Wikipedia Sucks!

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

The result was delete. Essentially, the "delete" votes linked to policy and used it to back their arguments up, while the "keep" votes didn't. If anyone would like the article userfied, drop me a line. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

With a dumbass like Ritchie, you're not quite sure if he needs to see the blue links because his dumb ass wouldn't otherwise be able to figure out the strength of their vote, or if his dumb ass believes editors are required to give blue links in order to demonstrate they are giving a strong argument. Either way, he's wrong.

Lucky for him it wasn't a well attended AfD, but he still may have managed to insult a very experienced user (DGG) by implying he's a moron, and potentially confused another who may have been making a valid, sourced based, argument.

Not his best day at the office. But he never really has one, except when he doesn't turn up at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... quare.jpeg

The Trump balloon image eventually got deleted. No surprise there.

Lots of pointless debate over an unambiguous copyright violation. No surprise there.

No remorse or reflection from Ritchie. No surprise there.

No topic ban from images for Ritchie. No surprise there.

Just another day on Wikipedia, where this level of incompetence in combination with arrogance/obstinance/rudeness, is bizarrely seen as quite good performance. On this evidence, I'd hate to see a bad Administrator. Then again, they do let them to crazy and still don't remove their precious flag, so maybe not that much of an outlier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =854038158

That's Ritchie seeming to be genuinely confused as to why his interactions don't go as smoothly as that of Rosiestep or SusanW. His mistake of course, is in believing he behaves exactly the same way as they do. I imagine they would be quite offended at the comparison. It's such a disgusting thought, it could be the one thing that bring them down to his level. Then again, maybe not. And that is rather the point.

How do you go from being the guy edit who wars with a fellow Admin over the contents of their talk page, with a nonsensical reason at that, to being the guy who one day later politely asks their permission to undo one of their admin actions, which he vehemently disagreed with, hence the edit war, and then even protects the very same Administrator's talk page when it's being edit warred over by a disruptive IP user over an unrelated issue?

(cur | prev) 13:17, 14 August 2018‎ Ritchie333 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,871 bytes) (+992)‎ . . (Undid revision 854884641 by Bbb23 (talk) WP:NOTCENSORED) (undo) (Tag: Undo)

Hi, got an email from SchroCat saying although he's been unblocked he can't edit because of an autoblock on UtterBuffoon. Can I lift it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

14:47, 15 August 2018 Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) changed protection level for User talk:Bbb23 [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 17:47, 15 August 2018) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite) (Persistent sock puppetry)

Not right in the head, this bloke.

Not to mention this typically barbed comment aimed at the same admin in the post he was trying to keep on their page over their objections....

I'm seriously contemplating standing for checkuser this year on a "who watches the watchmen?" ticket. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Lots of potential explanations for what he thinks he's doing, how he thinks these actions would be perecieved, by his admin colleagues, the user he was trying to help, and the wider community. None of them paint him in a good light at all.

The edit warring and threats alone are disqualifying. The attempts to make nice a day later without even acknowledging what he had done, is evidence he is either tempestuous, duplicitous, or just plain crazy.

We know Ritchie already struggles with knowing where he is half the time, mistaking Wikipedia for Facebook or his personal blog. Maybe he struggles to remember his own actions, from one day to the next?

His nemesis here, Bbb23, is a Wikipedia Shit Lord of the highest order. But not for a second do you ever get the impression he has a screw loose.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Crazy people fighting evil people. And that's just the cops!

And it all happens with nobody else wanting to get involved, all pretending like it isn't happening at all, from the Police Commissioner right on down to the fresh new recruits. Although the latter is understandable, many having been groomed for power by the crazy one.

Ritchie taking the load off the community.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =854666123

Such a reassurance that he is around to give final final final really mean it this time warnings. Which mean nothing, not only because of who he is giving it to (hopeless loser cases), but also because HE ADMITS TO DOING THE EXACT SAME SHIT TO THE PERSON HE IS WARNING, SO WHERE DOES THE GET OFF TELLING THEM NOT TO DO IT?

And let's just take a minute to think how wise it really is to present difs on the highly watched talk page of a troublesome user, for the purposes of telling the user they don't like the idea of diffs like that being used against him on a noticeboard. If those diffs alone merit a warning, no matter how friendly or well intentioned, then they alone could already be used to support a report. With friends like that.....

Ritchie needs to be tested. What category of stupid is he, really?

Dumbass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =859102361

Another nail in the coffin of the idea Ritchie's open hatred of the Mail has anything to do with a desire to ensure Wikipedia remains free of unsourced content.

This is so Ritchie. He's wants to be granted the Interface Administrator user right so he can install a script for new users which makes it easier for them to reply to people. He cites an example of a user who lacks confidence with using the standard edit window, which this gadget replaces. In his request, he breezes right past the fact the person who wrote this gadget says it is still in beta testing, and all users should check when they use it that their comment was posted properly and it didn't break anything else. Ritchie merely claims it seems to be working for others, he doesn't clarify if he intends to perform these checks for the newbies he is going to give this gadget to.

This is so Wikipedia. People who have no real clue what the right is for, or how you go about assessing someone's need for it, are supporting Ritchie's request.

Further to the above, he tells the creator of the gadget....

I've been around the block with software development enough now to know that if you try to solve a problem by throwing out the old system and replacing it with a new one, you are screwed.

He needs to go round the block a few more times, because most professional software engineers know there is no point doing the sort of thing this guy is doing, basically trying to write a script which has to interpret the hundred and one different ways wiki-markup can be found out there in the wild, and also has to be interoperable with the countless other bits of junk other well meaning but might be hit by a bus tommorow nerds are writing for Wikipedia too. When you try do that, you just get the sort of error reports this guy is getting.

I seriously doubt Ritchie has ever been a professional software engineer. As well as this dubious comment, which is straight out of the I HATE THE WMF HANDBOOK, you really can't envision any such engineer 'helping' new users who lack confidence by giving them a gadget that is likely to fuck up in ways they will definitely not understand, let alone spot, but which could get other people very angry at them.

Someone tell this asswipe that even Conservative MPs would recognise the evasion and deflection on display here.....

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

Let's just stick with the easy one for now. Why did you violate TPG here Ritchie?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/2018_CUOS_appointments/CU&diff=prev&oldid=861082174

It's a simple question....people really shouldn't have to suffer actually meeting you in person, even with the assistance of alcohol, to get a straight answer.

Oh, and for fuck's sake, please remember Wikipedia is open to anyone, including children, so probably best not to be asking other editors to meet you in a pub for any reason. Not unless you want Trust and Safety all up in your business.

CrowsNest wrote:I seriously doubt Ritchie has ever been a professional software engineer. As well as this dubious comment, which is straight out of the I HATE THE WMF HANDBOOK, you really can't envision any such engineer 'helping' new users who lack confidence by giving them a gadget that is likely to fuck up in ways they will definitely not understand, let alone spot, but which could get other people very angry at them.

It's probably deliberate, lots of software engineers gain a odd demented enjoyment out of no-one having a clue why they were just pwned by their software. Of course Ritchie is probably just bluffing his way into the intadmin role by hoping no-one will call him out out as a dubious hat-collector before he gets the new elusive super-bit.

CrowsNest wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/2018_CUOS_appointments/CU&diff=prev&oldid=861082174

It's a simple question....people really shouldn't have to suffer actually meeting you in person, even with the assistance of alcohol, to get a straight answer.

Oh, and for fuck's sake, please remember Wikipedia is open to anyone, including children, so probably best not to be asking other editors to meet you in a pub for any reason. Not unless you want Trust and Safety all up in your business.

^ This is true, A surprisingly large number of Wikipedians are under the legal drinking age and this of behaviour is a little weird. (too chummy, slightly elitist).