Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats Oh my!
Post Reply
User avatar
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times


Post by CrowsNest » Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:57 am

Another one running for Adminship.

I'd never heard of him, but it took me just a few minutes to realise he may be massively over-selling himself. His claimed professional level of English doesn't match his user page. He isn't a regular participant at ITN. His participation at RM really is nothing to write home about. Other people have already figured out his participation at Afd is questionable. His claim he could have resolved his declared Q3 conflict with discussion seems unlikely.

On a more general note, not for the first time do I see a candidate who seems to have read whatever manual is doing the rounds that tells you how to become a Wikipedia Administrator. Here is what it must say....

-stay well clear of conflict
-put at least two years service in first
-pad your edit count with lots of grunt work
-start a few articles, and bring at least one to GA
-help out at the Teahouse and OTRS
-participate at AfD and RM
-do some other boring dumb type crap nobody cares about (like ITN and UAA)
-don't self-nom, and seek out prospective nominators individually over private channels

I've never ascribed to the view that good Administrators need to have written content to prove they can be good Administrators. As a basic rule in life, you can't go wrong with assuming anything Ritchie333 believes in wholeheartedly, is just fucking dumb. One of the many, many, reasons, it is dumb, will be seen in this candidacy.

This guy's one GA, that he is ever so proud of, is the article on the 2018 Kentucky Derby. Articles on recently concluded and highly popular sporting events have got to be the easiest thing to write an article on in Wikipedia. There's no book sources needed at all. Establishing notability is never even an issue. There's no decisions to be made on naming or formatting, these are all heavily standardised - if in doubt, copy the layout of 2017. You don't have to fight any assholes over whether to have an infobox, their use in sports articles is universal. There's no complicated text to write, just narrative in the main, with a smattering of viewpoints. You have countless news sources to draw from to get it all on the page. To make up for the fact there really isn't much to say of any substance, there's always a ton of interesting statistical factoids you can stuff in there, usually just writing down in text what the reader can already see from the tables, which are also handy to make the article seem bigger than it is. Most people will compensate for the lack of substance by bloating the article with unnecessary background, and an overlong introduction - both easy things to do. There's usually no controversies, but when there is, it is usually not hard to summarise the various views in proportion to their significance, because of the preponderance of coverage.

To sum up, it is piss easy to write a GA on a recent popular sports event. About the only hassle you will encounter, is where to draw the line between valuable information and trivia. And because it's just soorts, people are way less inclined to fight to the death over that. And if you don't really care about the article because you're only writing it to pass RfA, then you're not going to have any difficulty aquiescing to any asshole who does turn up to tell you what is and is not 'encyclopedic".

It is so easy in fact, I would advocate blocking anyone who hasn't written one after a set amount of time or edits, as a sign they lack the basic skills needed to be a worthwhile member of the community.

Despite all this, you can virtually guarantee the fact at least twenty voters will see this meagre effort, and be persuaded they have learnt whatever lessons Ritchie thinks editors need to learn to properly walk a mile in his shoes. They won't have, it is like saying passing your driver's license means you can empathise with a racing driver, but they will be convinced, hence why this mysterious manual doing the rounds must recommend doing it.

Keen eyed readers will spot they are probably a sock of our very own Dysklyver, who at this point must be assumed to be in reality, one in every ten Wikipedia users. Naughty boy!

User avatar
Sucks Critic
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Ammarpad

Post by Dysklyver » Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:09 pm

CrowsNest wrote:Keen eyed readers will spot they are probably a sock of our very own Dysklyver, who at this point must be assumed to be in reality, one in every ten Wikipedia users. Naughty boy!

Busted. :shock: :D
De facto globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. Editor of The Wiki Cabal. find me on the Wiki Treehouse Discord.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: Ammarpad

Post by Graaf Statler » Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:40 pm

Why all that trouble Arthur? You are already globally banned and our exclusive SanFanBan club is closed from now on, because the head of the jury has left.
What makes a SanFanBan only more exclusive. We simple don't allow new members anymore, so safe yourself all that trouble.

Post Reply