Should Ritchie333 be asked (told) to stay away from women on Wikipedia?

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

Should Ritchie333 be asked (told) to stay away from women on Wikipedia?

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Jun 28, 2021 8:32 pm

I'm starting to notice a very Fram like pattern with Ritchie333.

As we know, he is an example of a curious Wikipedia phenomena, where they seem fine with having Wikipedia Administrators who are under active sanctions. In his case, he is banned from interacting with a woman editor.

He is currently trying, and miserably failing, to have that sanction lifted. His latest effort to argue his forlorn case, is very Fram llike. He seems to think the encyclopedia was harmed by his inability to coach a women editor here....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... nghamshire

The claim actually reads like Ritchie is still trying to argue his harassment of the women editor he has been told to stay away from, was correct (because his reason for harassing her, her article tagging, was a legitimate concern in his eyes). Ergo, it isn't even harassment. It's governance. And people really need to assume good faith that he would never harass a woman. A page straight out of Fram's defence.

This example also seems to fit a wider pattern of Ritchie thinking he's God's gift to women. As in, if a women editor is looking for advice about Wikipedia, he's her guy.

Perhaps related is that Ritchie got into a relationship with a woman he met through Wikipedia, and it ended badly. So badly, she had to retire from Wikipedia.

I think the guy is just lonely. I think he sees his rather dodgy Wikipedia expertise, as a means to impress, and thus woo, potential romantic partners. I say woo, only because he seems to be too much of a sap to be a shag em and leave em type.

A classic example of Ritchie seemingly wanting to cosy up to the women of Wikipedia, are his frankly quite ridiculous attempts to bolster Jess Wade. You can understand why most Wikipedia Administrators choose to maintain a diplomatic silence when it comes to her obvious flaws. But not Ritchie......
I'm sitting here having written a whole one article for International Women's Day, and pleased that Dr Wade is still churning them out like clockwork. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
By falling over himself to praise her production rate, at her own talk page, uninvited, Ritchie displays either his desperation to no longer be single (presumably unaware she doesn't swing that way), or his unawareness or lack of concern over the fact she is actually a perfect example of an editor getting away with, on a literal daily basis, not only not providing two sources for contestible biographical claims, but none. Literally every single time she hits publish. The question has to be asked, what would Jess Wade have to do, for him to become her Fram like nemesis?

Unlike the woman he was asked to stay away from, Wade has wisely so far said nothing to Ritchie. Not talked back, telling him to go f himself, as she has done to others who offer her stern advice, as Ritchie did to his former pupil. Not even talked. She is perhaps acutely aware of his ulterior motives.

Wade didn't even reply when Ritchie showed his absolutely incompetence, by asking if she would like to run for Adminship, his goto move. Not only would she bomb, she woud find the whole experience severely traumatic. It's probably irked him greatly, that she chooses not to take his hand in RfA nomship. Not even giving him a reason why, either.

At a certain point though, you really have to question wtf is going on here. Is this all just harmless interaction, just a sad lonely bastard? Or is there some latent women hating going on here?

I only just learned of a really weird example of him overstepping the mark with a woman editor, and probably only because he was dealing with a woman. In this incident.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1028101415

....he actually tells a novice woman editor, someone already in his debt for choosing to help her where most editors wouldn't, that for a specific claim....
As a general rule of thumb, I like to see claims like "[claim]." to have two citations. It's kind of inline with best practice for journalism - don't confirm a story unless you get it from two sources.
Not only is this ridiculous advice, since Wikipedia is not journalism and it has no such two sources rule (or even guidance), it's hilarious given Ritchie has long waged a hate campaign using his position as a Wikipedia Administrator against the Daily Mail, who are of course, very large employers of female journalists.

Ritchie undoubtedly wants to help with Wikipedia's gender issues. And he might genuinely think he is. But I would question anyone who takes that stance, but who was also a staunch supporter of Eric Corbett, whose only denial against the charge that he was a woman hater, was that he didn't particularly care what the gender of the person he called a c word was.

It may not be quite at the level of the dear departed Eric, but Ritchie can be frequently seen making the same arguments Eric used to make. Namely that it is allegedly absolute poppycock that you need to be a woman, to effectively close Wikipedia's content gap.

Sadly for Ritchie, and of course, Eric Corbett was never a man to let facts get in the way of his strongly held opinions in his war against the Gender Gap Task Force, the academic studies say different.

The gender of an editor does matter. It does affect not only their behaviour, but their editorial choices. What they write, and how they write about it. Often in ways men aren't even aware of. Especially the middle to nearly old age white men of Wikipedia. Like Eric Corbett. And Ritchie.

Like Eric, he is nothing if not persistent. This is a typical and recent example of the sort of thing he just can't help himself from posting at the talk page of Women In Red.....
I think we need to separate out the statistic of male / female editors and male / female biographies. Not being a woman didn't prevent me from improving Caroline Flack to Good Article status, for example. ..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
The women in that project don't want or need his help, but he just keeps on giving it to them. They're quite effective at running their own separate project within a project, and of generating their own press, and it seems pretty obvious that it would be a women only project, if they thought they could get that past the sausage fest of the community.

It doesn't seem to even occur to Ritchie, that the supposed quality improvement to the Caroline Flack biography has occurred due to the efforts of male writer, him, and a self identified male reviewer. Not an issue for Ritchie.

Unsurprisingly, one of the effects of Ritchie's careful attention to the Caroline Flack article, was to strip put all the unacceptable sourcing. So that's a hearty fuck you to Joanna Crawley of the Mail. Can't have anyone thinking you're competent to report on details like where she we buried. Better to use Sky News instead, eh? A formerly Murdoch owned TV channel, that you just fucking well KNOW doesn't have the resourced or the commercial imperative to task journalists with that sort of thing. They will have got it from somewhere else, and in all likelihood, it was the sweat of Joanna's brow.

As said, the chances of an article about a women who had her tragic life saying what it should say, the way it should say it, after two Wikidudes have given it their loving attention, are not great.

But he must get involved. He must be a part of it. They will accept him as an ally, by God.

One of Eric Corbett's greatest dislikes, was of course a previous proposal by a women editor, to have a women only space on Wikipedia. Not even for any content based purpose, just to chat, to mutually support. Unacceptable. One wonders what Ritchie would say, if it were to be refloated. Can he live with being sidelined from the women? Would he be terribly upset on a level that seems to go far beyond any basic principled stance against positive gender discrimination?

He certainly seems terribly upset at being told to stay away from one single woman, and doesn't seem to want to get the message the community are sending him - just drop it. He has continued even after the woman has explicitly said she doesn't want the protective measure lifted.

My previous focus on Ritchie has only really been his general stupidity, easily ignorable as one of many, if he hadn't somehow become Wikipedia's de facto Admin coach (those who can't.....).

But now I am starting to see a pattern of creepiness, I shall be watching for it.

I hope Wikipedia is too. History says, they are probably not. Until women complain. Then they'll be called lying scheming bitches, and be hounded to the ends of the Earth by the Wikipedia Fighting Sausages Brigade (a glorious re-run of FRAMGATE), and by their Wikipediocracy paramilitary wing. Where of course, Ritchie is a valued member too. Talked a lot of shit about his female nemesis over there. I doubt he shares that side of himself over coffee and biscuits at WIR.

I bet a woman journalist from the Daily Mail would be most interested in the many sides of the Wikipedia dude that polished up Caroline Flack's biography right nice.

No wonder he wants them put out of business.

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

Re: Should Ritchie333 be asked (told) to stay away from women on Wikipedia?

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Oct 04, 2021 7:38 pm

Ritchie making friends with Dianna....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ermission,

It's funny how Ritchie always seems to duck out rather than admit fault and apologise. A good insight into why his marriage fell apart, perhaps. Was he just too proud to admit fault, or did he sense the rising need to punch the screen, and thus do what his therapist probably suggested and head out for a nice walk?

:lol:

If only Wikipediocracy could get their act together and figure out what a person with women issues actually looks like. He's right there, among them, and yet they cannot see it. Or dare not highlight it as a trait of the average Wikipediocracy poster. Because they're Wikipedians.

--------

Are you having fun yet, Giraffe Stapler?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Post Reply