I've no idea what you're on about, but Ritchie could have been desysopped for simply doing nasty shit like this, back when Jimmy Wales still had power.......
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =846578644
But no, the original toxic admin Bishonen spat her dummy after she was delivered a similar rebuke for similar nastyness, and the place has been a toxic rat pit ever since.
Ritchie is considered quite the model admin, trusted to pick out promising future candidates even, which surely shows normal people just how rotten the whole enterprise is.
He deserves more than just a block. Karma needs to get her act together.
Ritchie333
Re: Ritchie333
But you didn't go away, did you, you spineless coward.......I came in after a break but I see NeilN is still pulling shit abusive blocks, so I think I'll go away and do something else anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
This is arguable an even worse comment than the one above. Not one person complained. It is considered completely normal Admin conduct on Rat-Pedia.
Another gift given by Bishonen.
Re: Ritchie333
Seriosusly, does this idiot even know he's on Wikipedia half the time? Does he confuse it with Facebook or Reddit? You wouldn't expect this sort of irrelevant flame-bait post clogging up already massive pages from a relatively new editor, so how hell is a so called Administrator getting away with it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =846961835
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =846961835
Re: Ritchie333
Well I For one am shocked. I mean, there wasn't a single thing about this guy's Wikipedia editing that suggested he would be the sort of person who would do such a thing. Just goes to show what a professional bunch they are. Neutrality is their watch word. Their noble goal being the unbiased recording of history, nothing more, nothing less. And that is a guarantee. Jimmy Wales said so. He'd have banned this fucker a long time ago for blatant bias and other crimes (and Ritchie would ban Jimmy given half chance). Those aren't actually historical facts, because you cannot read them on Wikipedia. Well, not in the articles anyway.Ritchie333 wrote:I am off to march against Brexit today
Re: Ritchie333
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =847589562
That is the standard Ritchie response whenever anyone questions his sub standard content and he runs out of excuses or snide remarks.
He refers to a source, even quotes the source, and yet we are all still no nearer to an answer to the question, why is it relevant? This shows what Ritchie is all about. He isn't writing an encyclopedia, he's mindlessly reading sources and copying what he finds into articles. Like an utter mong. An encycpopedia is meant to educate the reader. Answering the question, why does this piece of text exist in this article, really is basic shit. It's a mark of this coward that he always runs way from that kind of simple question, or insults the questioner, and indeed that it seems to keep being asked by people specifically with regard to his content.
That is the standard Ritchie response whenever anyone questions his sub standard content and he runs out of excuses or snide remarks.
He refers to a source, even quotes the source, and yet we are all still no nearer to an answer to the question, why is it relevant? This shows what Ritchie is all about. He isn't writing an encyclopedia, he's mindlessly reading sources and copying what he finds into articles. Like an utter mong. An encycpopedia is meant to educate the reader. Answering the question, why does this piece of text exist in this article, really is basic shit. It's a mark of this coward that he always runs way from that kind of simple question, or insults the questioner, and indeed that it seems to keep being asked by people specifically with regard to his content.
-
AndrewForson
- Sucks Critic
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:56 am
Re: Ritchie333
On what grounds? Per the forum rules, you can expect to read unpleasant speech here. I appreciate this is seen as an offensive word in wider society, but our readers will surely appreciate the usage here is not to be casually offensive to an unidentified group, but pointedly offensive to one particular individual. For avoidance of doubt, I am comparing Ritchie's evident abilities to someone with learning difficulties, so as to highlight the broken nature of the Wikipedia society in a pointedly shocking manner, not claiming he has learning difficulties, or that people who do are deserving of mockery.AndrewForson wrote:CrowsNest wrote:Like an utter mong.
Please don't use this word.
-
Graaf Statler
- Side Troll
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Ritchie333
I am afraid this forum is not the place for "white office language". Most of us are used to a ruff surrounding, where people are used to say the things I the way they are. And that can be sometimes very insulting and ruff.
And I like that style, I hate the often fake politeness of Wikipedia. Shitcan clowns like James Alexander and his ilk like Kum wrote not long ago on WO. Shitting on content writers, pried from unsuspecting schoolchildren under false pretences., nest of guttersnipes, yes, I learned all this proza the critical fora. Mongool! Achterlijk mongool!, I have heard it often on shop floor level. Not to insult someone, but just to say someone did something very stupid. It's common people language, that's all.
And I like that style, I hate the often fake politeness of Wikipedia. Shitcan clowns like James Alexander and his ilk like Kum wrote not long ago on WO. Shitting on content writers, pried from unsuspecting schoolchildren under false pretences., nest of guttersnipes, yes, I learned all this proza the critical fora. Mongool! Achterlijk mongool!, I have heard it often on shop floor level. Not to insult someone, but just to say someone did something very stupid. It's common people language, that's all.
Re: Ritchie333
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... eo_Kuvayev
To remind this idiot, here's what BLP actually says......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4539715.stm
Seriosuly, how did he EVER become an Administrator? (answer: because Wikipedia is in terminal decline, anyone with the sense to call this what it is, has already left, those who remain or who have been recruited since, many by people like Ritchie, to be groomed as Admins themselves, are even fucking stupider than this fucknut).
So he sends it to AfD?This is a textbook BLP violation - get rid of it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
To remind this idiot, here's what BLP actually says......
In this AfD he also claims.....Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.
and yet the article already has this as a source....a search for sources brings back trivial passing mentions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4539715.stm
Seriosuly, how did he EVER become an Administrator? (answer: because Wikipedia is in terminal decline, anyone with the sense to call this what it is, has already left, those who remain or who have been recruited since, many by people like Ritchie, to be groomed as Admins themselves, are even fucking stupider than this fucknut).