Wikipedia Sucks!

AndrewForson wrote:

CrowsNest wrote:[...]makes me now think you might be a little schizophrenic. Note now I used the proper medical term, out of respect for what we now know about your sensitivity.

'Nuff said, really. Anyone who disagrees with CN is, in his estimation, mentally defective or mentally ill. Not a useful basis for discussion, but at least it's out in the open now. Otherwise, I agree with Graaf.

I am quite sure people can see I did not define schizophrenia as someone who disagrees with me. Either you agree with Graaf, or you want to keep doing this, but you really can't do both. Not after everything you've said up to now.

Very insightful.

This is why I sometimes have a go at you, not because I'm a grumpy old sod who likes to "stick it" to admins he doesn't like, but because I just find myself banging my head against a desk when you don't "get it". Seriously, we're both here for the encyclopedia, so if we can find some way of just getting along, we should probably do that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: The only thing I'm going to say about the above is that I think my actions match my words. I don't think the same is true about you and that some of your knee-jerk reactions leave a lot to be desired. --NeilN talk to me 17:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m sorry you feel like that, but if you don’t want to reach out and patch things up, I can’t force you to. Hey ho. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I don't think the problem lies with me. Two recent interactions [179], [180] If you can find or recall any similar out-of-the-blue drive-by comments by me on your actions then we have something to discuss. --NeilN talk to me 18:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Odds are the conversation ends there.

Dumbass.

I can't help thinking this request has come off the back of Sro23's RfA, because at the ORCP a few months ago you were not particularly keen on him getting the tools. So this sounds like disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point if you ask me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: FWIW, this section was started well before Sro23's RfA. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Constantly harping on your admin colleagues is one thing, making it clear this activity involves less due care and attention than tying your shoelaces, will mean Ritchie will only become ever more isolated.

This guy is a fucking lunatic.

09:49, 15 July 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-1,365)‎ . . Graham Chapman ‎ (any particular reason for these changes?)

09:50, 15 July 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,365)‎ . . Graham Chapman ‎ (Undid revision 850350696 by Ritchie333 (talk) oh, they are alright - LEAVE AN EDIT SUMMARY) (Tag: Undo)

09:50, 15 July 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,331)‎ . . User talk:Treybien ‎ (→‎Edit summaries: new section)

Treybien, a user with 108,832 edits over twelve years, and 98.9% of his activity is devoted to mainspace. And yet even be isn't safe from being assumed to be a n00b or even a vandal by Ritchie.

Edit summaries aren't mandatory. If he had a brain, he might realise why that is. On this evidence, he has no brian. But that isn't news.

They might also be looking for someone who knows "Ombudsman" is an official role in Wikipedia, with purview over private date, you Dumbass. Although they made Ritchie an admin, so who knows.....

I mentioned a while back on some unblock discussion that I was thinking of running for Checkuser when the next set of nominations comes around, purely in an independent ombudsman's role. I certainly know the technical stuff, I'd just use it as a neutral third party for reviewing unblock requests. It'll certainly make for a lively discussion and I can't see I'll pass when I answer the question "so, what SPI experience do you have?" with "close to bugger all" - but if you don't ask, you don't get. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It's dumbass time again! This guy doesn't stop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trum ... quare.jpeg

He's uploaded this locally to en.wiki, on the advice of another dumbass Wikipedian......

@Nagualdesign: I was at the Trump rally (though not taking part, just passing through) and I took a photo of the baby balloon myself which I'm happy to upload as a free licence, if I could work out where my damn Mac has put the file. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

That would be helpful. Make sure you upload it locally, since the Commons folk seem to believe that if you take a photo of anything you're somehow infringing on the intellectual property of the people who made the thing that you photographed, and if one of them sees another one scratching their head in confusion they think they're supposed to err on the side of deletion. nagualdesign 23:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Commons folk are quite correct. Under UK law, images of non-permanent three dimensional artworks have two copyrights, the image taker's, and the artwork creator's. Releases are needed for both, for the license option chosen by Ritchie to be legal. He can be sued if it remains. Him, personally, since he is a UK resident, and an easily located one at that.

And yes, not accepting excuses like 'well, they wouldn't mind' is considered erring on the side of caution by Commons. Otherwise known as legal use of copyright media, where you either have a release, or you don't. That being the place these idiot Wikipedians claim doesn't know it's ass from its elbow.

This is basic shit. Commons people do this stuff all day, every day. This is why Commons people hate the retards of Wikipedia, for their rank ignorance, matched only by their rank arrogance. Maybe, you Wikipediot bastard, if you can't work your own computer, don't use other people's for enabling the mass distribution of media unless you know precisely what the fuck you are doing? Still, on the upside, as seen in another conversation somewhere, damages in the UK are calculated in a way that properly reflects the mass distribution nature of Wikipedia. Ooopsie!

The WMF, in their wisdom, through their let the idiots promote from within scheme, lets this guy have advanced rights, which extends to the power to undelete images deleted for copyright reasons. Good call! Maybe they can be sued for that, given they're not liable for Ritchie's own copyright violations (until properly notified, or course). I'll get right on that......

Dumbass.

VxFC is best dealt with an edit filter as they seem to copy and paste the same canned phrases again and again; ideally we'd have a Bayesian filter that could machine-learn who is a VxFC sock and who isn't, but we can only use what we've got. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

For one, he had got his LTAs confused, this guy (Vote X for Change) doesn't do that. And for two, Wikipedia already has tools which use machine learning to better understand and react to edits, and if this is genuinely a task which would be suited to it, I'm sure a coder could be persuaded to have a crack it. One suspects it probably isn't, it sounding more like something that better use of the existing filter technology could handle (with the same amount of human input that overseeing the AI would need), and this is just Ritchie using blue-linked phrases he's vaguely heard of, perhaps because someone keeps calling him dumb on the interwebs, in yet another example of him whining about how hard it is to administer Wikipedia. It is when you've alienated as many colleagues as he has, many of whom are, of course, the coder types. Dumbass.

An admission he doesn't listen to complaints unless he fears being desysopped, combined with an admission he adjusts his approach to editors according to whether or not they write FAs......

Every now and again, somebody takes exception to something I do (even if has been backed up by consensus) and drags me off to ANI for it (examples here, here, here and here). The best option (unless there really is a case to answer for removing the tools, in which case people who are looking out for you will tell you, and one ought to have a sense of remorse about it) is to ignore it and concentrate on content work instead. And to that end, I have done a bit of copyediting on List of breakfast drinks and suggested one obvious way of cementing the article's notability, with a source. If an article you have worked on goes to AfD, the best thing you can do is improve it, and I note that the sole activity during the AfD's nomination was to remove a <br/> tag, which makes the "keep" votes something of a Pyrrhic victory. As I hinted above in the (now closed) discussion, if you concentrate on mainspace activity and improving content, you'll get respect; whereas if you just whine about admins doing stuff you don't like without much mainspace activity, you'll get labelled as a whiner and treated accordingly. This, by extension, is why we tolerate some editors who are known to "not play well with others" but contribute enormously to featured articles, so they should be kept around for the greater good of the project. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

What a fucking tool. Needless to say, neither of these things are Wikipedia policy.

It's pointless for anyone to even attempt to approach this moron with a complaint as if he were an actual Administrator with responsibilities and vested trust, since all you ever get are these non-policy personal philosophy ramblings, with insults and ridiculously self-aggrandizing diversions into the weeds, as if he were a mere editor. And you don't even really expect that from the majority of mere editors.

Such a bullshitter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =851484338

User: Why did you do this thing when a guideline says not to?
Ritchie: That guideline is 2-3 years out of date.

Yeahright. No clarification was given to this user as to whether this really was the first time Ritchie has ever even heard of the guideline, as the user implies.

Not sure what would be worse. Him not knowing of it (and misleading this user as to that fact so as to not look like he doesn't check when he's reverting people who are explicitly following a guideline), or him being aware of it, but ignoring it for 2 years and just doing his own thing, like it's somebody else's job to make it reflect what he does.

Prick.

These are both failings in his Administrator credentials (policy knowledge, accountability, trustworthiness), and the thing he holds more dear to his heart than that, his 'can't we all just get on with editting' persona. Well, this guy was, and Ritchie reverted him. And then Ritchie bullshited him. And the only reason he is likely to get away with it, is because of his entirely undeserved status of Administrator.

Not for the first time, his answer also ignored important parts of the post put to him, and he used his reply to merely say more things about his personal views of what 's going on in the world today, like anyone gives a fuck, even though it had fuck all to do with the issue at hand.

Further to last, what an utter fool.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... 18_July_23

Such a massive cunt too......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =851674759

What does he want? A personalised message telling him to check FFD? That template is one of the few cases where a template is short and sweet. It would be the height of arrogance to expect people to write it out in normal speech. Still, Ritchie is nothing if not arrogant.

If the idiot is objecting to being notified at all, calling it "idiotic" in an example of the rank incivility he is known for, he really should know as an Administrator that it's mandatory to notify the idiots who upload copyright violations.