Ritchie333

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Ritchie333

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Aug 10, 2019 11:58 am

In true fashion, Ritchie is being a real coward here. A selfish little prick who has thoughts only for himself. Four days is long enough for even the Hulk to have calmed down and reflected on their temper tantrums.

Claiming he doesn't want to return to Wikipedia because he feels he has better things to be doing with his time? Horseshit. He's an addict through and through. He's not editing because he's mad that the powers that be don't accept he is the real victim here, and as well as the shame factor, the nature of his addiction means he cannot just ignore this sanction, accidental breaches are inevitable.

Mentioning his recall critreria, as if the luke warm responses of supposedly esteemed colleagues like Iridescent, Boing! and Floquenbeam aren't enough to show he hasn't got the confidence of his colleagues. Sure, they take issue with the communication and maybe even the process, but are they prepared to say the sanction isn't warranted? Much less that it should be lifted immediately and the people who placed it removed from office? No. They're clear on Ritchie's only options, either avail himself of the mandated appeal processes, or accept the sanction and move on.

Leaving people in limbo, wondering whether he will be back tomorrow, or if he is just going to let his Admin rights be removed through inactivity, is exactly the sort of douchebag he is. He could throw them a bone and at least tell them his family have removed all the sharp objects and pills from his house. Presuming they actually care about his mental health, which, judging by their eagerness to drag him back into the the situation he says is making him feel like he is surrounded by insane people, all bottled up inside, misunderstood and maligned, is debatable.

I see no recognition here that he even appreciates just how badly he could monumentally fuck Wikipedia in the ass, the project he professes to love so much it hurts, if he really got the mob going, as his efforts seem to have been geared to. If he really forced the Foundation to ask themselves, are these people really trustworthy? Are sanctions placed by their local authorities to deal with harassment by their local Administrators really going to hold? Or is it just going to be the same old same old.

I doubt he is even going to clarify the basics. Were his two breaches of his sanction intentional, or some kind of emotionally induced oopsie?

If this guy even had the balls to stand for recall, he might be in for a real shock. He would pass, but not nearly with the level of support he would assume he has. It would be a Floquenbeam style endorsement, being arguably more about ArbCom and his addiction to Wikipedia, rather than his demonstrable unfitness.

Clear pushback would be there, and from people he respects. When people have a real stake, a recall say in his future as an Administrator, and have seen him state quite clearly that he knows what "actual" harassment looks like, and his two breaches of an ArbCom placed interaction ban is apparently not it, much less the other shit he pulled, fucking with an enemy's user page because they weren't retired enough for his liking for example, would all elicit condemnation for their very basic and very obvious examples of him being someone who is thoroughly incapable of sound judgement or an even temperament. Someone completely incapable of seeking outside help when shit is going south, fast.

This douche hasn't yet even accepted he has done anything wrong. Not really. He has of course said he was wrong to rise to the bait, but that is the standard defence of any Wikipedia asshole caught being an asshole - the other person made me do it. I want to see that guy tested in a recall, against the supposed high standard of Administrator. Or rather, I want to see that guy receive the hearty endorsement of a thoroughly toxic community.

Come on Ritchie. Put your money where your mouth is. Change the habit of a lifetime and actually put some skin in the game. Let everyone decide if what you do to powerless editors is real harassment, or is, what ....... policy enforcement? The Fram defence, as it will surely come to be known.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Ritchie333

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:30 pm

Pursuant to WP:ADMINACCT, as well as WP:DON'TBEAPRICKALLYOURLIFE, some much needed clarification questions for Ritchie. Feel free to post them to him at his Meta hideout, or "head hunt" him to come and answer them here. :ugeek:

1. What, if any, efforts have you made to pursue an appeal through the mandated procedures?

2. What in your view was the precise nature of your two breaches of your interaction ban? Intentional, accidental, necessary disruption, a mistake, or something else? Do you perhaps deny they even are breaches, as you understand the workings of interaction bans?

3. Why have you not resigned, or put yourself up for reconfirmation?

4. If your rights are removed in due course through inactivity, do you agree this would be resignation 'under a cloud'?

5. It has been claimed by ArbCom they have now twice dealt with your interactions with the other user. The first time was apparently "dealt with" by a single Arbitrator. How? Was a formal warning issued? The second time was apparently a Level II desysop procedure. Were you made aware in their request for clarification email that this was the nature of the proceeding? If yes, do you accept you are in error in claiming you were entitled to more than one opportunity to state your case, if the Arbitrators deemed they had enough information with which to propose a resolution?

6. Do you accept on any level that your responses to this incident have not been what would be expected from an Administrator? And that dealing appropriately with stressful or even objectionable situations is a part of that role?

7. Your statements about your state of mind are alarming to say the least. Do you accept that regardless of what ArbCom or the community think, the very nature of the Administrator role is not one that would be compatible with someone in that frame of mind?

8. Do you stand by your claim that the other user has bullied you? And if so, do you accept that it is the nature of the project governance systems that this complaint has now been considered at the highest level possible, and been dealt with. If not, if there was no interaction ban, would you be pursuing this complaint, either with the community or the Foundation (who in light of the Fram case, would likely refer it back to the ArbCom).

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Ritchie333

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:44 pm

Unsurprisingly, Ritchie has set up camp at the harassment site Wikipediocracy. Following in the footsteps of other luminaries like Black Kite and Dennis Brown. He claims he was headhunted, but declined to name who invited him. Understandable.

He doesn't even try to hide the fact he has joined for the sole purpose of violating his interaction ban. A major flaw of Wikipedia being that they like to pretend someone who does that, exploiting the technical loophole that an identifiable Wikipedia Administrator posting on a public forum is somehow invisible to people who might be adversely affected by what goes on there, is still a trustworthy an upstanding member of the Wikipedia community, absolutely entitled to still call themselves an Administrator.

It's cowardice is what it is. If he wants to violate his interaction ban for the purposes of putting his side of the story across on a public forum, in the vain hope of garnering public sympathy and the sanction overturned, he should do so where it is most relevant. His unconvincing complaint of mistreatment by his Wikipedia bosses, a decision he hasn't even appealed, is surely of no use or much interest to scholars investigating the systemic flaws of Wikipedia. At least that used to be the editorial stance of Jake. I guess he changed it. It is useful here, because the necessary historical context of who he is, is already here.

There are, of course, no signs at all of the supposed deeply upset and absolutely traumatized victim that he cast himself as before. Time is a great healer I guess. All six says of it. Even though he was still being a mental case three days ago. Someone must have advised him over email what an absolute tit he was making of himself. No, his post there is the lucid but entirely wrong sort of things said frequently by people who are convinced they have policy and common sense on their side.

The contents of his attempt to justify himself, or course reveal him to be the dumbass he always has been. He says of this post......
Your problem is you appear to go around looking for trouble, defacing articles and nominating them for deletion, and when you are challenged on it, you get angry and upset and start insulting the other parties. You need to assume more good faith."
......that......
I can't see any way that that's toxic, incivil or a personal attack.
For a start, his understanding of what is a personal attack, is hugely wrong......
If I wanted to personally attack Praxidicae, I'd have just told them to fuck off from the get go.
Telling another editor to fuck off has never been a personal attack, and per the recent RfC it does not even rise to automatically warranting even a warning as basic incivility, not even if you do it multiple times. Context matters, apparently.

But to his comment. How can such a comment not be toxic? He doesn't provide any diffs to back up claims, not in the comment, nor in the wider discussion. There is one diff, and it shows his victim asking him a pertinent question about policy, that he evidently could not answer. As is normal for Ritchie, when he can't answer a policy question, he switches to targeting the editor's perceived shortcomings.

Ritchie was harassing his victim, trying to force them off Wikipedia by making it a thoroughly hostile environment for her, without any sense of due process or basic decorum, because in truth this comment was a second example of him just slagging her off for no other purpose than to publicly denigrate her, itemising her perceived failings when measured against his personal standards.

In Wiki-speak, he was engaged in WP:ASPERSIONS. Quite hilarious that he genuinely tries to argue that to his recollection, he's only done it to her twice. Even if true, that's two times too many for a Wikipedia Administrator. Higher standard and all that. He did not then, and as far as I can tell, never has, reported these concerns he had with her in the proper manner, to be properly handled. If he did, they were obviously rejected. But he believes he is right, so like the arrogant oaf he is, he proceeded accordingly, a one man penis, intent on rubbing it all over his female target. Speaking metaphorically of course. I hope.

That is not even meeting the minimal standard expected of editors, and he is expected to appreciate that because he is expected to block those who do exactly what he did, if as he is, they are unapologetic and indeed entirely insistent that they have done nothing wrong. That is the issue, a common one for Ritchie - he literally has no idea what he did was actually wrong. Faced with the choice of admitting it, appealing it, or flouncing, he flounced. And now he has run to the bosom of those to whom such cowardice is a familiar trait, one to be celebrated, not condemned.

The good folk of Wikipediocracy have of course welcomed him with open arms. You will not see them making the sort of points I have above. And if my previous experience with that site is any guide, anyone who does so, will be attacked and forced out as "clueless" or worse, while Ritchie is fed tea and biscuits and copious amounts of sympathy, and reassured he doesn't have to answer the nasty man's nasty questions if he doesn't want to. Which he usually doesn't, as demonstrated by our studies of the man.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Ritchie333

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:31 pm

On lordy. Well, his holiday posts at FanBoy Resorts Inc. are the standard Ritchie dumbassery, but it's also free entertainment, so it would be a shame to waste it.......thank you Jake for your policy of leaving no dumbass behind. Shame about your other policy of kicking the teachers out. DID YOU LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKE YET? Nah. Chief of the dumbasses never learns. Amma gonna keep kicking him anyway, because I like it, and it's our mission.

Anyways, to Ritchie!
you're not a fan of me, but neither is my ex-wife, people who want a hard Brexit or Trump supporters
Is that a compete list? Because I am thankfully none of those people, and I think you're a raging cockwomble. And be honest, how many of the latter two groups even know you exist? I know, you tried real hard to provoke them on Wikipedia with your trollish posts and partisan userboxes, which called into question your basic lack of ethics when it came to what you thought Wikipedia is for, much less what you think an Administrator of it is supposed to be. But come on, he honest, how many of them actually even noticed you? Indeed, how many of them did anything to you that suggested they hate you more than your ex-wife, who obviously knew you the best?
in my view the decision to ban [Kumioko] has caused more long-term harm than good
Oh Jesus. Well, I'm glad it doesn't affect us, but nobody in your holiday village is going to thank you for blowing smoke up that freak's ass. Gonna be dining out on that comment for years, the desperate little fuck. Still, if you're going to remodel yourself as a critic now, I guess you need some friends, and beggars can't be choosers. Tough to say who would be the teacher and who would be the student there. A right couple of short bus riders when it comes to basic Wikipedia knowledge.

Speaking of which.....
As I understand it (without looking it up), the banning policy says something like "no user is incapable of reform", or to put it another way - it's better to have editors inside the tent pissing out than on the outside pissing in.
Yeah, you never did care much for actually reading the policies, least of all the one you were most keen to undermine. Perhaps you got confused and meant one of your garbage essays, which you often seem to think have equivalent status to policy. There is of course no such statement in the banning (or blocking) policy, and it can only really even be inferred from what is not said, namely that there is no limit to how often a user can appeal. Of course, good luck getting that principle accepted in the majority of cases, and of course, what is common practice is policy, even if they have yet to update it (and never would). Ironically, in recent years it has been ArbCom, rather than the community or its Administrators, who have shown leniency to the worst of the worst, with predictably mixed results. But you've lost all trust in them now, haven't you? Ah well. They'll get over it I'm sure. Kumioko of course was a bad example, he's never editing Wikipedia again, as himself anyway, unless or until a local cowboy like Floquenbeam wishes to make a point of principle out of it. Speaking of which, your own reputation as a rebel without a clue will be why Kumioko will soon be humping your leg. He'd love to be able to edit again legitimately, even if only for an hour until you got your own scarlet letter. There will be some desperate hope in his eyes that it triggers KUMIOKOGATE, but it won't. But don't you be a tease now!
I don't like spending time on the "drama" area of the project, and only do so when I feel I can make a difference.
Yeah, we noticed. Does it bother you at all that your fellow editors seemed to think your idea of making a difference, was wiping your ass with policy? Or have you fully transitioned away from the fake persona of being a Wikipedia Administrator, where it must have grated on you terribly to have to keep pretending you were part of a team?
I think that wandering into a debate you know nothing about and throwing your 2c would show me up as naive, ignorant and an opportunist to at least some people in the debate.
It shows you as that to everyone in the room who knows what they're talking about, like that recent incident where you tried to start a revolution against Commons.
Unfortunately, by the time I've mulled over a situation carefully and decided what to do, another less reflective admin has overtaken me and taken action anyway.
Wow. Well, it's not like people didn't know this was your attitude to how things should be done on Wikipedia, but fuck me if this isn't even more arrogant than I am used to. Must be the country air, filling him full of beans. My what a difference to the broken down wreck of man so traumatized by the accusation he was a harasser that he just wanted to put a gun in his mouth and end it all. A miracle cure. You need to monetize that shit, Jake.
Ironically enough, I'd be more motivated to spend time on WP if I got paid to do it, but that's another hot topic for another time.
I fail to see the irony. Hopeless Wikipedia addicts like yourself eventually reach the point, typically after it has cost them their marriage and their careers, where they drop all remaining pretence that they were ever editing for non-selfish reasons, and happily start grubbing around in the dirt, seeing who will pay them to keep them in crack. Some like Dr. Blofeld are open and honest about their new life of back-street blow-jobs, although he is rather opaque in declaring where specifically his mouth has been. Most however take the far more sensible route and just create a different account. Some are even daft enough to think that as long as their old account retires and their new account makes all the necessary declarations, this is all perfectly legit. And in your csse, the REAL irony is that it would be, if ONLY you hadn't earned yourself an active sanction for harassment. At the very least, you'd need to inform ArbCom of your new account name, and, well, I can't see you doing that, right? And in your case, you're such a self-absorbed gobshite, no way could you keep it a secret. It would come out eventually, as it has before, in quite spectacularly controversial fashion, yet another Wikipedia governance scandal with one of their formerly most trusted at its heart. So, please, by all means, for the entertainment alone, please do it. Assuming you haven't already. Speaking of which, hanging into your Admin rights, the ability to see deleted revisions etc, sure would come in handy to a street walker like that. But how to get around the inevitable inactivity desysop, eh? Tricky.

Anyway, nice chat. Love to the family. Except the wife obviously. Fuck that bitch, right?

:ugeek:

Yeah, fuck you too Jake, I know you read every last word. School is now in recess.

HTD

:twisted:

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Ritchie333

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:05 pm

It should really form the basis of a whole new topic, but for now it suffices to note that NewYorkBrad is active in the Ritchie Wikipediocracy thread. Not to condemn Ritchie's continuing breaches of his interaction ban, as seen in the second to last post before his. Nor to call out the continued Gamergate flavour of the immediately preceding post, where they have now coined "Hale's Law". Nope, he popped by just to chat lawyer stuff with mendaliv. And he didn't even say anything that would have illuminated people on what happens if, or increasingly likely when, the issues they discuss come to directly affect ArbCom.

Can't lay all the blame on the Wikipedian interloper though, he is merely continuing to participate in the way their forum management has shown him is valued and appreciated on their supposedly independent platform. He offers them legitimacy and prestige by his mere presence, as well as tacit acceptance of their activities by ignoring the stench. He is rewarded with a brain dead way to goof off online, presumably while still being paid handsomely by the hour by some mug punter who thinks he's working on his case.

I mean, if I were not banned, of course I'd be asking Brad at least why he seems to have nothing to say about Ritchie's continued breaches, given he is still an Administrator, his withdrawal from duty being entirely voluntary. And I'd of course not let him get away with trying to claim it has nothing to do with him now he is just an ordinary citizen, since history shows there is a good chance the 2019 ArbCom election will be one of those ones where Brad swoops in as the safe pair of hands, if not a most necessary +1 to the presumably quite sparse or unappealing offering to the electorate, to guide the Committee through what will surely be a tumultuous time for it, with his learned wisdom and institutional memory.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Ritchie333

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:15 pm

BrownHairedGirl has just had to formally agree to stop calling users "Portalistas", which is apparently conduct which......
falls foul of at least the "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem" and "Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons" provisions of WP:NPA
....in the opinion of an Administrator who only managed to best RexxS in terms of how low their RfA support was.

It's a ridiculous charge, absurd even, especially given it's not so long ago that she practically had to beg for the user who called her a bitch, for pretty much the same reasons as she is using this mild and entirely invented slur, just on the opposite side of the dispute, to be blocked.

Is she freaking out, is she throwing her toys out of the pram? No. Just getting on with the job. Moving forward, so as to continue building the encyclopedia.

Take note, Ritchie. You massive fanny.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Ritchie333

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Sep 16, 2019 4:36 pm

Spilling his guts on Wikipediocracy....
Just a quick update.

I have had a couple of emails from various arbs, with a variety of views. Some think I'm utterly outrageous for hurting the feelings of the Wikimedia DC social clique, others are more reasoned and think I have been treated pretty badly.
Really?

These are serious accusations, particularly given the fact his interaction ban was supported unanimously.

So come on Ritchie, tell us specifically which Arbitrators are speaking with forked tongues? And similarly, which ones apparently sanctioned you for hurting people's feelings?

No? I didn't think so.

I suppose we'll just have to wait for your election guide, right?

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Ritchie333

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:04 am

:lol:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =916193125

Hooked. Literally.

Give it a rest you muppet, you're not fooling anyone.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Ritchie333

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:41 pm

Sheesh. Properly back on the horse, and no mistake. There were a couple of times there when Ritchie had me doubting him. I was genuinely going to give him props for sticking to his principles and actually following through with his retirement.

But no, he's proven yet again I know these people scarily well. His principles don't mean shit, he was lying his ass off when he said he no longer felt motivated and had better things to be doing, it was all either some grand play for sympathy that backfired because he was quickly forgotten, or all part of his clearly extremely unstable personality.

Whatever the truth, you're a real dumbass Ritchie. Now everyone knows what you are, they know you're not serious when you say even serious sounding stuff. They may not even believe you if you say you're going to end it all.

They now know that when you're gone, you not really gone. You're checking your watch list everyday, you're doing your back-channel shit, you're hanging out with the scum at the harassment site, fitting right in by telling obvious lies and using it to further the harassment of your victim.

You're back because you got nothing better going on in your life than the regular dumb shit you do on Wikipedia, of which this is a classic example......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =916333847

Just making it up as you go along, holding newbies to standards you couldn't ever hope to see in your colleagues, much less the "net positive" Eric Corbett, who would have ripped your goddamned face off for such impertinent behaviour.

Once a dumbass, always a dumbass. Stick with your own kind, the outside world is better off with you freaks shut in all day.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Ritchie333

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:17 pm

Over-sharing, as always.
My personal life finally looks like it's on the way up, so I would hope that the depression-related outbursts and attacks I have sporadically made over the past year will no longer occur.
It's Wikipedia. Not therepy, remember. Nobody gives a shit why you're such a train wreck, they only want to know why you ever through it was appropriate to bring that shit to Wikipedia?

And which attacks? If you're gonna go full Oprah, be specific. Which of the many horrible things you've said and done were due to your issues, and which were just due to your natural state of harmonious being?

When you next act like a fucking asshole, are we to assume you've been dumped again, or what?
I don't like doing this, as it looks like a classic "diva flounce" one-month break, gathering sympathy for the "retired" message, and then suddenly bouncing back when everything's died down.
Yeah yeah yeah.

All sounds very convincing. Don't pretend like you've been locked away in the Priory all this time, finding yourself. You were over at the hate site, remember. Shooting the breeze, telling them all kinds of shit about how horrible your victim is, and holding forth about everyone else. Didn't look to me like no isolated outburst. Just Ritchie being Ritchie.

If you're sharing now, share it all. You chicken shit mother fucker.
However, I have been in conversation with Arbcom off-wiki and Worm That Turned has been particularly helpful, and I think an understanding has been achieved, or is in the process of being achieved.
OK. So, what's that going to be then? You sure you're actually talking to them, and not the voices in your head?

You do realize that it's not their job to help you through your crisis? They're never going to take the tools away from you just for a silly reason like mental instability. That's not policy. Check your Wikipedia history.

Your so called friends too, they're not going to be help you. Look at this douchebag......
Ritchie, I'm glad to have gotten the ping, and I'm glad to see that you looked in here. Truly, I wish you all the best, and I, too, hope that you'll come back when it feels right for you. You are missed. At least by the people who matter, and the hell with the rest who don't. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

.......

I guess I should clarify that when I said "the people who matter", all that I meant by that are the people who have common sense about what happened to Ritchie, and recognize that it was unfair. And there's a lot of us. On the other hand, the people who lack the common sense to see that Ritchie was treated shabbily, they are the ones whose opinions are worthless to me, and should be worthless to everyone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks like he's gonna be happy to watch you flame right out in a highly visible way, rather than concede that sometimes ArbCom has to sanction poorly behaving Administrators. And if they don't have the guts to explain their conduct there and then, they're not permitted to share it with nosy gimps like him, no matter how loud they scream or how much shit they break.

All that nasty reaction to your well deserved sanction, that's on you Ritchie.

All because you arrogantly thought you had a handle on your problems.

Post Reply