grasp of the situation. Every post you have made so far is flawed, including the last one. You don't have to bludgeon everyone who disagrees with ArbCom. - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Are you not paying attention? I was responding to someone who was responding to me. Nothing in what you just said has any value, here, whatsoever. It can't be that hard to understand the policy has privacy hearings and that 15 good Arbcom people would work to protect those accused and those making accusations.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Of course I'm paying attention, but many of your comments have been downright bloody rude. Just knock it off and telling people to stop. Aside from the crap in your above statement, some of the nonsense you've come up with in this discussion is: "No. We actually don't need this discussion at all", "just know it is well within the bounds of reason and just stop"; "The only nonsense is yours"; "extremely silly or worse"; "a silly chip on the shoulder"; "you are wrong"; " large groups of those not responsible are particularly dumber"; "Sorry that is just not the way it is". I'm sorry to break it to you that you are not the font of all knowledge, not are you someone who should be telling people to stop, or demeaning their motives in posting here. We get you disagree - and that's fine - but stop treating everyone else as something on the sole of your shoe. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Your lecture in that comment is again of no value, here. You wasted time to take a bunch of stuff out of context. Getting back on topic, Arbcom has policy sanctioned discretion to protect people and that is what they want to do, and will do to the best of their ability. And there is no reason to assume otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanscottwalker (talk • contribs) 20:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
And your posts are not helping when they are clearly only geared to insult people. You have said the things above, and you are being uncivil to a heap of people, so knock it off and tone it down. And learn how to sign your posts properly. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
What you just said is false. Arbcom's discretion is right on topic, and they have discretion to hold hearings that seek to protect the pedia, the accused and the accuser in private. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, because obviously this hearing has done all of those things, hasn't it? Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The Committee has been entrusted, and are good people who tried to be fair to the best of their ability to all parties, and at least some focus seems to be shifted away from either party so they may escape some injury from dragging it all out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

One would have more luck trying to explain something to a dog, assuming the dog is "good a true".

[mendaliv]

One would have more luck trying to explain something to a dog, assuming the dog is "good a true".[/quote]Anywhere but Wikipedia, I'd call that guy a troll and ignore him.

[Midsize Jake]

Chrissy and Ritchie were playing power politics: bidding to position themselves as favoured narks and lickspittles of the neo-stalinist anti-harassment brigade.

Ritchie Swann happily admitted emailing the arbs volumes of evidence about Fram's misdeeds, apophatically denying any airing of dirty laundry...

Okay, let's give this idea some consideration. (Sorry in advance about the length.)

If you're one of those who occasionally check WikipediaSucks to see what a certain ex-member of this site is going on about, you might recall that that person's near-immediate reaction to the Fram Ban was to theorize that the whole thing was engineered by Ritchie333 in association with a handful of other WP admins who - by sheer coincidence - just happen to be at or near the top of that person's long-running personal shit-list. (I'm on the list too, I might add - at one point in that very thread, he insisted that I myself am worse than Fram!)

I had initially dismissed the Ritchie333 theory because of the theorizer's known tendency to creatively interpret statements and events in the most personal-shit-list-oriented way possible. But that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong. Sure, admin-on-admin violence has always been relatively rare on Wikipedia, but obviously it does happen, and as he accurately points out later in his thread, Fram has (or had) an unusual propensity for it. His theory also depended on the notion that Dr. Laura Hale would never(!) have complained about Fram to T&S herself; that's just not something a nice, sweet gal like her (unlike the terrifyingly monstrous Dr. Jessica Wade) would ever do, because after all that would imply that she actually possessed some form of agency as a human being. Still, we don't know; it's at least possible that someone sent in the complaint on her behalf, maybe even without her consent. (But if so, wouldn't the WMF have said as much? Or at least hinted at it, to take some of the pressure off of her? Are they really that cruel, to their own people?)

There were probably about four or five admins to choose from who were on the aforementioned personal shit-list and had also recently gotten into it (to varying degrees) with Fram. Ritchie333 had been one of the more recent ones (March 2018), but it seemed like they'd buried the hatchet shortly after the incident. And that wasn't the case a few months later, when Fram had a fairly serious dust-up with the all-time bête noire maximo nestifero, User:Drmies. So why not make Drmies the T&S snitch? I'm guessing this was because Drmies clammed up about the Fram situation, and Ritchie333 didn't.

To wit, the evidence against Ritchie333 seems to be based on this lengthy statement on WP:FRAM in which he claims he "got several off-wiki complaints about Fram, with an eye on starting an ArbCom case to get him desysopped," followed by this bit:

...Just because I didn't personally think Fram's conduct rose to the level of a desysop or ban, it doesn't mean anyone else was obliged to share my view. I am sure those coming to me privately with grievances about Fram are based on a genuine belief they do not feel safe or welcome on the project, and if people do not want to contribute to Wikipedia because of Fram, they are entitled to hold that opinion even if I can get on with him. To give a rough analogy; I'm a 6-foot male middle-aged geek who thinks nothing of walking late at night alone from the station to my home underneath an underpass with some unpleasant racist graffiti on it. If I was a 21-year old woman, I might have a different view on that. I believe the complainants went directly to Office because they didn't have confidence that Arbcom would be a suitable venue to air grievances in confidence and get the result they want, which other people have documented elsewhere in this thread.

One week later, he stated:

I don't believe Laura Hale has directly complained to T&S about Fram, or at least not recently enough in the last 18 months which is the timeframe that seems to be under discussion.

Another week passed, at which point he added this in response to a question about his involvement:

I have been involved in several incidents involving on-wiki actions by Fram and off-wiki complaints about them. I don't feel comfortable about reproducing them on-wiki here; if Arbcom want the information supplied in private, I can do that. A principal reason they were off-wiki is, as I have already said, Fram has a tendency to reply to every thread in a conversation he doesn't agree with and argue the case until everyone else drops out of exhaustion.

So, okay, all three of these quotes could easily be parts of an overall attempt at a slippery "non-denial denial" in which Ritchie333 tries to get credit for the Fram Ban and avoid blame for it at the same time. This sort of attempt would hardly be out of character for Ritchie333, but to be fair, it wouldn't be out of character for about 90 percent of Wikipedia admins. So yes, it's possible (or at least not impossible) that he gathered up a bunch of incidents, diffs, private complaint e-mails, etc., a while ago and sent them all to WMF T&S himself, probably with no definite expectation of anything happening at all - only to be blindsided when T&S banned Fram, everyone lost their shit over it, and certain people (one in particular) pointed their fingers in his direction.

Now Ritchie333 is getting similar treatment directed his way over this seemingly much (?) less serious, or at least far less extensive, situation involving Praxidicae (T-C-L), who is also a woman. (And while I haven't yet taken the trouble to assess Ms. Praxidicae's temperament and editorial skills, she'd have to work pretty hard at it to be worse than Dr. Hale.) But it was just an "interaction ban"; I mean, sure, it looks bad, but it's not something WP admins usually "retire" over - except that in this case, Ritchie333 says he's been going through a difficult time personally, and the Iban is more of a "last straw" sort of thing. Sounds fair enough - at least as long as you don't hate the guy so much that you'd assume he was faking it for sympathy.

And if Fram ever gave any credence at all to the idea that Ritchie333 engineered his ban, this latest statement of his on meta suggests that he probably doesn't now. (FWIW.)

Long story short, I don't personally agree with this theory, but I'll admit I can't disprove it - presumably only the T&S people could do that, and they're "contractually obligated" not to say anything. So who knows.

[Smiley]

Ritchie Swann happily admitted emailing the arbs volumes of evidence about Fram's misdeeds, apophatically denying any airing of dirty laundry...

I should've said: "admitted he would happily email".

So why not make Drmies the T&S snitch?

I've talked to Michel and he straight up denied being involved with Fram's ban, but he did say he was considering sending Arbcom his own dossier of evidence.

[Jans Hammer]

The irony
From the blocking Admins. RFA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... nship/Huon
Strong support without reservation. Has a track record of thoroughly understanding Wikipedia policies in a wide variety of contexts, as demonstrated on WP:AFCHD (amongst others) time and time again, and works well with a wide variety of editors from all sorts of backgrounds. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:30 pm, 15 July 2013, Monday (6 years, 26 days ago) (UTC+1)

[Poetlister]

Ritchie wanted to point out that ArbCom was lying and Worm did not like that.

That's an understandable reaction, though it may fall below the standard that Arbcom should maintain.

[Poetlister]

But I thought Wikipedia wasn't a court!

You and may know that. Others may not.

[10920]

Constant entertainment, if that's your cup of tea.

Seraphimblade 2 questions: does your question assume that "evidence" is limited to what people write in the past, as opposed to what statements they make in the present? Also isn't Arbcom the only conduct ctte we have with all the powers of permission binding, so when any experienced person is presented with such communication by Arbcom, they know what's what, right? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, are not all experienced people generally aware how Arbcom gets private evidence? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
How are either of those two "statements" relevant to the questions that Seraphimblade was asking? Only members of ArbCom would be able to answer them. Black Kite (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
What? No, the committee would not know what assumptions Seraphimblade is making. That's why the three questions are asked. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker, I am afraid neither your questions nor your last statement make a bit of sense. I took what two arbitrators actually said, and drew the only two possible conclusions based upon those statements: First, that ArbCom somehow saw, in the evidence presented to Ritchie, him (and only him) being an "aggressor", while somehow not noticing Praxidicae's similar rude behavior in return. That wasn't an "aggressor" so much as mutual combat. Or, alternatively, they had more evidence against Ritchie than that, but (per WTT's statement that there was no communication with Ritchie other than that), if such evidence purportedly exists and was considered, they did not advise Ritchie of it or give him an opportunity to respond to it. Either one is a bad outcome, but the first is a simple error, and we all make those. The second would be a fundamental failure to treat someone fairly at all, and be substantially more concerning. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

Alanscottwalker seems to be deep in the spectrum.

[10920]

There's also this, from his talk page:

Your indentation suggests you are replying to me, but I don't understand your response in the context of what I wrote. 28bytes (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I was responding to you. Your comment seemed personalized against a named individual and it seemed an irrelevant reach since nothing about it was conduct on Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you mean. 28bytes (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
What do you not understand? You named an individual to criticize so it seems like you wanted to personalize it. And the topic is conduct on Wikipedia but the person your comment was about was not on Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I believe you have misunderstood my comment. But regardless, I now know that you were replying to me, so I won't bother you further. Have a good evening. 28bytes (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
You too. But if you were not trying to criticize an identified person and what they did off-site from Wikipedia, it read that way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

What's particularly amusing is he edits each of his posts two or three times after making them ("ce") and still no one knows what on earth he's going on about.

[Midsize Jake]

What's particularly amusing is he edits each of his posts two or three times after making them ("ce") and still no one knows what on earth he's going on about.

It's an interesting form of bootlicking to be sure, since he seems to be determined never to name any person whose boots he's licking, even if it's only a reference to their WP username.

In this case, the "named individual" was WMF ED Katherine Maher, and the "not on Wikipedia" place he's referring to is Twitter, where Maher posted her ill-considered "shitty think-piece" tweet about Buzzfeed's Fram-Ban article. But since it was so vague and poorly-worded, Mr. 28bytes (T-C-L) thought he might have been responding to the comment above his, posted by Cullen328 (T-C-L), praising the Buzzfeed article as "well-written" and "pretty accurate."

I'd have to agree with Mr. Vigilant - at least from what we've seen (which obviously isn't enough for a real diagnosis), Mr. Walker clearly shows some signs of high-functioning autism. Not that this makes him a bad person in itself, but he's definitely trying a little too hard to fit in, and I'm guessing this behavior has been going on for a while and is only getting more pronounced.

Not to say that he deserves his own thread or anything, though. He strikes me as more of a minor curiosity, really.

[mendaliv]

Not to say that he deserves his own thread or anything, though. He strikes me as more of a minor curiosity, really.

The guy's as much of a curiosity as a case of lice.

[WBG]

....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 ....