Ritchie333, a classic example of what Wikipedia does to the human brain

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Ritchie333, a classic example of what Wikipedia does to the human brain

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Fri Jun 25, 2021 11:39 am

While I think it is obvious Ritchie333 was never what anyone would call normal, it's alarming to see how a life lived on Wikipedia has absolutely baked his noggin. The guy comes across as properly crazy these days.

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......
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. 
Just wow.

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. :oops:

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". :D

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.....
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.
Except when it comes to Jimmy Wales though eh, you fucking hypocrite.

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. :roll:

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. :twisted: :flamingbanana: 8-)

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.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Ritchie333, a classic example of what Wikipedia does to the human brain

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Fri Jun 25, 2021 12:37 pm

Another timely window to his mind.....(he likes to share)
I'd never heard of Caroline Flack at all as I don't watch the sort of shows she presented (there's a bit of a standing joke in real life that my favourite TV show is The News) until I watched last year's Strictly final (hey, it had Bill Bailey in it!) where there was a montage of her. About halfway through watching some great dancing, I felt something was wrong, and by the end of the clip I realised she must have died. Then, a few days ago, the front page of BBC News mentioned the "Climb for Caroline" organised by Olly Murs, so I thought I would read up on who Caroline Flack was and what she did. It was utterly heartbreaking to read about her taking her own life and how it was triggered, and serves as a stark reminder that underneath the gloss of reality shows and social media tie ins are real people with real feelings. And as someone who's had their own mental health difficulties in adulthood, I do have a strong empathy for those who struggle as well, and feel particularly upset over those who can't make it through. She deserves the best WP article I can give her. And the sourced quotation "In a world where you can be anything, be kind" is particularly resonating. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Only a Wikipediot this immersed in the cult, wouldn't see the abnormality of his words. Because of course, out here in the real world, it's normal to feel bad when someone kills themselves. You don't need to have been to the depths yourself, in order to feel empathy for someone in real difficulty. That's the WHOLE FUCKING POINT. You're not describing empathy, you're doing a very different thing entirely.

In a similar way, you don't need to be a women who is being targetted by a male Wikipedia Administrator for undue and harsh attention, to know what it feels like to be harassed.

But of course, he has to make this be about himself. He can't choose to write a decent biography for a woman with a very tragic story, just because it's the right thing to do. There has to be something in it for him. The story of Wikipedia, writ large. An entirely selfish enterprise. Not an ounce of altruism in it.

He's also obviously a liar. Anyone who watches the news, and only the news, would have been well aware of this woman's death, and the events that led to it. The set of people who will only watch the news, but can be persuaded to watch the strictly final if it has Billl Bailey in it, is, I can confidently say, one. It is Ritchie.

One wonders if Wikipedia Administrators are really ever capable of realising the editors they routinely fuck over, are real people. Ritchie isn't a great case for the defence. Neither personally, or many of his hand picked recruits.

It went on too....
Part of the problem with improving articles like this is that people who specialise in the low-brow popular culture entertainment field tend to be difficult to source, because you have to mentally filter out everything that's been deprecated at WP:RSN including IMDB, The Sun, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and particularly the Daily Mirror in this instance. Indeed, just doing a Google News search for Caroline Flack brings up a bucket load of BLP-violating tabloid stuff. However, life has been made a bit easier by the ground work SchroCat and Cassianto did when the article was improved for WP:ITN. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
No empathy to be seen there for all the victims of Wikipedia bullying by SchroCat and Cassianto. Not exactly unrelated, that those two are, like Ritchie, old white English dudes. For these people, if your stated aim is Wikipedia improvement, indeed if you're a certified Wikipedia addict, you can get away with being a pretty massive cunt to other, real, people, and someone like Ritchie will always have your back. That's his kind of empathy. Being able to put yourself in the shoes of your own kind.

No empathy for the hundreds of journalists wrongly maligned by the Wikipedia slurs against their trade. People like Flack of course, suffered greatly from the fact that we have a free press who do quite a good job of actually reporting what goes on in a court room, especially when it concerns public figures. The people that your children perhaps look up to, unless you're the kind of parent who says they can't watch TV on a Saturday night. Which is nobody.

The Daily Mail hasn't lied about what Marek Kukula was convicted of, for example, just as they never lied about what Flack did. But you're seeing here, the sort of prejudicial mindset that compels the Wikishits to think they just make that shit up.

The resulting biographies are therefore, total horsecrap. Closer to what the people being written about would wish they said, rather than the truth.

Flack was indeed a kind person. She was also clearly mentally unstable. This should have disqualified her from a career where engaging with the cruelty of social media or public opinion at large, was a necessity, should not have been an option for her. She should have been protected, the media companies should be compelled, by law, to protect people like Flack from themselves.

There's a lesson here for Ritchie. One suspects he doesn't have the right kind of insight, to see what it is.

Ah well. All I can say is, if he kills himself, good luck stopping the Daily Mail getting their hands on the note. They're going to want to know if he ever actually apologises or expressed regret, for using his Wikipedia position to write hit pieces on their journalism, and exaggerate and misrepresent criticism, up to and including explosive charges like racism.

He puts the claims into Wikipedia, that BLP says should never be in there. This is the folly of making people like this, Admins.

People who don't actually even know copyright law, for fuck's sake, but didn't let that prevent him from disgracefully abusing Commons editors just doing their job. He is that stupid, that arrogant. Oh but yes, maybe that was him just lashing out, and it won't happen again. Maybe. Do the timelines add up? Do ArbCom even know of the incident to which I refer? Ritchie does. Wikipediocracy do.

I expect he won't be engaging in full disclosure here. And that is probably one Wikipediocracy thread Beeblebrox won't be taking to the Star Chamber, looking for immediate priority action, either. That fucker would certainly rather die, than credit me with a Wikipedia expose. And Beeblebrox, you fucking better live up to that ideal one day, you racist motherfucker.

And as we know, more broadly, ArbCom, when it comes to investigating smoke/fire issues for themselves, well, they don't, do they? Not their job, apparently. Trusting the Wikipedia community to rat Ritchie out. To expose those few incidents that show what his likely problems really are. Good luck with that.

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas, and crazies don't report on crazy. Probably don't even see it, because they be crazy!

You can get away with being a hate filled agenda fueled delusional prick on Wikipedia, even with a badge, only if you live your life exclusively on Wikipedia. If you venture out to see what others think of what you do, and you come away wanting to kill yourself, well, that's on you, ya bastard.

Don't even be reading this forum if you don't like looking in a mirror. Wikipediocracy is more your kind of place. They'll clean your ringpiece up real nice, with their eager tongues.

Isn't that right Jake? Jake? JAKE?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Maybe they'll find it, and maybe ArbCom can offer you some counselling Ritchie, and try to do something to shield you from your inevitable car crash of a break down? Prevent you doing a Flack. Not that you have a partner to beat up, I assume. Or that anyone would want to report on that even if you did. Unless they found out who you really were. And how could that EVER happen? Ritchie Swann, of Faversham, Kent.

Or, y'know, maybe that's not what they care to do. Because why would they? It's
not a very Fram thing, is it. You're just an easily replaceable cog to them. And it's realising that, which will probably tip you over the edge.

Do you need help, Ritchie? You only have to ask. I am here for you. Unconditionally.

But when you're all better, we're gonna have a talk. We're gonna talk about real people. Real lives. And your and Wikipedia's effect on them. I hope you're up for it.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: Ritchie333, a classic example of what Wikipedia does to the human brain

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Sat Jun 26, 2021 1:11 am

Quel surprise, things weren't panning out as he had hoped and so he has lost his sense of strategy and just flat out admitted that this appeal is being filed because he thinks he is the victim, not Prax, and he wants the ability to whine to the people drafting the UCoC about how he has been falsely accused of harassment, without fear of another block, which would surely be the trigger for some kind of deeper probe into his fitness to be an Admin.

He was smart enough to clarify that his outright paranoia "I get the feeling there seem to be a bunch of people out to get me and want to throw me off the site (cf. WP:FRAMGATE)" isn't his actual stated grounds for appeal. Dummy didn't think not to actually say it though, did he?

And it was the odd way he said it too. A BUNCH of people? It's not just that nice girl and your Admin peer Amanda who you are saying are falsely accusing you of harassment?

I'll save you all the bother.

He is not fit.

He's closer to being a fucking Section 8 at this point.

Wikipedia governance needs to step up, recognise when man is about to spiral, and stage an intervention. But what we have here is the complete opposite. They actually facilitate it, providing the platform and the stimulus.

Sickos.

Only when he has finally lost it, will people pipe up and give him all that useless shite about how it's only a website, and maybe he should go take some time off and do real world things.

Remember that Ritchie? The real world? The place where people seeking a "serious career" go?

Just to confirm my suspicions, I thought I would check, and yes indeed, Ritchie has been getting drastically deeper into the Matrix these last three months, already doubling the amount of edits from May.

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipe ... Ritchie333

And when you look at the haphazard edit counts for the past few years, it seems obvious that whatever these real world issues are, they haven't gone away. The last time he genuinely looked like he was on an even keel, that he had his shit together enough to put in a consistent level of monthly edits, was all the way back in 2015. Craziest monthly total chart I have seen in a while, if ever. No pattern to it at all, except that of a man with a surprisingly repeatable self control issue. Can't self medicate forever.

At least he takes weekends off. Propping up some bar no doubt, drinking old man beer, and bragging to the barman about how he wrote him a Wikipedia article for his pub, and he doesn't want any compensation, except maybe a free pint. That kind of boring bastard.

Post Reply