Ritchie333
Re: Ritchie333
He has at least clarified he's not going to be going around giving it to every newbie. And yet when you read his explanation for why he wants this user right, that is exactly what people should be fearing he will do. These people are proper stupid. If there is anyone on Wikipedia who you can't trust not to take a mile when offered an inch, it is this fucker. MusikAnimal is absolutely wasting his time. Both in talking to Ritchie, and as a Wikipedia editor in general.
Re: Ritchie333
Right on cue, an example of Ritchie not have the first fucking clue what he is doing with advanced tools and permissions (as if there weren't examples on a daily basis).....
"I have Extended confirmed protected Incel for one month."
Cue two of his fellow Administrators being bemused and confused.
Realising he has no idea what is going on (he literally says "I have to confess I am rather confused about what we are talking about on this thread.") he lifts his protection. Meaning it actually lasted for a mere 62 minutes.
As well as his own words and other people's reactions, a good idea he had no clue what was going on is that the user Ritchie thought he was protecting the article from has made 482 edits in 154 days, meaning he only needed to make 18 more edits to get around Ritchie's protection. By the looks of it, he would have done that by this time tomorrow.
The guy is an absolute moron.
"I have Extended confirmed protected Incel for one month."
Cue two of his fellow Administrators being bemused and confused.
Realising he has no idea what is going on (he literally says "I have to confess I am rather confused about what we are talking about on this thread.") he lifts his protection. Meaning it actually lasted for a mere 62 minutes.
As well as his own words and other people's reactions, a good idea he had no clue what was going on is that the user Ritchie thought he was protecting the article from has made 482 edits in 154 days, meaning he only needed to make 18 more edits to get around Ritchie's protection. By the looks of it, he would have done that by this time tomorrow.
The guy is an absolute moron.
Re: Ritchie333
Ritchie, you sad fucker, you are the Gene Hunt of Wikipedia Administrators. A total cowboy, opinionated, pig headed, deaf to criticism, addicted to trying to use humour to justify oneself while not seeing it merely adds to the odious image you project. Hilarious that you just don't see it. But if you did, you would not be the Gene Hunt of Wikipedia. They gave him that surname for a reason, you did know that, right?I'm a bit impartial to Life on Mars myself, although I don't think we should pick Gene Hunt as a role model for admins. "I wanna unblock request!" "I wanna hump Britt Ekland, what we gonna do?" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
This cluelessly un self-aware reference to pop culture serves as a useful way to date the culture of Wikipedia, given Ritchie is an embedded and immovable part of it. Mid-1980s. Just about learning what is and is not offensive/exclusionary, but progress in doing something about it being massively hampered by the majority male white middle aged assholes who make up both the community, and in particular the positions of power. Chief example? Ritchie.
Sad fucker probably aspires to owning an 80 Audi Quattro too.
Re: Ritchie333
Dumbass.
Possibly the dumbest Administrator privilege disqualifying thing he has ever said, which is an achievement, because it is a fucking long list.
Literally not one clue what IAR is for. Not one clue.As you might expect, I don't agree with the block, or at least endorse Wumbolo's comments above that it should be reduced to "time served". However I think I am WP:INVOLVED given that a) I blocked the other party in the dispute indefinitely, b) I was asked to investigate this issue by MaranoFan in the first place c) I have a vested interest in unblocking MaranoFan as I said I would like to GA review Meghan Trainor for her (I'm not a particular fan of hers at all, but I know lots of people are, so it's a worthwhile improvement to the encyclopedia) and d) I was canvassed here on my talk page. Hopefully, an administrator will spot this at CAT:UNBLOCK and do the necessary paperwork; if nobody has unblocked by this evening I'm mindful to call WP:IAR and do it myself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Possibly the dumbest Administrator privilege disqualifying thing he has ever said, which is an achievement, because it is a fucking long list.
Re: Ritchie333
Oh gee, wouldn't you just know it, Ritchie thinks he has the moral authority to block others for not understanding image copyright....
Isn't that just Wikipedia governance all over? Do as I say, not as I do.Hi, I'm sorry but I've had to disable editing access until you can explain why you have uploaded so many images that were subsequently marked with copyright issues. You can reply on this page with your reasoning. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Re: Ritchie333
Dumbass. With yet more Trump, because why the hell not? Screw WP:NOTYOURBLOGDICKHEAD.
He's either stupid or drunk. And of course, he could be both.
Let's all pause for a moment and consider that Ritchie genuinely thought this was a good argument for not clamping down on gratuitous use of the c-word on Wikipedia.Relating to the opening thread of this discussion, I saw this comment this evening, where Tony Robinson called Donald Trump a cunt, and there seem to be plenty of women supporting him, including one saying "Not a c*** as he is neither deep enough or warm enough. What he is is a strong and potent case for celibacy!!" I'm all for improved civility here, but bashing people over the head for "bad words" just does not work. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Ritchie333, a discussion about laddishness isn't helped by posting more of it. SarahSV (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
He's either stupid or drunk. And of course, he could be both.
-
Dysklyver
- Sucks Critic
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Ritchie333
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:Ritchie333_doubling_down_on_personal_attacks
The IRC cabal (Huon and Prax are both very busy in -help) are having a go at Ritchie on WP:AN.
The IRC cabal (Huon and Prax are both very busy in -help) are having a go at Ritchie on WP:AN.
Re: Ritchie333
Ritchie refuses to countenance blocking The Rambling Man, pontificating that you merely have to email him quietly to resolve issues to your satisfaction.
At the very same time, Ritchie happily blocks Jim1138 on the basis that he fully expected it to be lifted in ten minutes once the user admitted he had simply got carried (which sounds suspicious like a prohibited 'cool down' block).
So, why the differential approach to blocking? The fact one is a content creator, the other a vandal patroller, really does fit Ritchie's philosophy to a tee.
The blocked editor, has of course retired. TRM, is of course, still a stain on Wikipedia.
Notably, Winged Blades of Gothric was involved in both situations, prompting Ritchie to block the patroller, but telling people the report against TRM was a waste of time.
At the very same time, Ritchie happily blocks Jim1138 on the basis that he fully expected it to be lifted in ten minutes once the user admitted he had simply got carried (which sounds suspicious like a prohibited 'cool down' block).
So, why the differential approach to blocking? The fact one is a content creator, the other a vandal patroller, really does fit Ritchie's philosophy to a tee.
The blocked editor, has of course retired. TRM, is of course, still a stain on Wikipedia.
Notably, Winged Blades of Gothric was involved in both situations, prompting Ritchie to block the patroller, but telling people the report against TRM was a waste of time.
Re: Ritchie333
A certain gender traitor seems to think there is hashtag potential in pursuing Ritchie.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... Butting_in
This followed another prominent woman of the wiki also having a pop (note the edit summary).....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =869845184
I guess I should be flattered that the quality of my criticism is so good, my analysis so relevant and on point, that my enemies are now using it to attack each other.
All I ask is for credit where it is due, ladies. I know how you Wikipedians can get a little sloppy with your attributions. This shit 'ain't free, not to you anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... Butting_in
This followed another prominent woman of the wiki also having a pop (note the edit summary).....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =869845184
I guess I should be flattered that the quality of my criticism is so good, my analysis so relevant and on point, that my enemies are now using it to attack each other.
All I ask is for credit where it is due, ladies. I know how you Wikipedians can get a little sloppy with your attributions. This shit 'ain't free, not to you anyway.