did Wikipediocracy just somehow forget to mention Ritchie333 tried to dry hump Clovermoss at RfA?

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2023 11:59 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 154 times

did Wikipediocracy just somehow forget to mention Ritchie333 tried to dry hump Clovermoss at RfA?

Post by ChaosMeRee » Sat Dec 23, 2023 3:01 am

Some useful context before we dive into the weeds....

* Clovermoss is a 21 year old woman (verified) who joined Wikipedia at sixteen, and is that very rare thing, a polite, communicative, collaborative, empathetic, reflective, dedicated, feminist Wikipedian. She is everything Jess Wade is not. Right down to being a better writer of biographies of women overlooked by history, sheer numbers aside.

* Clovermoss is by her own admission a woman who was raised as a Jehovas Witness but now considers herself an atheist and asexual, and her interest in Wikipedia is in large part improving Wikipedia's coverage of JWs. Not too much empathy is required to read between the lines there, but if you are a little slow, this interest sees her editing articles like "Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse".

* Ritchie333 is a classic legacy Administrator. Male, middle aged, white, western, straight. He likes to think he's an awesome Wikipedian and a great Administrator, to the point he rather thinks of himself as some kind of Captain of the RfA ship. It's a self image that conveniently leaves out a history of behaviour that is so creepy he even has an interaction ban with a woman editor, successfully upheld after an appeal filed by Ritchie that was just, well, bizarre. It was one of many incidents where Ritchie, for obvious reasons, shows a remarkable arrogance and tone deafness, right up to simply ignoring women.

* For obvious reasons, Ritchie is a deeply embedded member of Wikipediocracy. They love him, he loves them. They are the "we" that Beeblebrox spoke of. For sure, there are disagreements, but as is the policy of that forum, issues that are embarrassing to Ritchie and perhaps show that he is an incompetent, are not raised as matters of debate. And indeed, people who do so, like me, get banned.

* Eager to be liked, and retain Wikipedia as a home, Ritchie is a fake feminist. He talks a good game, like a lot of Wikipedians, and shit, maybe he even believes he is what he says he is. But it is quite obvious that his manner of approaching and trying to be of assistance to women on Wikipedia, is mansplainy, arrogant, and to some, downright creepy. And he can be quite rude and hostile when he is rejected. He is a walking talking stereotype.

* A modern day stereotype, since it seems to be the case that when it all became too obvious that he was what he was, he had some kind of breakdown and made it all about him, deflecting blame elsewhere. Shit, I bet even his mother took her fair share. Post-breakdown, the way he speaks about his new girlfriend (Ritchie is of course a divorcee and he did of course meet his ex on Wikipedia), is very sexist. He doesn't see it, naturally. They never do.

All that is very fine context for realising a very curious thing about Wikipediocracy's discussion of Clovermoss' RfA....

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 50#p338795

Which she of course passed with ease. Not to downplay her obvious suitability, but such is the dire state of Wikipedia, any woman who knows one end of an edit button from the other, would pass easily. Anyone except Jess Wade, rather amusingly. Showing his completely ineptitude, Ritchie at one time (long after her faults were known) thought Jess would make a good admin and urged her to let him take her under his wing and nominate her. The way she just blanked him completely must have felt very familiar to him, even though it was quite normal for Wade, who is quite the rude mute.

I am banned from Wikipediocracy because I would want to do things like ask Ritchie if he still thinks Jess would make a good admin, so we might gain insight into his competence. Because if he said yes, I could then point out the thousand million ways that in comparison to Clovermoss, Jess Wade looks like a really basic bitch, barely worthy of being called an editor. And if he said no, I'd ask why, and laugh at him stumbling around for an answer that made any sense, because Jess really hasn't changed one bit since he said what he said.

Anyway, the curious ommission in Wikipediocracy's thread was any mention that Ritchie had attempted to involve himself by adding his name as a co-nominator. It turned out he had overlooked or just plain ignored that it was Clovermoss' deliberate choice to self-nominate for a whole host of good reasons. A true sign of her character.

Ritchie had rather arrogantly assumed, as is his way, that she would need his assistance and protection. And he doubled down on this even after she had made it clear she was well aware of what she was doing and had done it with a clear head. She didn't need his help. She told him so, politely. Evidently that wasn't enough, and while he did as she asked and withdrew himself, it wasn't before he had explained to her in great and patronising detail why he was right to have done what he did and lay out all the things he clearly thought she had missed.

There was of course no apology from Ritchie for having forced this woman to have to justify herself to people who were misled by Ritchie and then forcing her to go to him to ask him to reverse his action, which on the face of It should have obviously stood out as a ridiculous one. No, instead he merely tried to justify himself a little more.

It is perhaps only his interaction ban that means that in such scenarios, Ritchie restricts himself to stating his case verbally, but not with further actions. So a kind of victory for the WMF there.

Still a bad look for anyone who thinks Ritchie is a great Admin, which, for unsurprising reasons (penis), is most of the Wikipedians and all of Wikipediocracy as far as I can tell.

It isn't hard to see why Wikipedoocracy deliberately ignored Ritchie's creepy behaviour here. And deliberately ignored is the right word, since it was mentioned in the RfA.

He is one of their own.

And there you have it.

Why would anyone read a supposedly independent Wikipedia criticsm platform, if all a patently incompetent and troubling sexist Wikipedia Administrator has to do to avoid being criticised by it, is join and post?

Ritchie tried to dry hump Clovermoss during her RfA. He saw a young woman and assumed she needed his assitance, even though to anyone reading, she did not. This fits a long established pattern of misplaced and frankly delusional faux feminism from this creep, alongside some pretty classic sexist behaviours that he is clearly unaware of and the Wikipedia community are slow to act on, if they even act at all.

Post Reply