Ritchie333's Administrator proteges
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:23 am
The figures show, Wikipedia is still losing Administrators at a far higher rate than it is promoting them.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFA_by_month
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... s_by_month
They're at -34 already for the year.
So it was good then, that a while back Ritchie333 took it upon himself to lead the way in identify new candidates and guiding them through the process as their nominator. Regular readers of his dedicated thread here will know what a joke he is, barely fit to be an editor let alone an Administrator. And it cannot really be in any doubt that he has his own selfish reasons for nominating the people he does, being keen to promote the idea that civility is less important than content creation, and evident dedication to Wikipedia's mission is more important than actual evidence of competence in the critical skills needed in an Admin, namey temperament and judgement. Not that he wants it to be too obvious, loudly proclaiming those rare times when he deviates from the master plan of stuffing the admin ranks with Ritchie-likes. Dumb and dumberer.
With another of his nominations, Philaphrenzy, heading for a fail, I have decided, as a sort of consumer protection / buyer beware service for the Wikipedians, nominated editors and voters alike, and as much as for our own amusement, to do a proper assessment of Ritchie's actual record of success when it comes to picking good Administrator candidates. It is based both on whether they actually pass, and whether they do useful work if they do.
As you will see, I think it is fair to say that Ritchie is at best, on the simple pass/fail numbers alone, only picking a winner 3 out of 4 times. Given RfA is such a horrible experience, you would hope he could do better for his clients than that. However, on a more sensible reading of outcomes, namely what is best for Wikipedia (competent Administrators who will contribute to their fair share of the workload) it can be argued his true success rate is as low as 31.25%
I stress that these are not thorough reviews, and where specific incidents are not mentioned, you should not assume I have looked into what they are doing, just where and how often. It may also not be a comprehensive list, since I know of no other method of finding his nominations except posting all the RfA pages he created himself. It didn't catch Jbhunley, I just remembered it as a recent case. I haven't included co-noms for lack of a way of finding them, and the fact that they probably involve less scrutiny.
Fails
Nominating Yash! was a real fuck up. Ritchie failed to spot his dodgy past, and so a week was wasted as he was slowly pulled apart, before withdrawing. It cannot have been a nice experience, and most likely explains why just eight months later, he decided to vanish. So, if Ritchie's glowing assessment of his contributions was truthful, that's quite a blow for Wikipedia.
Jbhunley was an epic fail. Ritchie really needs glasses if he couldn't spot what traps lay in wait for this guy, or how he would react to them. Being guided through the process by Ritchie proved such a trauma for this guy, he has said he never intends on doing it again.
Trying to get Headbomb made an admin at the fourth time of asking, that was just dumb. On the bright side, Ritchie letting him ride that bomb all the way into the ground, has probably ensured he will never try again.
For someone who claims some kind of special expertise in speedy deletion, the collapse of his nomination of CaroleHenson after just a day, when it became patently clear this user, who wanted to work in speedy deletion, wasn't remotely up to that job as yet, really has to be laid squarely at Ritchie's feet. The fact they have not put themselves up again, despite that failure being 15 months in the past now, suggests there was more to this user failing to make the grade than just lack of experience. She had after all, been an editor for six years before Ritchie came a calling.
Thanks, but no thanks
Now to Lourdes. She passed, and lasted as an Admin for a whole day. Now, it might seem unfair, given the circumstances, to put that on Ritchie. But having only looked into her briefly because of that RfA, I called it here at the time, that she was obviously pretty nuts, something that should have been obvious in the sort of thorough review a nominator should do for any candidate, but especially one who had already failed once. So I am taking it.
Nominating Ealdgyth was definitely a mistake, although given Ritchie's philosophy, he'll surely disagree. This woman made it clear she had no need or desire to be an Administrator, except to be able to more forcefully put her opinion across that not all editors are equal, and civility is less important than content creation. And with just 16 logged admin actions, but plenty of her friends benefiting from her opinion as an Administrator over whether they deserve a block or not, we can say she has stayed true to her word. It seems like a high price to pay for allowing Ritchie to set off what was essentially just a coronation, a fucked up exercise in rewarding someone for article edits.
It also appears putting Megalibrarygirl in the frame was an exercise in drama we could have all been spared. As with Eaglyth, it appears this was merely about giving a woman a pat on the back for all her hard work. Ritchie is lucky that the huge amount of questions and the distasteful tone of the opposes didn't do any harm. Partly because the community rallied round to do what was being asked of it, perform another coronation. Yet they were clearly sold a pup. Ritchie promised a candidate who would be a real asset in the area of undeletion, and yet she has only logged ten such actions, or one for every month she has had the power. Having also logged 225 deletions in that time might have indicated some usefulness for the project, but alas, ironically, it appears these are just her doing non-controversial housework. There's certainly no sign of her doing the heavy lifting she herself promised. It's all very ironically gender typical, especially if her reluctance to do more is down to a fear she is too inexperienced.
Dodger67 seems a disappointment. We were promised by Ritchie that he wanted to get his teeth into assorted deletion backlogs, yet just 329 deletions in eighteen months is barely a gnat bite. Nearly 5,000 moves might indicate he is doing something useful in draft space as promised, but with his identified temperament issues, you hope it's not just throwing newbies work into the trash. His overall activity has massively dropped this year, so perhaps he is feeling the strain that any basically unsuitable candidate would.
To be fair, Ritchie didn't promise a lot from his nomination of Schwede66, so I guess we cannot be too surprised that it hasn't seemingly brought Wikipedia a lot. About the best thing you can say about their meagre productivity as an admin, is that he is at least a generalist, logging actions across the board, blocks, protections, deletions, rights, etc. He is unheard of at the usual Administrator noticeboards, so we can only presume this admin work is all being done, as promised, simply as part of his main interest, wiki-scribbling about New Zealand. To be honest, I think perhaps the workload here was not such that it really needed a seven day mass examination of his record. And at worst, it might mean he is now out there OWNing the shit out of that little backwater area of the encyclopedia. It's not like any of them check up on each other, is it. No IAD on Wikipedia. Ritchie did promise they would become more active in DYK, yet there is no sign in the logs that he does any heavy lifting there.
Nominating Primefac was definitely a mistake. For someone who was only promoted in January 2017, it is distinctly alarming to see him having already racked up tens of thousands of deletions and protections, and 600+ blocks. All you need know about the disaster potential of such an admin, is that Primefac was one of the three geniuses who signed off on the legitimacy of the Daily Mail ban discussion. If he applies the same level of intellectual rigour in all these other actions, then he is definitely a net negative, even if these Admin actions are restricted to just template space, as suggested. Ritchie is unlikely to care though, since to him, anyone who hates the Mail with a passion and does something to fuck them over, is alright in his book.
The brain dead drone that is 331dot also has to be filed as a failure. Wikipedia really doesn't need any more Administrators of this sort of calibre, especially not when they prove to be quite active. I've written about him here before, his latest embarrassment being his intervention in the Peter Hitchins affair. Ritchie described him as "good, solid, dependable", but when you realise that's probably how both of those idiots think of themselves in the role, is it any surprise it becomes a case of the blind nominating the blind.
Success stories
Five months may be too early to judge CordlessLarry, but based on what he has done so far, it is clear that unlike some of Ritchie's other candidates, he has every intention of pulling his weight as an Administrator. So we can call that a tentative win.
On simply the numbers of logged actions, I guess we can call Ritchie's prodding of Anarchyte to run again as win for Wikipedia. His general absence from AN/I for a guy with that many logged blocks, and a willingness to indulge The Rambling Man in his sad little side project, should be cause for concern however.
Similarly, GeneralizationsAreBad is probably a win for Ritchie, the logged actions being consistent with their promise to work in SPI and other general admin areas. Although these days, is it really a good thing that a former SPI clerk dives right in to blocking socks left right and centre, and doesn't blow the whistle on the corruption of the likes of Bbb23, who is the person this editor talks to the most. Ritchie was recently mooting standing as a CU so as to watch the watchers. That could get awkward.
Joe Roe goes into the success pile, simply by virtue of being a reasonably proficient AfD closer, as was his indicated areas of interest, processing around a hundred a month. The lack of noise suggests he knows what he's doing, the caveat being nobody on Wikipedia really does.
We can chalk up Jo-Jo Eumerus as a win for Ritchie. He wanted to help out at the chronically understaffed file deletion areas, and with nearly 20,000 deletions in just over two years, and high edit counts to related noticeboards, he seems to be pulling his weight. Whether he is any good, or whether it is enough, we can only speculate. What we certainly do know from one hilarious recent incident, is that if file copyright was left to the likes of Ritchie to sort out, Wikipedia would be screwed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFA_by_month
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... s_by_month
They're at -34 already for the year.
So it was good then, that a while back Ritchie333 took it upon himself to lead the way in identify new candidates and guiding them through the process as their nominator. Regular readers of his dedicated thread here will know what a joke he is, barely fit to be an editor let alone an Administrator. And it cannot really be in any doubt that he has his own selfish reasons for nominating the people he does, being keen to promote the idea that civility is less important than content creation, and evident dedication to Wikipedia's mission is more important than actual evidence of competence in the critical skills needed in an Admin, namey temperament and judgement. Not that he wants it to be too obvious, loudly proclaiming those rare times when he deviates from the master plan of stuffing the admin ranks with Ritchie-likes. Dumb and dumberer.
With another of his nominations, Philaphrenzy, heading for a fail, I have decided, as a sort of consumer protection / buyer beware service for the Wikipedians, nominated editors and voters alike, and as much as for our own amusement, to do a proper assessment of Ritchie's actual record of success when it comes to picking good Administrator candidates. It is based both on whether they actually pass, and whether they do useful work if they do.
As you will see, I think it is fair to say that Ritchie is at best, on the simple pass/fail numbers alone, only picking a winner 3 out of 4 times. Given RfA is such a horrible experience, you would hope he could do better for his clients than that. However, on a more sensible reading of outcomes, namely what is best for Wikipedia (competent Administrators who will contribute to their fair share of the workload) it can be argued his true success rate is as low as 31.25%
I stress that these are not thorough reviews, and where specific incidents are not mentioned, you should not assume I have looked into what they are doing, just where and how often. It may also not be a comprehensive list, since I know of no other method of finding his nominations except posting all the RfA pages he created himself. It didn't catch Jbhunley, I just remembered it as a recent case. I haven't included co-noms for lack of a way of finding them, and the fact that they probably involve less scrutiny.
Fails
Nominating Yash! was a real fuck up. Ritchie failed to spot his dodgy past, and so a week was wasted as he was slowly pulled apart, before withdrawing. It cannot have been a nice experience, and most likely explains why just eight months later, he decided to vanish. So, if Ritchie's glowing assessment of his contributions was truthful, that's quite a blow for Wikipedia.
Jbhunley was an epic fail. Ritchie really needs glasses if he couldn't spot what traps lay in wait for this guy, or how he would react to them. Being guided through the process by Ritchie proved such a trauma for this guy, he has said he never intends on doing it again.
Trying to get Headbomb made an admin at the fourth time of asking, that was just dumb. On the bright side, Ritchie letting him ride that bomb all the way into the ground, has probably ensured he will never try again.
For someone who claims some kind of special expertise in speedy deletion, the collapse of his nomination of CaroleHenson after just a day, when it became patently clear this user, who wanted to work in speedy deletion, wasn't remotely up to that job as yet, really has to be laid squarely at Ritchie's feet. The fact they have not put themselves up again, despite that failure being 15 months in the past now, suggests there was more to this user failing to make the grade than just lack of experience. She had after all, been an editor for six years before Ritchie came a calling.
Thanks, but no thanks
Now to Lourdes. She passed, and lasted as an Admin for a whole day. Now, it might seem unfair, given the circumstances, to put that on Ritchie. But having only looked into her briefly because of that RfA, I called it here at the time, that she was obviously pretty nuts, something that should have been obvious in the sort of thorough review a nominator should do for any candidate, but especially one who had already failed once. So I am taking it.
Nominating Ealdgyth was definitely a mistake, although given Ritchie's philosophy, he'll surely disagree. This woman made it clear she had no need or desire to be an Administrator, except to be able to more forcefully put her opinion across that not all editors are equal, and civility is less important than content creation. And with just 16 logged admin actions, but plenty of her friends benefiting from her opinion as an Administrator over whether they deserve a block or not, we can say she has stayed true to her word. It seems like a high price to pay for allowing Ritchie to set off what was essentially just a coronation, a fucked up exercise in rewarding someone for article edits.
It also appears putting Megalibrarygirl in the frame was an exercise in drama we could have all been spared. As with Eaglyth, it appears this was merely about giving a woman a pat on the back for all her hard work. Ritchie is lucky that the huge amount of questions and the distasteful tone of the opposes didn't do any harm. Partly because the community rallied round to do what was being asked of it, perform another coronation. Yet they were clearly sold a pup. Ritchie promised a candidate who would be a real asset in the area of undeletion, and yet she has only logged ten such actions, or one for every month she has had the power. Having also logged 225 deletions in that time might have indicated some usefulness for the project, but alas, ironically, it appears these are just her doing non-controversial housework. There's certainly no sign of her doing the heavy lifting she herself promised. It's all very ironically gender typical, especially if her reluctance to do more is down to a fear she is too inexperienced.
Dodger67 seems a disappointment. We were promised by Ritchie that he wanted to get his teeth into assorted deletion backlogs, yet just 329 deletions in eighteen months is barely a gnat bite. Nearly 5,000 moves might indicate he is doing something useful in draft space as promised, but with his identified temperament issues, you hope it's not just throwing newbies work into the trash. His overall activity has massively dropped this year, so perhaps he is feeling the strain that any basically unsuitable candidate would.
To be fair, Ritchie didn't promise a lot from his nomination of Schwede66, so I guess we cannot be too surprised that it hasn't seemingly brought Wikipedia a lot. About the best thing you can say about their meagre productivity as an admin, is that he is at least a generalist, logging actions across the board, blocks, protections, deletions, rights, etc. He is unheard of at the usual Administrator noticeboards, so we can only presume this admin work is all being done, as promised, simply as part of his main interest, wiki-scribbling about New Zealand. To be honest, I think perhaps the workload here was not such that it really needed a seven day mass examination of his record. And at worst, it might mean he is now out there OWNing the shit out of that little backwater area of the encyclopedia. It's not like any of them check up on each other, is it. No IAD on Wikipedia. Ritchie did promise they would become more active in DYK, yet there is no sign in the logs that he does any heavy lifting there.
Nominating Primefac was definitely a mistake. For someone who was only promoted in January 2017, it is distinctly alarming to see him having already racked up tens of thousands of deletions and protections, and 600+ blocks. All you need know about the disaster potential of such an admin, is that Primefac was one of the three geniuses who signed off on the legitimacy of the Daily Mail ban discussion. If he applies the same level of intellectual rigour in all these other actions, then he is definitely a net negative, even if these Admin actions are restricted to just template space, as suggested. Ritchie is unlikely to care though, since to him, anyone who hates the Mail with a passion and does something to fuck them over, is alright in his book.
The brain dead drone that is 331dot also has to be filed as a failure. Wikipedia really doesn't need any more Administrators of this sort of calibre, especially not when they prove to be quite active. I've written about him here before, his latest embarrassment being his intervention in the Peter Hitchins affair. Ritchie described him as "good, solid, dependable", but when you realise that's probably how both of those idiots think of themselves in the role, is it any surprise it becomes a case of the blind nominating the blind.
Success stories
Five months may be too early to judge CordlessLarry, but based on what he has done so far, it is clear that unlike some of Ritchie's other candidates, he has every intention of pulling his weight as an Administrator. So we can call that a tentative win.
On simply the numbers of logged actions, I guess we can call Ritchie's prodding of Anarchyte to run again as win for Wikipedia. His general absence from AN/I for a guy with that many logged blocks, and a willingness to indulge The Rambling Man in his sad little side project, should be cause for concern however.
Similarly, GeneralizationsAreBad is probably a win for Ritchie, the logged actions being consistent with their promise to work in SPI and other general admin areas. Although these days, is it really a good thing that a former SPI clerk dives right in to blocking socks left right and centre, and doesn't blow the whistle on the corruption of the likes of Bbb23, who is the person this editor talks to the most. Ritchie was recently mooting standing as a CU so as to watch the watchers. That could get awkward.
Joe Roe goes into the success pile, simply by virtue of being a reasonably proficient AfD closer, as was his indicated areas of interest, processing around a hundred a month. The lack of noise suggests he knows what he's doing, the caveat being nobody on Wikipedia really does.
We can chalk up Jo-Jo Eumerus as a win for Ritchie. He wanted to help out at the chronically understaffed file deletion areas, and with nearly 20,000 deletions in just over two years, and high edit counts to related noticeboards, he seems to be pulling his weight. Whether he is any good, or whether it is enough, we can only speculate. What we certainly do know from one hilarious recent incident, is that if file copyright was left to the likes of Ritchie to sort out, Wikipedia would be screwed.