He has come to personify what being obsessed with Wikipedia really means for these dipshits.
Take a look at this weirdness.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... Praxidicae
Ritchie waffles a lot, so I have extracted the most important parts......
Just wow.During this period, I was having issues with off-wiki events unrelated to Wikipedia (which Arbcom have been informed of), which caused me to lash out at people........I do not foresee incidents like these happening again.......The principal reason for reviewing the ban is I would like to be able to cite these events as an example in the ongoing discussions regarding the Universal Code of Conduct......it would be helpful to delete articles this user tags as {{db-copyvio}}, which I can't see being problematic....It has been drawn to my attention that a further reason for vacating the ban would be it would allow Praxidicae to have a reasonable run at Request for Adminship......I have reviewed this appeal with Arbcom, who support posting it here.... In my case, it caused me to take a long hard look at what I was doing to myself and whether I had a sustainable career on Wikipedia.
For a start, let's all ponder the wisdom of letting the crazy person self diagnose that he is no longer a threat to society. If his prediction of his lack of threat going forward is sound, you would expect ArbCom to publicly agree. They have not. I suspect they, like me, can foresee Richie getting crazy again. Or to be accurate, crazier than usual.
These are personality defects you cannot easily get rid of, at least not without therapy. And while I think we all know Ritchie has had therapy, he has had suicidal episodes, it probably wasn't for that, or at least it didn't fix it.
You would like to think RfA can screen for those sort of stability issues, especially in those like Ritchie, who are quite capable of ensuring they are only rarely manifest on Wikipedia, but alas, that is one if its many flaws. Doesn't help that, in cases like RexxS, when the community does correctly (and now proven with hindsight) identify temperament as an issue, this was easily waved away by the higher echelons of self governance. Another victory for the Fram rabble, eh? Do they ever get tired of all that WINNING?
Unless, and this is the hilarious part, Ritchie has indeed decided that a "sustainable career" on Wikipedia is his primary life goal now, and so he no longer pursues romantic relationships. Which means he can no longer get dumped, which means he will no longer feel the need to lash out at people. I definitely want to hear ArbCom sign off on that.
A public admission that the price to be paid for being a Wikipedia editor, specifically a Wikipedia editor that the other weirdos will respect, is to fully, completely commit yourself to the cult. Forsaking all other worldly temptations. To be online, serving Lord Jimbo, 24/7. Even though, if Wikipediocracy are to be believed, Jimmy only invented Wikipedia for the tang.
It is now that we must recall, that the relationship that sent Ritchie crazy, was with another Wikipedian. But there was a real world aspect to it, over drinks at meetups I imagine. Crusty warm beer, crappy folk music, Eric Corbett's witty repartee with RexxS, the stench of misogyny. What an aphrodisiac.
Ritchie, like a lot of Wikipedia Administrators, sees no issue with using the internet to meet women. It is perhaps their only option. She chewed her way out of that one, eventually, and it says a lot that she evidently had to get the hell out of Wikipedia too. Probably still takes extra long showers.
The existence of an interaction ban placed because he harassed a different woman editor, is perhaps therefore, the real, unstated reason, why he wants it lifted. He is thinking about his rep, in more ways than one. Reputation being what matters most to the underperforming Admins, the tiny few who are so bad, they end up getting official blotches on their copy books.
Not the reputation of Wikipedia, naturally, which suffers every time they allow one of these people to still be counted among the alleged best the community has to offer. The one percenters. After all, how can it be that they even let someone be an Administrator, if they are so poor at self scouting thyself, as to require an interaction ban?
It is often said by other powerful Admins, that such a thing should be an automatic disqualifying offence. For some reason however, they never quite get around to making that actual policy though, a much needed adjunct to the "job for life" aspect of this role.
The enduring need, or lack thereof, of this restriction on a serving Admin from interacting with a women editor, is surely the sort of thing that a frank but private exchange between parties, might clear up. Moderated, of course.
Curious therefore, that this isn't the sort of thing ArbCom think the volunteer run aspects of Wikipedia governance can apparently handle in private, with dignity for all parties.
I suppose that was the crux of the Fram issue though, was it not? The "community" couldn't accept that in a case of one of their most beloved characters, having been found to have creeped multiple women out, and they weren't allowed to forensically dissect the victims every word, so they could be proven to be the lying bitches they obviously were.
They got their wish, eventually, once we saw what the community does consider rebellion worthy (and not, for example, a shutdown in support of BLM). And with Wikipediocracy's help, those previously closed knicker drawers were well and truly rifled through.
Led by the heroic Vigilant, no gusset went unsniffed, in search of suspicious stains. He'll write that explosive blog post one day, blowing the lid right off that lesbian conspiracy at the heart of Wikipedia. Otherwise, well, what was it all about, really? Getting your revenge and your jollies from frightening women you blame for your own shortcomings? Shirley not. Jake wouldn't stand for it. Oh no, wait, he did.
With people like Beeblebrox on the Committee now, the post Fram backlash return to the dark days, and we know what he is like from his own postings at Wikipedocracy, I suspect ArbCom might have also simply saw the comedy value in letting this fruitloop present this appeal, given the headline take is, crazy person says they're no longer crazy, do you agree or disgree?
The rest gives equally dark windows into Ritchie's mindset. He genuinely, seriously, believes the community discussions about the UCoC would benefit from his personal testimony, as if somehow he is the victim here too, or indeed, the only victim. Which is odd, since this would be akin to letting rapists have a say on how rape law is drafted. I definitely want to know ArbCom's public view on that, if they're offering.
Whatever aspect of his sorry episode Ritchie thinks are relevant to the UCoC debate, can surely be picked up on by third parties, without him breaching his gagging order. It would be an importance/relevance filter, not unlike when they insist secondary sources need to cover something before it can be considered worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article (which is a gross misappliction of WP:N and WP:V, but that's what happens when you tolerate incompetent Admins). And he even has the option of privately emailing one of his many guy friends, a friendly Admin buddy, if he really thinks something specific needs to be said.
As someone has already wisely pointed out, a big part of the issue here, is that Ritchie really doesn't get what it was about his behaviour, that was "problematic." He genuinely seems to think it was merely a case of his use of intemperate language, his harsh words. And what a surprise that is to see that on Wikipedia, for they are well known for having women's perspectives on issues like stalking. Not.
As we have heard from the victim, it would be problematic if she saw Ritchie acting on her maintenance tagging. Because she sees him as a creepy stalker, for exactly that reason. Ritchie makes her skin crawl.
Sad that he doesn't see it, but this goes back to the original issue of why he needed to actually be forced to stay away from this woman in the first place, and why the ban needs to stay in place. The guy genuinely didn't see what he had done wrong, and still doesn't.
Much like Fram, just because he thought he was right, and because he sees himself as some kind of Guardian of Teh Wiki, he felt more than entitled to make it his personal mission to pursue this woman, in his capacity as an Admin, so he could correct her mistaken interpretations of policy.
And he felt personally affronted, pretty damn pissed actually, that anyone, least of all her, could dare to claim he was a harasser (so much so, he rage quit for a while there, before crawling back, like the loser addicts always do). Let alone seek sanctions for it. Which of course, is what the UCoC is for. A Wikimedia overseen tool to allow powerless editors to be able to reign in powerful volunteer creeps like him, when the local ArbCom is found to have done what they specialise in - nothing.
Ritchie is so wrapped up in Wikipedia, he even, quite bizarrely, due to his warped interpretation of what went on here, genuinely thinks it would reflect badly on his victim, if she were to go into an RfA with an interaction ban with Ritchie333 in place.
Jesus wept. It would be a mark of the progress of Wikipedia, if the existence of that ban, and her bravery in achieving it, would be rewarded at RfA, as a mark of her character. It's still up for debate whether it would though. The majority male voters might secretly want to punish her for it, perhaps not voting for her due to vague concerns about her ability to handle the "shop floor" environment, or other male tropes for why women suck. Which of course, is not a valid reason to get rid of it.
That seems to be Ritchie's hope anyway, delusional male wiki demigod that he is. Which as always, makes his enthusiastic participation in Women in Red, all the more vomit inducing.
Hopefully this appeal fails, because hopefully, as broken as Wikipedia is, they can still see Ritchie's problem for what it is. He doesn't accept he harassed this woman. And therefore, there's no reason to think, if it were left to a voluntary arrangement, he wouldn't eventually see her do something that he just couldn't help himself from wanting to correct. Thereby probably making her retire forever.
It's being discussed on Wikipediocracy of course, where Ritchie of course is a beloved and valued member, because why wouldn't a creepy self-unaware dude fit in there perfectly?
Board Admin Jake is making light of the situation, of course, mocking Wikipedia's ineffectual efforts to protect women, because why wouldn't they? They are the forum for senior Wikipedia editors, after all. The sort of senior editor that the likes of Fram and Ritchie represent. The creepy stalkers. People unhappy at the, uh, political, direction many of the Foundation initiative seem to have.
Wikipediocracy is a place where people like me, who stand up for the rights of women not to feel creeped out by men, men who try to justify their stalkerish behaviours as normal and indeed necessary Wikipedia Administrative activity. Over there, I am called "a nasty, evil shit".
And I suppose, from their perspective, I am nasty and evil. Because I don't like creeps. I don't like stalkers. I don't like the sort of people who would rather stick it to the Daily Mail on false pretences, than admit they are putting children at risk of abuse with their fake ass biographies.
I don't like people who would rather try and ruin the career of succesful women by advancing batshit conspiracy theories, rather than accept the far more plausible and actually evidence backed scenario, that ArbCom had enabled harassment to the point the executive felt they had no choice, when presented with multiple complaints, but to step in and start enforcing a MINIMUM STANDARD of behaviour with their lawfully held powers. Such as, stop fucking creeping out women, you weirdos.
Which nicely leads us to this little but of Ritchie hilarity.....
Except when it comes to Jimmy Wales though eh, you fucking hypocrite.While admins shouldn't go around blocking other admins gung-ho, sometimes just doing it to send the signal "hey, admins are not above the law and held to higher standards - cut that out" gives the community a general feeling they'll be heard.
Because make no mistake. Ritchie is like all the rest of the one percenters over there. There is one women on Wikipedia they are all afraid of. Bishonen. She who retains the right forever, for she is the undisputed Queen of Wikipedia, to call anyone who displeases her majesty, a "little shit". She who offered you RexxS as an Admin, with a joke nomination no less, and still you did nothing. Nothing.
Deny it, if you dare.
Speak up, Maxim. Speak up, Floquenbeam. Speak up, NewYorkBrad.
Use your Wikipediocracy proxies if you have to. If you're too ashamed to go on the public record. Tell us that even if you can't do anything about this officially, not even in your high offices of Wikipedia self governance, that in private, in confidence, you're willing to condemn it.
No?
I didn't fucking think so.
Pipe down Bradv, ain't nobody interested in your sad sack excuses. We know you're simply trying to prove Canadians can be wankers too. It won't work, goddamn it. You were obviously an Amercian by genetics. A bad seed. A contaminant that border controls are meant to detect and deny. Not for nothing, is Wikipedia no respecter of national borders.
To the bad people of this world, those of us armed with the facts, and the will and the memory to never let shit like this be forgotten, we are nasty. We are evil.
I am the Tyranny Of Evil Men.
I will support those who need it. I will stand up for the silent victims. I will protect the innocent, and uphold the morals of the real world. No hazards here.
I won't be changing for anyone, Jake. You should have paid attention, when you had the chance.
Because you gotta own that shit you're selling, and you gotta own it hard.