Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ritchie333: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 41: Line 41:
::'''A:'''
::'''A:'''
<!-- {{subst:Rfa-question|Number of question|2=Question}} -->
<!-- {{subst:Rfa-question|Number of question|2=Question}} -->

;Additional question from [[User:186.9.131.255|186.9.131.255]]
:'''7.''' [[WP:LTA]] is for keeping track of a small number of persistent vandals. The page says "Only add vandals that have a need to be pointed out, such as sneaky sockpuppeteers, prolific trolls, etc.". Why, then, did you create a page there for someone who has only ever worked to improve the encyclopaedia, and who you explicitly said "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP&diff=655010823&oldid=654989489 has NEVER vandalised]"?
::'''A:'''


====General comments====
====General comments====

Revision as of 03:55, 4 May 2015

Ritchie333

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (35/1/1); Scheduled to end 21:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) – Another user of the right calibre who practically had to be frogmarched to RfA, Ritchie is one of those editors about whom many of you are going to say “I thought he was an admin already!”. Well, he isn’t, but in my opinion he should be, and that’s why we’re here. Software engineer and musician in real life and friend of real ale, Ritchie has been around since the days of yore when one could collect a mop from the store on 2,000 edits and 3 months tenure. Not only has he racked up a participation in no less than 41 good articles, he has created enough articles of substance to be truly autopatrolled, and has more than adequately demonstrated his knowledge of deletion/inclusion guidelines through more AfD than some recent RfA voters have made edits to Wikipedia. Ritchie has also written a raft of poignant but respectable short essays: How newbies see templates, Don't template the retirees, Wikipedia doesn't own you, The Dumpy test, and Hit and run editors. Do take a moment to read them before voting here because whether you like them or not or whether you have a genuine sense of humour or not, they all demonstrate one thing: that Ritchie genuinely cares about Wikipedia and the welfare of its editors and readers.

Like many experienced users, aware that RfAs of even the most mop-worthy candidates sometimes get turned into a fiasco, Ritchie was at first reticent but if there were a bot (heaven forbid) that would accord the bit based on tenure and experience, Ritchie would be automatically accepted so I am asking the community to come to the same conclusion - from a human angle. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

I've had my eye on Ritchie333 as a prospective admin for a long time - ever since I learned that he hadn't been granted the mop already. A straight-talking, policy-savvy editor who isn't averse to dealing with the more confrontational areas of Wikipedia, he'd be a much needed addition the the admin corps. He also has a proven track record in article work, creating over 60 new pages and more than 40 GAs, more than enough to show that he knows our content policies back-to-front.

I don't know whether Ritchie has taken his own advice in preparing for this RFA, but whether his best friend is still driving or not, he's done more than enough on-wiki to convince me that he's ready. Thankfully I'm not alone, and the increasing pressure from other editors has finally convinced him to take the plunge. I think it's about time, and I hope you will agree. Yunshui 雲水 12:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another co-nomination

Don't want to be piling on, but Ritchie is an excellent candidate. First and foremost he's a creator, and in addition he's a creator and writer and editor of good articles, many of them Good Articles. He has plenty of common sense and a very decent knowledge of our policies and guidelines, and I have the fullest faith that he will not abuse the tools. We need good admins, in fact we need them pretty badly, and here is one for you. Ritchie, thank you for running. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thankyou for the nomination; I am happy to accept it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I regularly patrol the backlog at CAT:CSD reviewing nominations to check if they are appropriate, and I expect I would work in this area as an admin. I spend quite a bit of time at AfD and intend to help close down old debates. As I like rescuing articles from deletion, I'd be keen to work at WP:REFUND and help editors get articles restored. I would probably keep an eye on CAT:UNBLOCK, especially regarding spam / promotional usernames, which I see have a regular queue.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've improved 41 articles to GA, but my personal favourites have been Hammond organ, Denmark Street and Ika Hügel-Marshall as they were done as part of a team. Strong collaborative content work is one of the nicest experiences you can have on Wikipedia. Elsewhere, I've reviewed numerous submissions at Articles for Creation, and handled replies at the AfC Help Desk, and I'd like to think I have given many new Wikipedians a positive impression of the site.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have certainly encountered conflict and disagreed with editors. I ignore name calling and insults, and try to resolve issues on the talk page, or walk away from the conflict and work on something else. I have very occasionally been blunt and direct, but never to new or inexperienced editors. I consider all disputes I have been involved with to be in the past and prefer to move on from them.
Additional question from 200.5.117.18
4. Take a look at User_talk:Adamsalti and comment on the actions of the admins that commented there. Do you approve of all/any of them? Do you think the user got a fair shake? Do you think the user was treated in a WP:CIVIL manner? What would you have done were you in any of those admins' shoes? note- the thing is 2 years old so please no ridiculous accusations of trying to solicit a second opinion at a wrong venue - if you don't want to answer, just ignore the question.
A:
Additional question from Northamerica1000
5. What are some potential ways to encourage increased user collaboration on English Wikipedia? Many WikiProjects receive little input nowadays, and finding organized collaborations seems to be difficult.
A:
Additional question from ToonLucas22
6. When do you feel appropiate to block an IP address indefinitely?
A:
Additional question from 186.9.131.255
7. WP:LTA is for keeping track of a small number of persistent vandals. The page says "Only add vandals that have a need to be pointed out, such as sneaky sockpuppeteers, prolific trolls, etc.". Why, then, did you create a page there for someone who has only ever worked to improve the encyclopaedia, and who you explicitly said "has NEVER vandalised"?
A:

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Yes. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's an honor to support. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Finally - pretty sure I e-mailed you about this about 2 years ago, what took you so long?! GiantSnowman 21:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Of course. Kharkiv07Talk 21:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Precious Hammond organ (I asked all my questions before) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - A great asset to this site. I fully trust the candidate and I have absolutely no doubt that they will make a very good admin. — Yash! (Y) 21:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Yep.  Philg88 ♦talk 21:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Said my piece above. Yunshui 雲水 22:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support- yup. Why isn't this guy an admin already? Reyk YO! 22:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per all the noms, and yes I really am surprised that he wasn't already an admin. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, of course. --Stfg (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Productive, reasonable and sensible, is my experience. Andrew D. (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Happy with diffs at AfD. Glrx (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support with absolutely no reservations at all. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, doesn't appear to have any major issues that would warrant an oppose. Nakon 23:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I've had nothing but good impressions working with him in the past. With the these three nominators I have very little to be concerned about. Also nice to see another fellow software engineer and musician :) — MusikAnimal talk 23:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I trust that Ritchie has enough sensibility to use the tools responsibly and reasonably. Epic Genius (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Ideal candidate. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Stephen 23:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. 100% Support - Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck - Well you won't need luck as you'll sail through this easily :) –Davey2010Talk 23:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support the real hero here is Kudpung for getting him to do an RfA! A very, very qualified candidate that will make a great admin! Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support A very good decision to run. Richie will make an excellent admin. -- Marek.69 talk 00:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support why not? Jianhui67 T★C 00:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support with no reservations. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - obvious. Strong candidate with content experience. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support—That'll do. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Very well qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support: Perhaps WP:IAR and call it an unilateral pass. 41 GAs in three years (of active editing) says it all. Esquivalience t 00:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support: It is my most absolute pleasure to say yes. This cannot happen soon enough. In addition to every other good thing, you exhibited caution about something children might see in an article. You are going to be the best! Fylbecatulous talk 01:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Yes, per the great work I've seen him do at AfC and other projects. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I thought this editor was already an admin. I trust Yunshui's nomination implicitly. Mkdwtalk 01:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, why is this even a question? StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34. I trust Ritchie333 to refrain from abusing the tools. This one is a good egg. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Obvious support is obvious. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. While I believe that Ritchie333 has improved greatly in this area over the last year, I have been concerned with his manner of interacting with other editors he disagrees with, and would like to see a more lengthy track record of being able to work with editors of different philosophies before supporting. --Rschen7754 00:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral
  1. On the fence for now. I recognize that Ritchie333 has been a good contributor, and has exercised exemplary judgement on many occassions. However, I have some concerns about how he might handle WP:INVOLVED [1] and WP:ADMINACCT [2] as an admin. I need to explore further when I have more time later this week.- MrX 00:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    MrX, I don't see the problem. That first close, anyone could have made that: it's pretty much automatic. The second one, I am not familiar with that matter, but where's the "accountability" problem? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The ANI close ideally would have been done by someone entirely uninvolved with Eric Corbett. Concerning ADMINACCT: Admins are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct. Ritchie333 seemed to think that WP:BLP creates an exemption to that expectation. It doesn't.- MrX 01:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ritchie333&oldid=660703553"