View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Nov 16, 2019 1:44 pm




Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Ritchie333's Administrator proteges 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4440
Reply with quote
I am continually amazed anyone on Wikipedia ever thought Rtichie was simply a competent admin, much less the best person to be running the rule over potential candidates.

This utter car crash, is just the latest in a long line of examples of the many countless incidents where Ritchie being a dumbass, a cowboy, or just plain retarded, causes the community, and blocked users, immense amounts of stress and confusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... th_closure

When are they going to ask themselves the question.....why did we ever trust this pillock with the tools?

Basic policy knowledge and the ability to admit your screw ups, are two basic qualities every Administrator needs. But Ritchie has always been much more of a special needs Administrator than that, this is yet another situation where he simply doubles down on his dumbassery even after he has been shown to be colouring outside the lines.

It isn't simply incompetence, he has always seemingly taken the view that the best way to see the change you want to see in how Wikipedia is administered, is to use your individual power as an Administrator to do things differently, confident it is a big step for any other Administrator to undo your actions, and a real pain in the ass for the community to do it. Others can write the RfCs and change the policies, or not due to the lack of support, as is the case in the changes Ritchie wants to see.

Sensible people would recognise this for what it is. Disruption. The use of privileges granted on trust they will be used wisely, to pursue a personal/political agenda. They block ordinary editors for that. Hopefully that makes it clear for everyone why Ritchie so values being an Administrator, and more worryingly why he was so eager to stuff the Admin ranks with like minded individuals, or as a second best option, people who would view him favourably should his actions ever be questioned.

Every one of his proteges should ask themselves, did Ritchie really select me for the good of Wikipedia? If they are even capable of that level of insight. Don't worry guys and girls, they can't enforce AGF on your brain waves! Search your feelings......

Ivanvector was only co-nominated by Ritchie, but he's right there in that car crash, trying to rationalise Ritchie's actions and dismiss the controversy as "moot", even though what he's saying about the situation directly contradicts Ritchie's interpretation of what his action means, making confusion or even dispute in future when it comes to interpreting it, inevitable. That's some gold standard loyalty there.

Ivan even signs off with...
Quote:
There's nothing left to do here, everyone should really just go back to writing an encyclopedia now.
Gee. Where have I heard that before? (any time a user lands at AN/I that Ritchie doesn't want sanctioned).

Ritchie knows how valuable his version of Operation Treadstone was. This was no training mission. As he is unlikely to shelve it permanently, for as long as he remains an Administrator, you I can expect him to be planning a reboot, in some form or another. This is a guy you do not want being given access to even more power in the cult, as he has been hinting he has designs on.


Fri Sep 07, 2018 7:46 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4440
Reply with quote
Like all good tantrums, it didn't last long.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... /Galobtter

Perhaps long enough for people to have forgotten about it.......

'fraid not Ritchie. :ugeek:


Fri Nov 30, 2018 11:24 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4440
Reply with quote
Not looking good, already bled out to 85%, and he has five and a half days torture left.

Ritchie sure has a talent. Not a very useful one, but he is very good at it.


Sat Dec 01, 2018 2:30 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4440
Reply with quote
Oh boy.
Quote:
Support. I'm displeased enough with the personal attacks in some of the opposes that it has moved me to support. If you're going to accuse someone of NPOV violations or being a bad-faith actor, you need serious proof. ~ Rob13Talk 02:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Think it through, dumbass. Think it through.

Is "broken" even a strong enough word to describe a process where this level of dumbassery goes completely unchallenged?

Why wouldn't you simply strike this vote, per WP:THINKBEFOREYOUVOTEDUMBASS?

Far too sensible for Wikipedia. Would cause too much dramah.

They need a check box, at the very least.
Quote:
My algorithm has detected this might be a dumb thing to say when deciding an issue of this importance. Are you sure you want to say it?

Yes/No (seriously, click no, you dumbass I got better things to do than this you know, this encyclopedia won't correct itself, at least not with you fucking geniuses building it)
Sassy little bot, right? :lol: Only the best for Wikipedia.


Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:23 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4440
Reply with quote
:lol:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =871655452


Sun Dec 02, 2018 6:52 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4440
Reply with quote
That time when you and your protege are embarrassingly not on the same page......
Quote:
Comment: Several people have said they are concerned he might become a POV pusher at political articles - and now some are even saying that he has “major POV issues” right now. Yet no one has produced any evidence to support that notion, except for one questionable redacting of part of someone else’s comment. Let me just say that for more than a year now I have observed him contributing to many of the most contentious political articles on Wikipedia. There are indeed some editors at those articles who edit from a particular point of view or show a political bias, and whose nomination for adminship I would oppose for that reason. But Galobtter is not one of them. If commenters here are assuming that everyone who edits at political articles must be enforcing a POV, that is simply not true. It's true there are some people at those articles whose political viewpoint affects their editing, but there are many others who have no particular opinion about American politics, or who are able to keep their editing neutral in spite of it. Many of the “regulars” are not even Americans, so they have no political bias to enforce. And some are simply there because they find it interesting, or because they want to make sure the article stays in line with Wikipedia policies. I strongly object to any assumption that everyone who edits at political articles must have some kind of disqualifying political agenda. Based on my extensive experience at American political articles over the last several years, that is simply not the case. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Quote:
Additional question from Shrike
16. In what WP:DSTOPICS do you consider yourself WP:INVOLVED or have strong POV?
A: Well, I certainly would not participate in WP:ARBAP2 arbitration enforcement as an uninvolved admin. American Politics is the main area where I do have strong opinions and have heavily edited, and for other areas, I wouldn't preemptively consider myself involved. Additionally, I know that being generally seen as uninvolved or not pushing a POV when acting as admin is important, especially in DS areas, and would evaluate involvement in specific disputes with that in mind. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


Sun Dec 02, 2018 7:45 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4440
Reply with quote
Galobtter eventually scraped through with 82%, but only with the help of being supported by people who weren't judging him for his suitability, but supporting him simply because they didn't like the opposers.

Ritchie maintains his record as a very poor picker of candidates, since this was yet another one that showed that even his successful nominations turn out to be hard work, and all for pretty obvious reasons that he could and should have identified - in this case their short tenure and questionable interests. Both fixable with another year of editing, and in more diverse fields.

They may well become one of Wikipedia's very best Administrators (it is a very low bar), as Ritchie claimed, but characteristically, it was Ritchie who came closest to ensuring that might never have happened. There were lots of ways this RfA could have gone south, but did not for reasons which Ritchie cannot claim credit for foreseeing, except perhaps their calmness. Albeit in this case, they were a little too calm, bordering on the arrogant aloofness of someone who is happy to focus on the level of support they got, not the level of opposition. If that was deliberate, that has Ritchie's coaching all over it.

As it is now, this Administrator, for a good few years at least, will be suspected of being a member of Team #Resist. He was nominated for adminship by a very proud member of Team #Resist, and he got a large amount of support simply because many who opposed him suspected he was going to be a member of Team #Resist.

He's made some kind of declaration that might suggest he won't use his admin tools in the area of US politics, but then again, when given the opportunity to clarify what he said, to make it explicit, since even his supporters couldn't quite be certain he had recused, he did not. That is a massive red flag. At the very least, it suggests he wasn't paying attention to his own RfA, or at worst, is further proof he just doesn't give a shit because this seems like a minority concern. A true Ritchie Admin.


Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:01 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4440
Reply with quote
Not strictly a Ritchie nominee, rather a self-nom, but they are heavily leaning on Ritchie as a role model, so he might as well be listed here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... hip/JJMC89

Basically a gnome who is trying that trick of nominating in the dead period between Christmas and New Year. He claims this is because he wants to be in control. Lacking a demonstrable need for the tools, he says he is putting himself forward simply because Wikipedia needs Administrators, and he rather likes the idea of having more shiny buttons.

Two clear signs of addiction are his huge edit total, albeit bot/script assisted, and the fact he also claims he is running his RfA now because he is off work. Yes, he is wasting his Christmas holidays on this shit, to ensure the best chance of being able to level up on Wikipedia. He started it on Christmas Day, and was even going to do it on Christmas Eve but got distracted by other things he says. The mind boggles.

It is a bold tactic. It may be working, since it does appear their desperation for any warm bodies has made them abandon their usual disquiet about such things. Ordinarily a self-nom gnome with no demonstrable need and questionable attitude over the whole master/servant relationship, should be attracting significant opposition already. But no longer, it seems.

A few supporters are being quite open about the fact they have not done their due diligence, either due to the holidays or just being prepared to trust other's judgement.

For the candidate's apparent wish to overlook even rank incivility when it comes from established editors because "context", or worse, because they are afraid of being seen as one of the "civility police" who "go after" violators for no other reason than they like it, he is barely getting a handful of opposers.

Desperate times for Wikipedia.

He's already come up here once as an example of what is wrong with Wikipedians who, like this guy, seem to have got a little too immersed in the Matrix......

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 889&p=6933

I now notice, albeit on a sample size of two, one manual and one bot, that their edit summaries leave a lot to be desired in terms of giving a full and complete explanation of what is being done.

Based on all that and a skim of the RfA, I find myself doubting they really have either the basic Admin skills (like good communication and bravery in the face of Vested Contributors) or the specific knowledge they will need to be effective in the areas they claim to have an interest in volunteering as an Administrator. And obviously, the grave mistake of seeing Ritchie as some kind of example, really does mean they lose the benefit of the doubt, and have to be seen as flawed in matters of basic judgement and general all round policy knowledge.

Sadly for Wikipedia, they are already at the point where there is virtually nobody left acting as experienced Administrators in certain areas, so there's nobody who can properly vet potential new recruits, especially during the holidays, and if they pass after an easy ride, there may even be nobody to set the fire alarms off when they turn up with their brand new Shiny Sheriff Badge and start doing really dumb things. Not just the normal level of dumb for Wikipedia Administrators, but stuff that would see them setting new lows in terms of basic stupidity.


Wed Dec 26, 2018 8:12 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4440
Reply with quote
For a guy who said he took time off to specifically run point on his RfA, he has mysteriously dissappeared, not editing since 7am this morning.

He has balls, I will give him that. You can see the tactics quite easily. He can see the majority either don't give a shit about his questionable attitude to civility, or are not minded to let it bother them too much, so why should he trip himself up by potentially compounding his earlier bad answer with another bad answer? He can just ignore it, and just slide into home base. Just what you want in an Administrator, another PLAYAAAHH.

He has five unanswered questions on the table, three of which concern his attitude to civility, plus plenty more registered concerns that he is supposedly meant to be taking on board. Are the Wikipedians so desperate they will happily ignore this red flag? You bet. The gullible fools are lining up to support him, he may even get away with never answering another question again.

And look at this dumb fuck......
Quote:
JJMC89 is quite likely the single most qualified person to go through RfA this whole year...... TonyBallioni (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
He even pinged him to let him know he had said that!

Talk about desperate. That came in a debate about yet another incident where the candidate failed to communicate effectively. A candidate who can speak plain English and stands up to bullies, is surely not too much to ask for, is it? I'm now thinking, with all these communication issues, their obvious addiction, and their unwillingness to actually write articles, I think we may have another autism case on our hands.

It's kind of sad how they don't see it. There are people genuinely calling this guy an excellent candidate. What a bunch of losers.


Thu Dec 27, 2018 3:47 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4440
Reply with quote
Quote:
To be fair, even if you do celebrate Christmas, you may well have more free time while having an extended break than when you are at work all day and maybe helping children with homework in the evening.
It covers all humans (that celebrate Christmas, be that Jesus Christmas or Santa Christmas), but people who have kids young enough to need help with their homework are at the very top of my list of "who would not be thinking about Wikipedia at all on Christmas Day".

Anyway, this dude obviously doesn't have kids. You can't make 160,000 edits in three years and have kids. I mean, you can, but you are a very bad parent. Much like Drmies, his kid being as neglected as his wife, as he spends his nights chasing tail on Wikipedia.


Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:09 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.