Wikipediocracy has a long way to go before women will stop instinctively flinching and retching in their presence

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Wikipediocracy has a long way to go before women will stop instinctively flinching and retching in their presence

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Sun Jul 04, 2021 11:45 am

Sometimes Wikipediocracy's anti-women vibe is just obvious. V for vagina hater, etc. But sometimes, it's so subtle, you need the finely tuned senses of a woman, or the highly tuned empathy of a serious Wikipedia critic, to spot it.

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?
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 seems over it, right?

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.
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.
Interesting contrast, eh?

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.
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.
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?

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....
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. 
........soon followed by........
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.
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.

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.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wikipediocracy has a long way to go before women will stop instinctively flinching and retching in their presence

Post by ericbarbour » Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:24 pm

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.
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.
What utter shit. Feeling "sympathy" for a Wikipedia abusive admin is the worst thing you can do.

Internet trolls need suckers to troll.

Also, there are 13 active arbitrators right now. Dunno what Katie is doing. Too many of them are old-timers, and Maxim is still suspected of being a David Gerard sockpuppet. I would not be AT ALL surprised if, without Katie, Arbcom is presently 100% males.

Need to see idiot propaganda at its Wikiest? Look at L235's userpage. He has undoubtedly edited before taking the "Liger235" account in 2014. I would not call WP a "wonder of the modern world"....more like an inevitable/flawed side effect of internet libertarianism. At least the fool admits it is not "perfect".

This is why we can't have nice things:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Capt ... s_2019.jpg

User avatar
Cla68
Sucks
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:18 pm
Has thanked: 101 times
Been thanked: 90 times

Re: Wikipediocracy has a long way to go before women will stop instinctively flinching and retching in their presence

Post by Cla68 » Mon Jul 05, 2021 2:33 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:24 pm
This is why we can't have nice things:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Capt ... s_2019.jpg
This is the main reason I've never gone to a Wikipedia meetup or conference even though there have been several in the cities I've resided in.

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

Re: Wikipediocracy has a long way to go before women will stop instinctively flinching and retching in their presence

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:45 pm

Jesus.

Why am I not surprised that one of the main Admins trying to keep the scandal of the Daily Mail ban tightly under wraps, is a grown ass man with a favourite colour?

No wonder they absolutely crap themselves at the thought of the Mail doing to them what they did to Hillbillyholiday.

Is that harassment? Fair game, surely. If your chosen hobby feeds your childish needs to have a favourite colour and wear a cosplay hat when you go to meet your peers, a hobby that in reality sees you making decisions that affect what millions of people can and can't read as a reliable source, then you can expect mockery, at the very least.

And much more besides, if there is any justice in this world.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wikipediocracy has a long way to go before women will stop instinctively flinching and retching in their presence

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:45 pm

Cla68 wrote:
Mon Jul 05, 2021 2:33 pm
This is the main reason I've never gone to a Wikipedia meetup or conference even though there have been several in the cities I've resided in.
And here he is at the 2019 Boston Wikiconference in the upper right. Second row center: the incredibly toxic Jdforrester. Front row left: Sam Klein, trust fund brat, and one of the most useless fanboys in their history. Phoebe Ayers is one seat to the left of Sam. Two rows behind them: Andrew Lih and Gamaliel. Two rows behind them; DGG. Second row center left: Kirill Lokshin. The ineffable and smelly OrangeMike way in the back. Molly White and that little shit Brad "Cunctator" Johnson are probably in there someplace, it being Boston.

I don't give a damn what other people think, that is a CULT. At least 10% of the people in this photo are longtime, disgusting, corrupt, habitually-lying insiders with book-wiki profiles. All you can do is laugh at them--and remember the litany of insane things they did online to support the "glorious cult of Jimbo Wales". Ha ha ha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Capt ... G_8238.jpg

Post Reply