Archive: 7 August 2019


Since Arbcom didn’t or couldn’t discuss anything with me in private, I’m posting my main email to them here in the hope somebody else can understand what I’m talking about.

The opening email from Arbcom basically said, neutrally and politely “Can you give some background behind these diffs?” So I did. The email, verbatim, is as follows:


Praxidicae tagged an article for copyright violation. I agreed with their analysis, and redacted the parts of the article in question. Manifestation later pointed out I had incorrectly redacted the lead, which was not a copyvio, so I restored it.


I saw Bill Homewood’s article tagged for G11 on my usual rounds at CAT:CSD. I didn’t think it met the criteria, so removed it. I didn’t think Praxidicae’s tagging of the article with a summary “gutting all the unsourced promotional trash” ( was civil and polite, and referring to a new editor’s good-faith creation on a (presumably) notable person as “promotional trash” falls below the standard of respect we should treat fellow editors, in my view.

3. (discussion about Bill Homewood generally)

I thought Praxidicae’s conduct in the thread, starting “Since my removal of a bunch of totally unsourced puffery on a BLP is challenged” was confrontational and unlikely to lead to a satisfactory conclusion. After one comment, where I pointed out that they really should try and improve the article instead of leaving aggressive messages, I questioned why, if they had retired from the project (per the polemic on their user page “I have no interest in helping a project that willfully allows and condones harassment, intimidation and stalking.”), why were they arguing with me here? I then disengaged from the discussion as it clearly was not going anywhere.


This follows on from 3, though it is more me getting cross generally with editors who put “This editor has retired due to Framgate” and then carry on editing. While editors are free to quit the project, if they carry on editing regardless then nobody will take their retirement seriously. I think I have called The Rambling Man out for similar behaviour. Anyway, blanking their user page was a stupid and idiotic thing to do, and I took the view if it was reverted (as it was) I would leave it be.


This is my personal opinion of Praxidicae following an unsolicited message they left on my talk page. I think it is civil and polite, if blunt and forthright.

From my point of view, I feel like I have been bullied by Praxidicae. I feel hurt and upset about how somebody can be so spiteful and malicious simply by somebody disagreeing with them and thinking that articles should be improved and not deleted, and how nobody else seems to understand my point of view. I don’t want to interact them again and as you have probably seen, I have asked Praxidicae to stay off my talk page and not edit there. ( I apologise for rising to the bait on occasion and responding in kind to an argument; however, more often than not I agree with their deletion tags and delete the pages as requested. If you think my level of conduct falls below the expected standard of administrators, I’ll draw your attention to - if two editors on that list tell me to resign, I will do so “under a cloud” and would not be able to-regain the tools without a fresh RfA.

As you can also see from this message ( I have semi-retired from the project. I have a GA review to finish; but beyond that I don’t feel like participating for a while. 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. I come onto WP to learn about new things, write articles and research topics, and if it gets to the stage where I feel harassed and bullied by another editor with no obvious course of appeal, I am completely unmotivated to participate. 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.

As I said, I will admit fault for responding in kind in a heated discussion; administrators are expected to set a good example and calm down discussions and become trustworthy.

However, to give you an example of where the conflict is, I have reviewed a couple of Praxidicae’s edits from today and can give the following example:

In my opinion, Malik774 is simply an inexperienced user attempt to add an event to an article and supplying a source. It does not look like vandalism, the account is not blocked, and none of the other exceptions for rollback appear to apply.

Other editors do not agree with this view and would dismiss the edits as “SPAM” without a further comment. In my opinion, a discussion is required; it may require escalation to ANI as a single-purpose editor case, but we are not at that stage yet.


Under normal circumstances I would decline the G11 tag and add citations to the Broadway World and Los Angles Times that I discovered via a quick Google News search. This just happened to be the first article I look at at CAT:CSD just now; experience has told me that biographies of women are far more likely to be incorrectly tagged for deletion than just about any other subject.

I got a “thanks for your feedback” pro-forma email from Arbcom and nothing else whatsoever. I don’t know what the problem is from their end, or even if they understand what the problem is at my end, which is simply - don’t tag new users’ articles for deletion with mild insults and don’t abuse the rollback tool. Since this view cuts right to the heart of my views as expressed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ritchie333, if Arbcom don’t want me doing it - then there is no point me editing here and I’ll get on with my family, kids, paid work and whatever else brings me happiness in life.

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC) > > Ritchie333, apologies for asking (sort of) an already discussed question but can you kindly clarify as to whether there were any other communication between you & ArbCom, on this locus? (I mean, something around this issue but outside of those diffs.)

Without any comments about the diffs and the merits, this is just awful. If it is indeed true that Ritchie and ArbCom had exchanged no more mails, some of the arbs were flatly lying. WBGconverse 17:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC) > > In fact, I would call the whole motion, which states there was “discussion” with Ritchie, patently false in light of this revelation. —/Mendaliv//Δ’s/ 17:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)