To recap some recent events, Wikipedia Administrator and comfortable Wikipediocracy denizen Ritchie333, has predictably failed in his attempt to remove the stain of harasser of women from his file.
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... =19&t=2061
He is still a Wikipedia Administrator, naturally, because hey, it's not like making a women feel she is being stalked, is all that big a deal, right?
It's not like she's still so disturbed by his behaviour two years later, right? That's not the impression you get from her statement, right?
She seems over it, right?I can’t make a meaningful statement as I have a lot going on in real life that takes precedence and I do not have access to a computer for the foreseeable future. I do however oppose any loosening of this restriction or any changes given the multiple violations and I’m confused by the rfa statement as this iban doesn’t preclude me from running, though I have no desire to ever rfa on English Wikipedia so it’s a non starter. I don’t have the mental bandwidth to say or deal with this beyond this brief statement. PRAXIDICAE 16:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
She's not, obviously. But still, what would Wikipedia be, if the important matter of restoring a man's honour didn't warrant an attempt seeing thousands of words expended over nearly ten days, just to come to a rather obvious conclusion, certainly to anyone who follows Ritchie even a little bit.
People like, I dunno, his nominal bosses on this very Committee. I know it's a lot of work, but there aren't that many Admins, and even less that are seriously active, even less with active sanctions on them. And there are fifteen Arbitrators.
But to Wikipediocracy (where such observations are strangely absent).
They perhaps regret now, that the last two posts in Ritchie333's thread there, are as follows.....
Midsize Jake, Forum Admin, 7500+ posts wrote:I actually think the interaction ban should be "enhanced," so as to prevent Ritchie333 from using the bathroom for non-face-splashing purposes only between the hours of 12pm to 4pm.
Interesting contrast, eh?AngelOne, 250 posts wrote:Even if Praxidicae hadn't objected to removing the iban, I don't think it would have been lifted based on that appeal. Reading between the lines, I saw "I didn't do anything wrong and if I did overstep it was because I was in a really bad place. Also if I did overstep it was justified because gender gap. Also what I did couldn't be harassment because I know exactly what harassment is, there's only one way to do it, and I didn't do that."
I have every sympathy for what Ritchie was going through in his personal life back then, and I'm glad that he's doing better now. I don't think the iban is unjustified (even if I think it was handled badly by Arbcom) and I hope someday it can be lifted.
One doesn't like to push stereotypes, but it could be said that AngelOne is perhaps a woman. The username, the reluctance to share personal details or even Wikipedia account details with that forum, and of course, her sensible, perceptive and fair comments.
Ritchie perhaps might even take some of that comment, the last paragraph, as support, it was so skillfully worded. He won't see it for what it is, because he is what he is. A hope that Ritchie can eventually realise why the ban was necessary, and what he needs to do to get it lifted.
I hope Wikipediocracy can resist their usual urge to respond to a post like this with their usual cruelty.
They might even be briefly baffled to see such nice words being expressed on their shit stained walls. It could take them a while to realise what they mean for their forum. Even though the contrast with Jake's post is rather clear.
But they do tend to get quite nasty, when confronted with observed reality that contradicts their beliefs. AngelOne probably already knows the drill if they do. Stay quiet, don't look them directly in the eyes, and don't under any circumstances, push back. Then she can avoid a ban, and slowly, quietly, change the culture there. Or at least, provide a much needed alternative perspective at such times. But not so often it becomes too obvious that this one, is not like the other ones. Baby steps.
For they could surely use more perspectives like this. Who knows, they might even learn something about how and why they landed on the wrong side of history when it comes to the matter of Wikipedia's women problem.
One wonders if Jake will see the danger in allowing Ritchie the opportunity to respond to AngelOne. Unrestrained by any notions of good conduct, as is their primary means of attracting senior Wikipedia editors to their scummy speakeasy, back when this ban was the impetus for Ritchie finding his way to the home of broken toys, Wikipediocracy, after a promising start, he soon got comfortable, and fully exercised the freedom to further harass his victim, who wisely doesn't participate there.
Looking back, I don't think it's a coincidence that that forum became the place where Ritchie could do things like compare one of the tiny few women Arbitrators, to Trump followers.
Ouch. He was of course, sanctioned by a majority male panel, so his ire should surely be directed at the men who apparently "stuck their fingers in their ears" and failed to be convinced by his version of events?I am not prepared to edit Wikipedia while the likes of PreMedicatedChaos are being incredibly rude and casting aspersions without evidence. I expect that sort of thing from people who support Trump.
But no. He stuck it to the woman. To play to the audience maybe, as well as his instincts.
THESE BITCHES BE CRAZY, AMIRIGHT BROS?
He could perhaps become quite enraged at the slightly, ever so slightly, mocking tone of the post. But to be fair, AngelOne could just be trying to fit in. Might have even picked that style up unconsciously.
But hey, he was going through tough times. As he said at the time....
........soon followed by........Not wishing to gather a sympathy vote, in the past year I have had a long-term relationship end and lost the family home, reducing me from living in a four bedroom house to a two bedroom flat, and contemplated suicide about this time last year.
He's over it now. We understand. We've all been there. It's only natural, when feeling depressed or angry or stressed, to lash out at women who have complained that you're being too aggressive, too creepy.In the wider world, I feel it's impossible for a man to claim they're being bullied by a woman and for it to be taken seriously.
It isn't, by the way.
Every single time I come back to this incident, I see a man who hates women, who blames women for his own issues, and is drawn to places where such views are not just tolerated, but encouraged, even rewarded. Wikipedia, and Wikipediocracy.
AngelOne perhaps sees the same, but wisely chose not to go anywhere near that conclusion, yet. Baby steps.
We await his response. With hope, but not much expectation, that Ritchie can grow, that Wikipediocracy can be a positive learning environment for him. If he doesn't respond, that will have to be that. If he just ignores AngelOne, if he takes full advantage of that forum's long standing policy that if a member, usually a senior Wikipedia editor, doesn't like something that was said about their Wikipedia activities, well, they can choose to ignore it. Maybe even just go and find a thread they do want to contribute to. It's no harm, no foul, as far as Jake is concerned. It's not like that place was set up to expose dark corners or anything.
-----------
This has, as ever, been a post by the man Wikipediocracy calls an "incel".
I don't know about you, but I think that makes this post even more deliciously ironic.
Stay safe, AngelOne. I couldn't do what you do. I have a very different way of dealing with creepy bully boys whose own mothers are probably secretly scared of them. And boy, did Jake and co. not like it.