That minor venting consisted of, in the space of 60 hours, committing not one but two violations of an ArbCom placed interaction ban, the first an obvious attempt to force relitigation by eliciting community sympathy, in the process revictimising the person he had been banned from mentioning in any way, and the second a transparent attempt to get others to look at her contributions and get her into trouble, while cynically claiming he couldn't see how people doing that exact behaviour could be considered not OK.Tryptofish, you have analyzed the situation quite persuasively, which includes the expectation that a bit of venting will take place in the wake of a sanction. Minor venting in this case. I recommend that this block be lifted because Ritchie has made enormous contributions to this encylopedia and is indisputably a net positive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The best part? All of that was being done not by a mere editor, much less a novice, but an extremely experienced Administrator - Ritchie333.
So, now we know what sort of egregious violations, and on what time scale, this guy considers "minor venting". You watch, I guarantee he will not adhere to this same generous standard for other supposedly less valuable editors.
He doesn't even bother to make clear which sanction the guy was supposedly venting about, the original iban, or the ridiculously short block for the second violation. Note that it matters, because the behaviour was seamless, at no point did Ritchie give the impression he was in control of his actions, let alone thinking clearly.
A block was warranted here, an indefinite one, not only because Ritchie is doing everything Administrators like this guy say blocked users should not do. He is not admitting his guilt, neither is he availing himself of the permitted appeals process. He is acting like a total selfish prick, an absolute drama queen, so as well as protecting others from him, a block would likely protect him from himself, since editing Wikipedia is clearly messing with his mental health.
It doesn't look like that is a concern of Cullen at all, he just wants the guy back at the coal face, and to send a message to the real victim that she doesn't matter, and of course send a giant fuck you to ArbCom, who voted unanimously for this interaction ban.
This endorsement of Tryptofish's analysis is typical of Cullen. Tryp wrote this bunch of nonsense......
......which is essentially a whole load of words to simply try and claim that there was no violation, while at the same time claiming the violation should not have received a block. Classic wikilawyering.Since I appear to have unintentionally caused this
Since I appear to have unintentionally caused this awful situation, I feel entitled to start a new section about it.
When I told Ritchie, above, that yes I think that a lot of people at Wikipedia have gone insane, I had no idea that I would see this much evidence of it the next day. And before anyone goes further over the top, no I am not literally calling Huon insane. But I am very much expressing concern that things have gotten wildly out of hand.
Before I go any farther, I want to tell Ritchie that what EEng said above is spot-on. Please don't let this get to you.
Now, that said, @Huon: I would like to try to clarify what I believe is going on here, and why I believe that Ritchie should not be considered to have violated the IBAN, and that you should please reconsider this block. I left a friendly message to Ritchie that everyone can see at the top of this talk page. Ritchie replied to me in the edit that Huon considers to be an IBAN violation. Here is what I think. It's very clear that Ritchie was replying to me (and I was quite glad to find that he had looked here and replied to me) in a way that is very clearly expressing his frustration. And he has plenty of good reasons to be frustrated over what has happened at ArbCom. He is telling me why he is upset. So he says "Has anybody asked Tjla12 (talk · contribs) how they felt about their new biography of a woman being template bombed and deleted? And I can’t believe people suggested SN reviewing the performance of an admin tool is “retaliation” and needs to be stamped on", and that's the part you object to. Now, I can see your point of view that the reference to template bombing and deletion was a reference to things done by the other editor in the IBAN. But please look at that in the context of the entire sentence. Ritchie is clearly doing two things: expressing sympathy for the editor he actually names, and expressing his unhappiness that his concern for another editor appears to have counted for little. The focus of the sentence is not on criticism of the IBANed person, but rather on Ritchie's point of view about the criticism that was leveled at him. To construe it as, instead, a dig at the IBANed person is really a stretch. And the second sentence, similarly, is about something that Ritchie himself had done, and why he feels it was unfair to have found fault with his doing it.
I then replied to Ritchie, and it never even crossed my mind that he was crossing any lines. I am aghast that I could have played a role in him saying something that would get him in trouble. I think that there is a general consensus among admins that sanctioned editors can let off a little steam, so long as they don't actually cause harm in the process. And in one fish's opinion, the very first thing that every admin should ask themselves before taking action is what is the best way to deescalate the situation, and certainly not to escalate it further if that can be avoided. The overall situation is very fraught, with an abundance of criticism of the entire process that happened at ArbCom, all the more so in the context of the recent Fram controversy. This block rubbed salt on the wound. And I do not see anything Ritchie said as being harmful, because he really wasn't reopening the conflict with the other editor. This was a bad block, and you should lift it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
There was a violation, because interaction bans do not care about intent. About the best you can hope for is to plead an accidental breach, but neither of these two seems to have noticed Ritchie isn't saying he breached it accidentally, and it would be quite a surprise if this experienced Administrator did not know how interaction bans are meant to work, would it not?
A block was required because this was the second breach in as many days, Ritchie having ignored the warning that followed his first breach. It is odd to see Cullen agreeing with the idea that such a sequence of events doesn't merit a block, especially when it is an Administrator. Again, you can guarantee other less valued editors are not given such leeway by this guy. And that nonsense about rubbing salt into the wound? Since when was that ever a consideration in Wikipedia blocking?
It is telling that Cullen sees absolutely nothing wrong with sentences like this......
.....the implicit assumption being that it is down to the perpetrator or his friends to decide whether or not a user is harming someone by breaching an interaction ban, not the proper authorities who placed it, much less the person it was placed to protect. The victim didn't want anything more to do with Ritchie, nothing. ArbCom granted their wish, unanimously. As Ritchie himself admitted after breaking it twice, he is under a gag order, all signed and official. So unless stated otherwise by her, it can be safely assumed that the sight of her attacker being allowed to continue mentioning her, with the complete endorsement of the Administration, would cause harm.I do not see anything Ritchie said as being harmful, because he really wasn't reopening the conflict with the other editor.
The truth of the matter is this. Cullen rejects the ban, and doesn't give a damn for why it was placed, what it is meant to stop and prevent. He just doesn't have the ability to remove it, or rather he doesn't want to unblock Ritchie and face the consequences, which would be swift and harsh. So he does this.
This is what the scummy Wikipedians call one of their very best Administrators. So, how and why the whole place is a toxic shithole, where nobody feels safe around the establishment figures, the old white dudes with power like Ritchie and Cullen, is hardly a mystery.