Page 3 of 3

Re: Ritchie333's Administrator proteges

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:56 am
by CrowsNest
On wow. He did finally choose to answer the questions, but in a most contemptuous way. Very short, very dismissive. Rather than use the time to give proper answers, rather than fully acknowledge other's views and concerns (which is, ironically, what WP:CIVIL requires), he has spent the time he had available for this task on the usual grinding, mashing away at Wikipedia from 2am to 5.30am, then 7.30am to 9.30am. Obviously (hopefully) he is not in a European or Eastern US timezone.

This is a clear red flag that he has serious issues with autism or addiction, a distorted perception of what Wikipedia is for and what role the other carbon units have to play (Wikipedia doesn't exist to satisfy his need to grind, the other people are not irrelevances he can just ignore it he wants to, or if he otherwise finds it difficult to understand what drives them).

He is sticking by this idea that hypothetical questions are inadmissible. The inability to cope with a hypothetical, which requires certain mental visualisations and a level of empathy, of course being a trait of autism. Where he did answer in a detailed fashion (Q23), he did so with a cookie cutter explanation of what civility is, something that is easy for a person with such issues to do. But all that does is highlight the fact these considerations were apparently not in his mind when he answered Q5, and the follow-up Q21, which was placed to give him a chance to reflect on his answer to a specific, albeit hypothetical, situation, where he is supposed to put that cookie cutter text into practice.

His failures here merely feeds the suspicion that he is either not suited to Adminship for basic competence reasons, or he doesn't really think civility is a co-equal pillar. That even after promoting to help him see what the problem might be, he perhaps still thinks of those who enforce it as "going after" the good guys, who are only ever justifiably rude and can always be forgiven because "context". Which give more alarming similarities here with how someone with certain difficulties would view the world around them, this confusing and chaotic world.

If there is no deeper underlying issue which would simply make him incapable, if he is going to be making choices with the full and proper understanding of the world around him, then the very idea he is going to be the guy who makes sure people like Iridescent ever apologises or refrains from escalation, is laughable. He is going to be the guy who tells the victims of people like Iridescent, that they are meant to forgive him and turn the other cheek.

These are all massive red flags, clear signs that he is going to make bad decisions and further the erosion of civility, yet the majority still doesn't really give a fuck. Or they just don't see it.

Hard to choose which, without any hard data about just how many Wikipedians suffer from the sort of conditions and impairments I'm talking about. This isn't a situation where, if you have it, you can see it in others. It is a situation where they will see him as normal, and be totally confused (or even angry) that others do not. Where they all say things like this.....
More level headed than some admins. Not impressed by the opposes based on stupid Q5. We need more admins. Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The "stupid" question 5 was of course not placed by someone who cares about civility, carefully designed to catch the candidate out. It was placed by Ritchie, it was Ritchie's attempt to give this candidate a chance to show he has the sort of "clue" Ritchie likes, the willingness to downplay concerns over civility in a situation where treating it as a co-equal pillar threatens the interests of the established assholes of Wikipedia. That he passed this too successfully, by utterly failing to say he would addressing the rank incivility or personal attacks at all, was of course not what Ritchie was hoping for. It was, however, a good reminder of why Ritchie is such a problem for Wikipedia, why anyone he mentors or looks up to him, is similarly, going to be a problem.

Re: Ritchie333's Administrator proteges

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:31 am
by CrowsNest
Look what's crawling out of the woodwork to support now.......
Support per answer to Q16 (which as of this post is blank; see WP:BAIT, a fine skill for a prospective admin in this era of Wikipedia). To those opposing based on Q5: you should have a read of WP:AGF and WP:BRICKS, and probably WP:DTTR. If several experienced editors are climbing over themselves to revert what they think is a troll, they probably know what they're on about, even if they're being assholes about it. And if any of you think tinkering with infoboxes is a minor uncontroversial edit, you haven't been around long enough (see WP:ARBINFOBOX and WP:ARBINFOBOX2). An admin going in swinging a blockhammer isn't going to help things. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Working backwards, let's see. Infoboxes has been relatively quiet of late. Why? Because finally people stopped pussyfooting around the small band of users who not only oppose them, but are prepared to go to extraordinarily lengths to disrupt and poison every single proposal to add them, and started making threats to block. That was all it took for those cowards to run away from Wikipedia, and finally that dumb issue stopped consuming inordinate amounts of time. So any Administrator candidate whose policy towards those cowards is more pussyfooting around, that's bad for Wikipedia.

Second, unless you are a complete moron, then by definition, any editors who are being assholes over any issue, but especially something as lame as infoboxes, they really don't have the first clue what they're doing. I would not be in the least bit surprised to learn every single trolling edit ever made over an infobox, which is a really niche battleground that ordinary trolls likely know nothing about, is made by someone who remembers being treated like shit by one of these assholes, and has merely come back to make their lives a misery. It's called revenge, and the Wikipediots always seem to forget that is a real thing, a powerful driver. Obviously, any Administrator who doesn't appreciate that entirely foreseeable consequence of assholery, who totally ignores the idiocy of those who can't control their assholery when faced with a troll, is obviously going to be bad for Wikipedia.

Lastly, supporting a candidate because they refused to answer a question seeking to know why they picked their username, is just fucking dumb. This moron obviously has no idea why the candidate has refused to answer it, and it really is kind of sad that he takes the absence of evidence, as evidence of clue.

Sheer desperation.

Oh, and Ivanvector is an Administrator too. Stupid breeding stupid. That could literally be the Wikipedia motto. Every year, the gene pool gets that little bit shallower.

Re: Ritchie333's Administrator proteges

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:50 am
by CrowsNest
He's definitely got some kind of communication impairment. Or is a seriously sneaky game player.

He is currently making edits that show he has changed his approach to a specific image clean-up task as a result of feedback from one of the opposes. But he has not said anything about this in his RfA. So I am left wondering. Is he incapable of figuring out how to go about that communication? Or does he simply assume he doesn't need to, that everyone will simply notice and credit him with good adjustment? Does he perhaps fear saying the wrong thing, and damaging his chances? Has he perhaps calculated that because it wasn't an apparent deal breaker, that it only concerns a handful of users, therefore simply quietly showing it is no longer an issue will be a low risk medium reward way to handle it.

Whatever the specific reason, what matters is there are no good reasons why he would not announce he has changed his approach due to feedback from the oppose. It's not like he won't have seen it and this is just some coincidence either.

I guess this could be what he means when he says he is a "no fuss" kind of guy. In which case, dude, you're doing it wrong. No fuss means not wasting electrons pointlessly. It doesn't mean leave people wondering what the fuck is going on in your head, or wait until someone explicitly says, 'hey dumbass, what's up with that shit?'.

And if he lacks the capacity to realise in the circumstances that at least some people might be wondering and be expecting an explanation, then thanks but no thanks is the only logical response to his request to be an Administrator. Knowing when to explain yourself, before it is even requested (and it already had been, in a roundabout way), is one of those skills that is, or rather should be, what these people mean when they talk about "clue".

I fear the commenters think it means something far simpler. They seem to think clue is about not aggravating Iridescent when he is being an asshole, or similar. That is arguably a wise course of action, for reasons of wikipolitics, but for its inherent cowardice and lack of respect for the civility policy, it cannot be called clue.

Re: Ritchie333's Administrator proteges

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:45 pm
by CrowsNest
In case anyone is confused as to the tactical advantages of filing your RfA when footfall is likely to be lower, the attendance figures (counting supports, opposes and neutrals) for the last six RfAs ranged from 214 to 292, the average being 248. Of those last six RfAs, there were four passes and two failures, and the three least attended RfAs were the ones which passed easily (97-99%). The other three ended in the range 64-82%, and the average attendance for those three, was 267.

It looks like this RfA is going to totally buck that trend. It is not going to pass easily, he will be lucky to break 85%, but he is likely going to see an eventual level of attendance that you would normally see in a walkover based on recent trends, not a relatively disputed nomination. He may not even surpass that low of 214. The only explanation for that oddity, would be the time of nomination.

Is he smart enough to have appreciated the tactical advantage to that level of detail? Well, he's clearly more a fan of coding than using his words (he is still choosing to basically ignore registered concerns unless they are asked as a question), so what do you think?

Re: Ritchie333's Administrator proteges

Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:06 pm
by CrowsNest
Dropped to 83%, still with a day to go. If all the neutrals switched to oppose, which they should because he clearly isn't interested in (or capable of) persuading them, he would be down to 77%. If he hadn't run in the holidays, he would have obviously finished in the crat zone, and with so many supporters only supporting with reservations, and so little effort from him to persuade any of his detractors, he would not have passed.

I think this comment sums up the situation.....
we're in danger of exacerbating our admin shortage by rejecting candidates that are good but not perfect.
......said by a supporter who clearly can't tell what a good Admin even looks like (understandable, given the general calmness of the cadre as a whole)

This is how desperate they are for just about any fool to be an Administrator, just to stop the rot. He will pass not in spite of, but because, he has shown contempt for the process and the community. If it wasn't done deliberately, it has gone down like this because he isn't fit for the role.

It requires good judgement and respect for community, remember.......


Ah, who am I kidding. These fuckers can hardly read.

Re: Ritchie333's Administrator proteges

Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:23 pm
by CrowsNest
At least this farce produced this gem.....
Support seems to be intelligent and thoughtful. Perhaps not the best at producing politically palatable responses to convoluted hypotheticals, but last I checked that wasn't a skill often called upon around here. In any event, I don't see much wrong with the much-maligned Q5 other than the implication that a 2.5-year-old RfC must still be so relevant that someone should be warned for not obeying it, and Q21 is perfectly reasonable as a response to an out-of-context hypothetical. Opabinia regalis (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
That's a Wikipedia Arbitrator well known for being crap at her role (she is very likely singularly responsible for how the Rambling Man farce ended so inconclusively), calling an Admin candidate who can't handle speaking about hyootheticals, "intelligent and thoughtful".

Here's a hypothetical. The Rambling Man comes back, and this dude unblocks him. Or blocks him. Or chooses not to block him when he should have. Will that be a drama free day at the office? Will that be an episode where sound judgement and clear communication is evident on all sides?

Not even the current crop of Administrators can exercise good judgement and communicate effectively when it comes to dealing with the Rambling Dickhead. He basically rules the roost because they are so weak and ineffective, so easily divided and conquered because they've been passed through an RfA system which reinforces this idea civility is largely unimportant, and virtually anything can be excused because of context. Chuck in people like this, who thinks context is king but has a very odd grasp of the subtleties of human communication, and why wouldn't it get worse?

Because he has said he has taken on the feedback and has promised he would stay away from such complex issues? Um, for the slow readers, no he hasn't, and even if he had, it is unenforceable. Adminship is package deal. There is no probationary period, and no defined work areas. You get it all, and you get it immediately.

I am of course wasting my breath raising these issues, but these things need recording, for the benefit of future historians wanting to understand the decline and fall of this sad little cult. The blind leading the blind, the stupid encouraging more stupid. Simple as that.

Re: Ritchie333's Administrator proteges

Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2019 2:02 pm
by CrowsNest
Only 238 voters so far, with just four hours to go. The predicted low turnout has occurred, and with opposers still steadily arriving (up to 42 now), that low turnout has been enough to ensure there hasn't been a tipping point, nor will there be enough time for his drag effect to work its magic naturally. There's always been enough people willing to support with reservations, to push him over the line.

If they weren't absolutely desperate to shore up the ranks, would he have even stood a chance?

Whether through dumb luck or calculated cunning, his strategy looks to have worked. Even if every neutral switched to oppose right now, he would still be at 76%, scraping in just above the window where it would be sent to the 'crats for a more sensible assessment of his suitability, of whether there is genuine community support of his candidacy, on its merits.

It is probably a good thing he likely has some kind of personality defect which hampers his ability to read others, since it means he probably doesn't feel the shame or embarrassment of accepting this role when so many people don't really think you are up to it. Not only do 42 people not think he is right for the role, there are 15 neutrals, and the people only supporting with reservations are now the norm (now at 182, you have to go back to 173 to find people offering unqualified support). The 'crats would have spotted this trend and been able to extrapolate what it likely would have meant, had he not stood in the holidays.

Support 174 calls them a model editor, but that hardly recognises that Administrators are supposed to be above average in their standards. The 'crats are there to spot that sort of weak vote, by someone who likely doesn't have the experience to judge. Their user page doesn't suggest inexperience, but it hardly projects maturity.

He is also now getting support from people who give no reason at all, as seen in 178/9. Ordinarily that is allowed, assumed to simply be endorsement of the nomination. But when this is a self-nom, and when there has been a significant amount of unaddressed concerns by the time they arrive, these are exactly the sort of votes that would simply be chucked in the bin in a 'crat chat. If 178/9 can't offer a single word by way of reasons to support this candidate, then frankly it has to be assumed they have been canvassed.

The most recent neutral (the recently infamous Bradv) is basically saying he is not opposing because it would be unfair to deny this candidate on the basis there are plenty of Administrators who are just as poor as he seemingly might be in certain areas, so who can blame him for not learning from poor teachers. Oh to have such ambition, such standards. Arguably in a 'crat chat, that sort of neutral gets counted as an oppose, in the spirit of having the process raise standards to where they should have been to begin with. No doubt many of those poor admins scraped through in earlier times, although many are recent graduates of the Ritchie school.

In general, when the 'crats also look at the reasons why people are neutral, and the trends of where people have moved to/from, this does not look good. I can only see one person who switched from neutral to support. One. Like many recent supporters, they're not happy with the candidate, but are happy to consider them a potential net positive, assuming he listens to feedback. Importantly, this decision seems to have been a case of the voter convincing themselves. The 'crats will spot this is an outlier, that the trend is the reverse, with lots of people switching from neutral to oppose, and at least one going the full run from support to neutral to oppose.

Probable the biggest things thing the 'crats would consider, is the sheer number of people who have either made it pretty clear they would like the candidate to say something to reassure them, even supporters, and he simply hasn't said anything, or have otherwise expressed hope he takes feedback on board and doesn't get involved in things they don't think he could handle, where he has given no indication this would be a wise assumption.

I cannot see 'crats greenlighting such a candidacy, they exist to prevent the community making mistakes like that, respecting that the whole point of the process is to test competency and elicit reassurance in areas of doubt, and indeed that responding to concerns is a basic Administrator skill. They would ask themselves, in light of these issues, just how many of these unqualified supports who think he would be a fine Administrator, have even read WP:ADMIN?

Incredibly, even Ritchie has opposed......
Oppose Not because of Q5, which was adequately explained later, but from Explicit's oppose and Q27 dealing with problematic bots. Unfortunately the opposition about the former has drowned out concern about the latter, which hasn't been commented as much as I would have hoped. However, we have had problems with people taking too much of a heavy handed approach to files and not explaining themselves very well. I realise copyright is one of the most important policies we have as there are legal reasons behind it, but as I wrote here, doing this can be particularly bitey, so good communication is incredibly important. And I just can't see that level of communication here at this time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
....but as you can see, this is a strategic oppose (Ritchie has form for only going against a candidate he isn't totally sure of, either as neutral or as an oppose, once it is clear the RfA will pass anyway). He still supports him for the reasons that made JJCM admire him so, but not even Ritchie is dumb enough not to see the very real prospect that this Administrator could very well find themselves in serious trouble with the content zealots, if anyone does take a close look at how he handles file deletion. For that reason, it is an oppose, rather than a neutral. To do anything else, even neutral, would undermine his desired reputation as being all about the content. His claimed desire for good communication and concern for bitey behaviour is a sop, said only out of concern for lost content, not editors. If he really thought that was important, he would be horrified at Q5. Not to mention he is often the poster boy for poor communication and hostile behaviour.

Given he has clearly checked out of his own RfA, it is perhaps ironic that this is the sort of edit he is busying himself with instead......

Hopeful he is not in a European or Eastern US timezone, otherwise that's just sad in of itself.

Re: Ritchie333's Administrator proteges

Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:23 pm
by CrowsNest
Officially finished at 81%. Although awaiting formal closure, he is through. Fittingly, the last support was yet another no reason support.
Support Denisarona (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
That's three highly experienced users who are likely known to the candidate based on commonality of interests, who turned up in the last hours just to basically cancel out an oppose, and assuage any fears that a last minute parade of the neutrals into oppose would lead to a 'crat chat. Without even having the guts to say that was their motive (which is bizarrely, acceptable as a reason at RfA, but would always be discounted in a 'crat chat as a piss poor vote). Even if we AGF that this was not canvassing, they are experienced enough to know there is nothing about RfA that suggests rocking up at the last minute with a no reason support, at a self-nom, with plenty of unanswered questions and unacknowledged concerns, is not remotely cricket. But this is the sort of people he needed, to get him over the line. Plus all the other shit.

By rights, he has got to be ashamed he was only able to succeed like this. But this is Wikipedia. If shame ever affected anyone there the way it affects normal people, it would be a very different place. They would have decent Administrators for a start.

Re: Ritchie333's Administrator proteges

Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:47 pm
by CrowsNest
Not sure if the timer was wrong or something else, but the above wasn't actually the last input. It was still very fitting end though.....
Support. Competent candidate, working with them at ACC from almost a year and never saw any incivility issue with newcomers. I believe they will make a good use of new tools. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Neutral. Moved from Support in view of further problems highlighted by Uanfala and others. I still believe the candidate is well qualified, however the last thing we need is another heavy-handed warden. — kashmīrī TALK 16:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Who will be proven to be correct?

Well, thanks to a system which rewards candidates who stay silent or just give pathetic answers that any idiot who has been on Wikipedia for three years could give, we can only know which of these people are right, through a live test. Set him loose, and see if he breaks anything. Or anyone.

He is now an Administrator. Right now. Basically untouchable. He could call someone the very worst names imaginable, and as long as he had good reason in the eyes of people like Ritchie, he would face no action. He would certainly have to wrongly delete at least ten images, before anyone raised an eyebrow. That is the environment he was promoted in, it is the environment that will promote all future Administrators, and most likely deny the role to anyone who is disgusted by the thought.

The congratulations have flooded in. He has yet to respond to any of them. What he he has done though, is change the icon at the top of his user page.....

No fuss? Or a sign that all those people who had him down as a bit of mechanical button masher, to whom humans are a strange and confusing species, were right on the money.

This made me laugh......
JJMC89, as someone who supported you RFA and even uncharacteristically commented on an oppose !vote, I hope you acknowledge that your RFA did result in quite a bit of opposition. As you start using the tools and performing administrative actions that affect others, please consider taking some of the concerns raised to heart and proceed responsibly. Congratulations on your successful RFA. Mkdw talk 20:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
That's another Wikipedia Arbitrator, expecting to see something from this person, even though they already gave him a promotion after never seeing it in his RfA. If he was capable of properly acknowledging reasons people opposed and taking corrective action, he would have walked it. He flubbed his one and only effort, and decided to pass on all the others. It seems odds on he won't even acknowledge this message. And why would he? What's Mkdw gonna do, desysop him? :lol: Need a case first. And never have I seen anyone taken to Arbitration for not honouring promises he never made at his own RfA, or for essentially living down to the low expectations of his supporters afraid RfA.

Who the fuck is even going to be watching to make sure he heeds all this advice he has been given? Because there was a lot, and if you took it literally, you wonder what he is allowed to do as a novice Admin. Polish the badge?

Truth is, he can do what the fuck he likes. If he does and that shows he doesn't listen to other's concerns, whether deliberately or through incompetence, well, whose fault would that be? Not his. Not if it is incompetence. And if it is deliberate, who is going to really be surprised if the guy who filed a self-nom during the holidays and participated the way he did, turns out to be of dubious moral character?

People have claimed RfA is too tough, that candidates get too rough of an examination, that it is odd how it is the one place where AGF doesn't seem to apply.

That era appears to be over.

We will probably soon see how tricky it is to remove a poorly performing but obstinate and well supported Administrator, one who knows all the tricks and strategies for wiki-success. Chief among them of course being keep your mouth shut. I mean, we have seen now hard that is before, but hey, if these people were capable of learning, it wouldn't be Wikipedia.