Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jeni (talk | contribs) at 08:16, 19 October 2019 (→Unblocked: finally). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Keeping an eye on stuff. Meanwhile, here is some music.[1]



Your draft article, Draft:Harlan Cage

It looks like a classic "diva flounce".....

Hello, Ritchie333. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Harlan Cage".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian: @Fastily: Since I don't appear to be blocked or desysopped, I'll bite. This notice came in at 14:05 UTC. It was deleted 23 minutes later. I only created it as a request for Mikeyland (talk · contribs), and I can't remember why I did. Have they been informed of the decision to delete their work? If not, why not? This goes back to the issue I raised with Tryptofish at the top of this page, and until these issues are looked at properly, I don't see any reason for me to return to regular editing. Now I'm logging out and going back to the non-WP world. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wish you'd stick around --valereee (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Don't let the bastards get you down. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie, I'm glad to have gotten the ping, and I'm glad to see that you looked in here. Truly, I wish you all the best, and I, too, hope that you'll come back when it feels right for you. You are missed. At least by the people who matter, and the hell with the rest who don't. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't remotely think that I am one of those "people who matter", I third or fourth the sentiment that I wish you were back. But, that's my selfish desire and I'd really rather you are happy, whatever you decide to do. Just know you are missed. SusunW (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should clarify that when I said "the people who matter", all that I meant by that are the people who have common sense about what happened to Ritchie, and recognize that it was unfair. And there's a lot of us. On the other hand, the people who lack the common sense to see that Ritchie was treated shabbily, they are the ones whose opinions are worthless to me, and should be worthless to everyone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the comments. I inadvertently looked at my watchlist and consequently got motiviated to fix a bunch of errors, mostly unsourced content or IPs adding opinions or unclear information with no explanation on GAs. So I guess I can't consider myself "retired". My personal life finally looks like it's on the way up, so I would hope that the depression-related outbursts and attacks I have sporadically made over the past year will no longer occur. I don't like doing this, as it looks like a classic "diva flounce" one-month break, gathering sympathy for the "retired" message, and then suddenly bouncing back when everything's died down. However, I have been in conversation with Arbcom off-wiki and Worm That Turned has been particularly helpful, and I think an understanding has been achieved, or is in the process of being achieved.

Meanwhile, I would re-iterate that I am not happy with Fastily's "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude here, and I believe Iridescent has had cause to complain about them as well. I'm not going to run off to Arbcom to request a desysop, because life's too short and frankly they all need a break before the whole lot of them retire from exhaustion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry to top post, didn't want to interrupt flow of "welcome back"s below) I'm glad you're back too, Ritchie. To be fair to User:Fastily, though, it looks like there were two essentially identical drafts in draftspace: Draft:Harlan Cage, and Draft:Harlan Cage (Rock band). Both written by User:Mikeyland. The one that was at Draft:Harlan Cage somehow had lost it's attribution to Mikeyland, and just showed you as the page creator. That's the one Fastily deleted. Then User:UnitedStatesian moved the other page (which did have proper attribution) from Draft:Harlan Cage (Rock band) to Draft:Harlan Cage, which is where it is now. So Fastily wasn't acting hastily, so much as clearing the way for UnitedStatesian to make a move of the page with the proper history to the correct page name, and Mikeyland never lost anything. The article sitting there now wasn't restored from being deleted, just moved to the proper title. I don't think Fastily did anything wrong here. Just to avoid unnecessary bad feelings. Glad you're going to stick around. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish is celebrating having Ritchie back! I agree with everyone whom I just top-posted that this place is better with you back. I know what you mean about depression-related stuff and how it makes the problems with Wikipedia that much worse, because I've been going through similar stuff, and editing a lot less, of late. And in so many ways, I think Wikipedia has been going through a very strange period of time, to put it charitably. But I'm cheered that you are back, and that you've had some promising discussions with ArbCom. Great to see you, my friend! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy to see that "retired" template go and glad you're doing better Ritchie.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding what SusunW said; first, be happy. If it makes you happy, be here. :) I don't think anyone who matters thinks you did a diva flounce, fwiw. --valereee (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome back me ol' mucker, Tbh everyone has a crap few weeks or even months due to RL stuff everyone does so it's understandable, As I say to everyone RL should always come first always,
You have nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed of either,
Anyway glad to see a friendly face back, Hope you're okay too :),
Take care, Dave 14:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you back, more than I can say. Now, let's see what I can rope you into helping me with ... SusunW (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now look Mr EEng, I don't like you coming here sewing conflict and casting dispersions, please maintain a civil and constructive manor weather or not you agree with my views - please help me to diffuse conflict. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Diffusing conflict" is perhaps the best description I've seen about what ANI actually does. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Westway (London)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Westway (London) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the GA. An important addition in the world of concrete 1960s urban motorways... I've always had it in mind to do the Coventry Ring Road at some point, a must-be-experienced rollercoaster in my home town!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing

Welcome back. Sorry to see you had some troubles here of late, R3s. Very pleased you're back on the frontline, in the trenches – where it matters. (Because anything else on Wikipedia does not.) JG66 (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray, you've returned! This place wouldn't be the same without you. Also glad that your off-wiki life has lately improved. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie, you don't know me from Adam, but I was so sad to see "Retired" on your page, and so glad to see it gone! Welcome back! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Hunter

Tragic. I'm going to do my best to clean up the referencing and get this into the RD section of ITN, but I'm rather busy this week so any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was good to go when I just spotted it, so I've posted it on the main page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I found some time to clean it up later. Thanks. 15:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm considering sending this to GAN, since I spent so much time polishing it. Would you mind having a quick look first? Robert Hunter (lyricist), for convenience. No pressure, if you're busy. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and nominated it; comments still welcome, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

How did we end up here?

A quote that had been around for months, cited to an offline source, was changed by an IP, with absolutely no explanation. I switched it back with an edit summary of "please don't alter a quote". Can you please explain to me how that could possibly be considered abuse of rollback? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandarax: You only need to take a spin through WP:ERRORS to see that mistakes can sometimes take a while to be spotted. The quote had been transcribed incorrectly; This source shows the word is "achieved", not "accomplished". The IP was therefore making a good faith edit that made the article factually accurate, and WP:ROLLBACKUSE says "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The key word being "standard". The next, very important, paragraph says "The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary ..., then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting."
As for the edit, thank you for correcting it. I had attempted to check the source listed, and when that wasn't available, I looked at an edit two months back, and saw that the quote was the same as before the IP edit. It's not unreasonable to assume that something that's been around for a few months is more likely to be correct than something that an IP changes it to, with no edit summary. I see lots of people attempting to "improve" things, not realizing that they shouldn't be changing text within quotations. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of using rollback on a single edit? That just seems daft. The best course of action is to check the edit, if you can. If you can't, then you can revert with a summary like "not in source and can't find one". At all times, err on the side of over-explanation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(tps) Not sure why it got the “Tag: Rollback”- they used an edit summary. Maybe it wasn’t explanatory enough, but I don’t see this as rollback abuse since they used more than a generic edit summary. –xenotalk 11:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The tag is defined by the MediaWiki software (see Special:Tags). Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find it puzzling that you think using rollback on a single edit is "daft". Just look at recent rollbacks, and you'll see that the majority are, in fact, undoing a single edit.
Based on your response, I can't tell if you understand that you were wrong to accuse me of abusing rollback. According to the full guideline which you partially cited, my edit was incontrovertibly not rollback abuse.
You asked "How did we end up here?" Well, we ended up here because you falsely accused me of abusing rollback, and I want to make sure you understand that, so you won't make similar false accusations against anybody else. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was one revert, fixing something that was factually incorrect, on an article I did extensive work on (including rewriting to take to Good Article status). Get over it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since you can't strike your edit summary, I think it would go a long way to indicate that you perhaps didn't notice that an edit summary was provided and were simply looking at the Tag: Rollback - that you understand no abuse of rollback occurred... –xenotalk 12:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoice!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A belated 'welcome back'

Having just seen your username appear in the history page at an RfA, I came over here and was really encouraged to see you've started contributing once again. I spent ages last month, trying to draft an email massage of support to you. But none of the versions I wrote seemed to say anything better than those who had already posted on your talk page, so it seemed best not to message you and possibly make matters feel worse. Time, they say, is a great healer, and Wikipedia is not only incredibly addictive, and needy of competent editors and admins like you. So, I hope you'll ease yourself back in gently, take care, and really feel welcomed once again. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Nick Moyes: You know one thing I'm quite certain would make Ritchie happy? It's this. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wot Vanamonde said. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this subtle hint to our friend Nick Moyes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys. When things ease down at home, I'll be up for that RfA. Honest! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nutfield Priory

Nice job on the article. Onel5969 TT me 18:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can I haz DYK? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your trap

D'oh - I fell into it. Nicely done, sir. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed FAR too good an opportunity to pass up! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Did I say how very glad I am that you are back? I mean I know I said it, but please read it again with emphasis on very. :) SusunW (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October
... with thanks from QAI

Support that! And don't want to join the below, for an edit we can't even see. You are a good member of the cabal of the outcasts, Ritchie, like Br'er (banned OTD 7 years ago), Eric, ... - would get sad by listing more. More musings on my talk: "go on with life ...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you just deleted Draft:Dragana Radakovic that was awaiting approval, and I do not have a copy of it

I do not understand why. Briefly I read somewhere infringement of copyright on Opera Australia page that was placed as external link. I can not understand in which way that could possibly be infringement of copyright - it is a formal Opera Australia page that describes the artist that works there. A As I understand the process of publishing a new article, the article was to be reviewed and I make changes before it is published. I will change anything that you find is not as it should be for Wikipedia rules Even bigger problem, I do not have a copy of the article, because I thought it would take weeks to get a review, and in that period I can continue to add and delete parts of the article. I have made many changes daily, and was not saving elsewhere So, can you put it back, so I can at least make a copy of it, and I would be happy to delete all bits that are not as they should be. This is my first article. user Gagagracija — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagagracija (talk • contribs) 22:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I read about policies and I understand now more. Maybe you cold have asked me to clarify that issue before deleting ALL (G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement: This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. - That link to Opera Australia has not been there forever I am still making the article, and the rest of the article is useful. Now that I understand better, I will go and check any links to see if there are any similar copywright restrictions (as on that Opera Australia website) 1) Could you return my article at least for a day (as it is not lost completely) so I can make a copy of it 2) I can remove the reference to Opera Australia webpage that has a copyright, and when I get a written permission form Opera Australia (as it shows on Opera Australia website: Website Copyright and Disclaimer: Unless otherwise stated, all content on this website is copyright Opera Australia and must not be re-used without prior written permission from Opera Australia) Ii can re-insert that link. 3) in any case that external link was there as a reference for more information about the topic in the article. It is not very important for the whole article, it can be omitted So, What To Do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagagracija (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC) Gagagracija (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: now I believe the problem is that some if the information in my article is very similar to contents on copywrighted Opera Australia webpage (and not the Opera Australia webpage that I have as external link). That is so because I did find some of the information on that Opera Australia webpage. Which means I need to re-write that part of the article, so it does not seem as taken from copywrigted owner (Opera Australia) Please confirm that is the case here, and please restore Draft:Dragana Radakovic and I will re-write that section, and insert reference to point where the info came from (from that page on Opera Australia webpage). Would that be that appropriate plan? Gagagracija (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gagagracija: The easiest place to start is User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios which explains the basics behind what Wikipedia calls a copyright violation and how they are dealt with. However, this means I cannot restore the draft, for legal reasons. I'm afraid a rewrite of the draft, in your own words that does not obviously paraphrase any source, is necessary. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I understand, thank you. I will rewrite from scratch. Could you place the file in a sandbox or somewhere I can reach it, as I have not made a copy of it thinking while I work on it, it would be safe there on a big Wiki server. I can add, to lose all work like that, without a warning, after a month of research and typing, is violent and totally not in the spirit of all Wikipedia's "welcome" "just edit" etc. It is not nice to destroy somebody's effort without a warning, destruction is negative, unless in the context of an enemy. And people who give their time and effort for the same cause on Wikipedia are co-workers and mates, not enemies. It is not easy for inexperienced wiki writers to fully understand how to follow the path. It would be more logical to have experienced people like yourself support the others (who are also willing to put in a wiki contribution) to reach the publishing of information, so all peoples can benefit. Not to destroy good will effort in a tick. I suggest you as administrator could start a review of that "delete for good in a blink of an eye" policy. For instance, why not have a sandbox for such instances, or send such files back to the writer's sandbox instead of deleting. Maybe even link an admin "buddy" to a new wiki article writer who asks for buddy help (or stuffs up like I did), so the process of learning the ropes goes more efficiently... Thanks.

Gagagracija Gagagracija (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: … and, by the way, in your "Simple guide" User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios you state that:

" If you write an article that's later deleted as a copyright violation, you'll be warned about it in the first instance." Now, that would be fair, to WARN first. In this case, it did not. Just… gone. A good effort, gone. Gagagracija Gagagracija (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gagagracija: "It is not nice to destroy somebody's effort without a warning, destruction is negative, unless in the context of an enemy." Couldn't agree more; indeed, as the Plain and Simple guide says, "They [copyright violations] are particularly bitey (cf. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers) as they are one of the few ways an administrator can instantly and unilaterally delete a page created in good faith, and be within their rights to refuse to restore it.". I don't do any of this for fun; I have to do it in order that the encyclopedia complies with the Creative Commons Sharealike 3.0 license and the GNU Free Documentation License.
Moving forward, I can pull the citations out of the draft and recreate it as a stub; however this will take a couple of hours to pick through and understand the material. Alternatively, I could ask Gerda Arendt, who's a big opera fan, to see if she can help out.
When I wrote about warning, I meant that I would not block somebody for creating an article or draft that violated copyright, if they were not aware of the legal implications behind it, as that would be excessively draconian. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She is away on the first Ring pilgrimage ;) - afterwards (next week) with pleasure. Ritchie, how about a GA review for Jessye Norman, written mostly by 4meter4, now that she is on the Main page and should be in top form? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Moving forward is… elegant. Thank you.

To ask Gerda Arendt is absolutely brilliant! She would be perfect to look at the text.

I will provide some more details which might assist:

The information that is in PROFESSIONAL SOPRANO CAREER section (which violated the copyright, sorry sorry 1000 times) is available on at least 4 copyrighted sites, 99.99% word for word copy-paste: [2] (the most complete info as it also covers 2017-2019 performances in more detail, in English and in Italian) [3] (the website that was listed in the reason for deletion) [4] (not as detailed as the others but what is there agrees to the other three). [5]

In addition to my copyright stuff-up:

After reading more about wiki rules and policies, I would delete all links to YouTube video samples inserted in REPERTOIRE section because they are likely to have copyright issues. (still, wiki article about Placido Domingo in External links points to songs at: [6] and on copyright page it states no permissions [7] … does not matter, I do like Domingo). Please advise, do you agree it is good to delete all YouTube links in Repertoire section of my article?

Also, I would delete complete section CRITICAL REVIEWS. Now it seems to me that such section does not fit completely well into a wiki article, even that it is informative, true and interesting to read/know. Sections with similar information are common when dealing with Awards and/or Honours (not quite the same, but somewhat similar). Could not see Critics/Reviews section in the other similar articles, even that writers must have had access to relevant critics’ reviews. Not sure why exactly, but to delete that section is most likely a good idea. Is there a related policy, or a guideline?

In the case the article goes into a stub, after reading about stub articles I believe the suitable categories would be: Culture > Music > Music biography > singer Category:Singer stubs > Category:Opera singer stubs > Template:Australia-opera-singer-stub Category:Singer stubs > Category:Opera singer stubs > Category:European opera singer stubs Culture > Music > Music biography > conductor > Category:European conductor (music) stubs

Thank you very much, really appreciated. Gagagracija Gagagracija (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, could you restore as a draft what was good? I understand that copyrighted stuff - even if freely available on many sites - should not be in any diff. (We have now diffs in psalm articles hidden for over more than a year, just because one translation of free text is less free than another.) Say here what to watch, and be patient. - If not possible, then let's start over. I had to, the other day, when an article was almost ready, and then I failed to save, over looking for one more ref ;) - Gagagracija, feel free to use it as a model. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt:, @Gagagracija: I have basically restored a one line description and all references that I think can be used to write an article that will be retained (and featured in DYK, hint hint) to User:Gagagracija/sandbox. Hopefully that's a suitable starting point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a few duplicates, think that the Braunschweig external link could be a basic ref, and now wait for more. - Will it become a draft under the same number, once improved? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt:, @Ritchie333: Ok, I will rewrite soon. Thank you! Gagagracija (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of your essays has the in use template

Specifically User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to content creation. 2 years is longer than several days, but I'm not sure if you intend to keep working on the essay or if it was intended as commentary on Wikipedia is always a work-in-progress. Or if you just forgot to remove the template. Clovermoss (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You like this kind of thing

I've already asked at WT:GM but I think that (literally) every single person other than Sitush is now either blocked or retired, and he won't be interested—can you see any way to salvage The Piccadilly Rats? I'm reluctant to delete something that someone has obviously put a lot of work into, but this seems the absolute epitome of "unsuccessful local band who happened to get a couple of mentions in the local paper", and although it survived an AfD previously IMO both "keep" voters were clearly incorrect; if "got a couple of mentions in the local freesheet" is enough to pass GNG then I could probably write a Wikipedia-compliant article on every individual Greggs. ‑ Iridescent 20:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only national news coverage I can find is this and I'm not putting that in a biography; and indeed most of the MEN sources are talking about the same event. Nothing in a former Manucian newspaper turned national. Yngvadottir has had a go at improving it, but I'm stuck for actual weighty citations that could cement notability. I fear it fails the dumpy test. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(It seems I'm aiming for 99 edits rather than 3 again this month.) Ritchie, @Iridescent: Yes, I had a try at updating it and starting the process of converting it to use footnotes, but I just made a start. The additional source I found and didn't use was this at The Northern Quota about the documentary, with interview content referring to the Kendal festival appearance. I get the impression the Manchester Evening News have covered them a lot; they might well have the mankini story, but if not then meh, I don't think it's worth mentioning. I wouldn't hold my breath on the Grauniad; hasn't it been like 50 years since they turned their backs on Manchester? It needs more tightening up and use made of all available refs, but is national coverage absolutely required? I don't believe the Manchester Evening News is chopped liver. If it gets AfD'd, as a more or less inclusionist and having made a couple of fast source searches, I'll try to defend it. But I'm really not sure what to do with myself in these months of self-enforced minimum activity, except try my hardest not to get stuck in to anything, and not to waste edits by forgetting to sign. Normally I'd have already spent a chunk of time on this one, including searching every damned name mentioned. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even when it was The Manchester Guardian the Grauniad had nothing to do with Manchester other than its office being there; it was a national paper whose head office was in Manchester, rather than a Manchester paper. The Manchester Evening News is a shitty advertising-funded freesheet handed out to commuters at tram stops, and while it's a usable source for such things as names and dates, I wouldn't consider appearing in it to confer any kind of notability. I don't think we have a "national coverage is essential" rule, nor would it be workable given that our rules are drawn up with the US in mind where cities and regions still have their own genuine newspapers. (With a couple of exceptions like the Eastern Daily Press and the Northern Echo, English local newspapers are fairly worthless as sources—their budgets are so low, and they have so many pages to fill, that they'll generally print pretty much anything that's submitted to them. As I write this my local paper's two front-page stories are the annual conkers championship and a proposal by the council to introduce a surcharge for collecting garden waste; a quick glance at the Manchester Evening News website shows that they've chosen to run today with "Cars have been covered with Durex condoms across Wythenshawe and no one knows why".) Be nice to Dumpy's Rusty Nuts; one of the first shows I ever saw in England was Dumpy's Rusty Nuts with Captain Sensible as support, and both were surprisingly good. ‑ Iridescent 22:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not my sort of thing at all, but it did get some 2,500 views in a week in May, presumably because of the film on them now in post-production. Perhaps not the moment to zap it. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those two spikes are actually 11 April and 18 April; the former coincides with one of their members being hit by a tram and the latter with him dying of his injuries, and were presumably both caused by people reading the news story and looking to see who he was. (Ray Boddington had appeared—as himself, not with the band—on some reality TV shows, so his death earned a mention in the red-tops.) It was trying to decide whether this should be added to List of tram accidents despite the questionable sourcing (the sources for the accident are fairly questionable but I presume nobody would dispute that it happened) that brought the band to my attention in the first place ‑ Iridescent 08:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous oppose votes: Ridiculous and Power hungry arguments

Your contribution on my talk page is an example of power abuse. Obviously I hit a very soft spot in your armor. You are threatening me with actions, when there is no consensus that I have done anything wrong: The boilerplate oppose will never swing any RFA. Just ignore it. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, and I can't agree with you all that this is inappropriate. I'm sure Joe is sincere in his answers but let's not pretend admin recall is a real thing that gets used and is binding. I'll agree that this isn't a great reason to oppose and I find it unpersuasive, but to act like they don't even have a right to say it is ridiculous. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GermanJoe You obviously got so mad that you had to search the archives, and dig out the only transgression I ever have made, and threaten with further actions. Why are you so threatened? Why do you ignore my many good contributions? Unlike you, I can write in 3-4 other language versions, if power hungry administrators shut me out from enwp. Creuzbourg (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Your contribution on my talk page is an example of power abuse." I haven't used any tools, I've just advised you what "power hungry administrators" might do next time. While a vote like this may be completely discounted by the closing 'crat, it generates a lot of discussion as people pile on to discredit it, which distracts everyone from doing more important things, such as finding citations for Appledore railway station (Kent). Chill out and take a deep breath. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you have to dig up the blanking? It was a one-time mistake,and the only reason you brought it out must be because you want to scare me into silence. Creuzbourg (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Me, I have always wondered if rationales like that one are part of the reason why folks think that RfA sucks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* Do you ever have one of those days when you don't seem to be able to do anything right and brass off everybody? :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Often. It's why I run away and write content in obscure places, where nobody will shout at me. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Creuzbourg, Nobody has abused any power here. Is there a reason you're being so defensive? As noted at the RfA discussion which it seems you've already read, the community has been down this road before with boilerplate opposes, and it's a huge time-sink that more often than not is frowned upon. People pointing it out to you are not abusing power, rather they are trying to help you avoid the same fate as other editors who have posted in this manner. — Ched (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Richie - I still love you man. (see also: [8]) — Ched (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baker

Baker (slug not pictured)

Hi Ritchie, its a sad day indeed. I know you are also into Blind Faith, was always very taken by his adventures with African rhythms, not so much what was recorded with Fela Kuti, as with as the really mental jams as seen in the 1970s doc. Ceoil (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, look, it's that legendary British organist guy: [9] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bond was always was a bit whimsical for my taste, whereas Ginger hit those drums deft and "hard". (sorry for hijacking your talk on this Ritchie). Martin, this is my jam [10]; you don't see many rock drummers holding the sticks so delicately but hitting with such impact. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to even suggest that Beware of Mr. Baker - Ginger Baker Documentary, from Alan Yentob's BBC One Imagine is actually available in full on the CopyrightTube. Would make an excellent External link of course. But here is the man himself talking about Cyril Davies. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC) .... Thanks Ceoil, nice clip! [reply]
of course, when he hit that dude with the stick it was all Werner Herzog alike. I presume you've seen the clip on u tube where Ginger destroys the dude from Chillie peppers. As an aside, have always liked Yentob, though I know, he was Satan and all that, but he is a very funny human. Ceoil (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that you're frightfully busy Adimining about an' all these days, Threesie. But I'd appreciate your slant on Mr Bond. I see you have (just like me) steadfastly refused to make even a single edit to his article! I can only assume that's because he died in May 1974... only just after this classic was released. Can you believe that Bond "split" the Hammond for portability – and was the first rock artist to record using a Mellotron! A Mellotron might even be considered more cumbersome than an ol' pub Joanna!!?? Cor blimey. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC) [11] [reply]
@Martinevans123: I think the real reason I haven't done much work on Graham Bond is simply because, as Cockney rhyming slang would put it, I don't have any inspectors to hand. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'ere mate... are you totally Barking, or what?? Ravingmonsterevans123 (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belated welcome back

Hi Ritchie, So good to see you are back! CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of vandalism seems to be "reverted my edits" or "dared to copyedit my article"

So Ritchie333 I have discovered you are an administrator and you have blocked my IP recent for "vandalism". Be honest it was for criticising your poor writing. Your definition of vandalism seems to be "reverted my edits" or "dared to copyedit my article", so it's not really fair for an administrator to bully an IP in this way is it? After all Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, even IPs. I have copyedited lots of poorly written articles over ten years, have never been described as a vandal or been blocked so that was a novel experience. FYI, stations don't "sit", proposal and proposed in same sentence is not optimal, dual is for carriageways and double is for track, and the sudden mention of harbour duties needs clarification. As you are so attached to the prose and an administrator then so be it. 188.31.142.231 (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For those playing at home, this is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking about but I do know I have never been blocked. Perhaps someone else could look at Rye railway station188.31.142.231 (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher)This seems to be (indeed) reverting an improvement to prose quality; why care about whether the IP is a LTA or not?! ∯WBGconverse 12:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it's an improvement as much as swapping one way of saying things to a different one, so I went and re-did the relevant paragraph in a manner that I hoped would satisfy all parties. I see Amakuru has stepped up to the plate and done some tweaks too. The problem with the BKFIP is that while their edits are, taken individually, good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia, they tend to think everyone's accusing them of vandalism when it's not true, personalise the debate instead of finding common ground, arguing over minutae, and treating blocks as a minor irritant that can be easily evaded by power cycling the internet router. I'm a reasonable chap; a less charitable admin (naming no names but you can guess) would have done a checkuser block by now and whacked all the IPs. PS: As for "After all Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, even IPs", indeed so - I sometimes edit logged out to catch people out. I will say that continually jumping IPs, and not having a consistent handle, makes it impossible for me to say something like "hey, I've just done a big expansion of 'x' using 'y' and 'z', I don't suppose you can give it a quick copyedit, cheers" in advance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for "when built things are usually new" - this shows a lack of understanding of the station and railway's history; in this case the goods sidings were additional track laid after the original 1851 opening (ie: 23 years earlier), presumably in anticipation that the SER could generate more traffic. After all, the remodelling of St Pancras to include platforms 11-13 is "new" but occurred well over 100 years after the station first opened. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Denial of Raluca Petruș

Hello, I'm a bit confused by your CSD denial of Raluca Petruș. Notability guidelines have no bearing on creations of socks of banned users. WP:BAN says "Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban. An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal in accordance with the provisions below." And per WP:3X they are site banned. Kb03 (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kb03: There is generally no consensus about exactly what to do with banned editors. As you can see in the thread above this one, Godric has said that a banned user’s edits should stand because they made an article better. You can’t both be right! Actually, you can, because they’re just two different opinions that are backed up with precedent and evidence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, Fair enough. Regardless of the content it added, it is still a banned user and for good reason. Just today after SPI'ing one of its accounts they posted to my talk page under one account, started an SPI on me with another, and made a fourth to comment here (on your talk page) as seen here. Anyways I'll AfD it and see how it fares. Have a good one, Kb03 (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like Berean Hunter's view on this, particularly in conjunction with the above thread. More specifically, would he deem it acceptable and within the bounds of administrator discretion to use rollback on any edit by the ranges 188.30.0.0/16 and 92.40.0.0/16 as suspected activity by sockpuppets of a banned user, enforced by range blocks if necessary? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has the admin looked across legitimate ranges such as to tie them together as /16s by behavior? The reason why I ask that is because neither of the indicated ranges are /16 ranges. 92.40.xxx.xxx is divided into smaller size ranges (92.40.0.0/20, 92.40.16.0/20...etc), and 188.30.xxx.xxx is also (example) and unless the admin sees activity in all of them then a /16 would be incorrect for either. Also, are you saying that you see activity in 188.30.xxx.xxx/16? The reason why I ask that is because the IP that replied to you above isn't in that range...he is in 188.31.128.0/20. I'm not sure if you were being arbitrary for example purposes or if you were wanting to see if I understood the subnetting issues that come into play when addressing the specific problem that you have laid out.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, they're /20s not /16s. Anyway, from what I understand, you can basically grab an IP in these ranges from any appropriate mobile device with 3G (possibly directly on a mobile / tablet, or tethered to a laptop), so that means that the user above is trying to avoid anyone finding who they are. This means they can lie that I accused them of vandalism (I didn't), and accused me of poor writing (when another user said the article in question was pretty good), and is trying to evade scrutiny and accountability. I thought you'd spoken to BKFIP's employer and they were going to stop this; or perhaps tethering off a nationwide 3G mobile provider is away of avoiding their employer finding out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BKFIP's employer was more concerned about keeping him from behaving inappropriately on their networks. There was a view that he should be behaving himself even when he was using other networks...something about it being required as part of his employment that he was a good citizen to the community. I'm not sure to what degree they would become involved in enforcing this...assuming that he is still their employee.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ritchie. Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raluca Petruș, the article fits the speedy criteria, as all three !votes have expressed. Do you object to me deleting the article? Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, since Ched has also expressed a view on the content. From my view, I saw this list of news hits (albeit in Romanian) and thought it was worth a full discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All that came up in my Google was that Wiki article, and some self-published stuff like facebook and twitter. I'm not married to a decision either way though. I've never been one to "delete because it was created by .. " person - if it's good material, save it. If anyone thinks they can beef it up a bit, I'm fine with that too. — Ched (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like a River to the Sea

Since the pagemove rights don't seem to be working, could you please perform the pagemove for me? Like a River to the Sea (song) -> Like a River to the Sea. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could, but you've reduced Like a River to the Sea (song) to a redirect, so the page move no longer makes sense. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea

Hello R. I saw this and thought it might work as a list. Are there enough pubs mentioned to sustain a whole article? One thing that would enhance it is a table with pics - List of English monarchs is one of many examples. Maybe we could go on a pub crawl to take those pics. My liver might be too much the worse for wear to sustain that though :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 15:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't see this User talk:Philafrenzy#Green Men until after I started this thread. Best of luck to all of you who are considering this. MarnetteD|Talk 15:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned elsewhere, this started yesterday after I read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Greenman#Questions for the candidate, and more specifically Andrew Davidson's question 13 about where Greenman's user name came from. I then thought there were a couple of Green Man pubs that served as landmarks - I knew about the A12 junction in Leytonstone from travel reports, but a quick trawl through the London Encyclopedia and Historic England threw up a whole load more. Anyway, List of Green Man pubs was a bit tongue in cheek, but Jacqueline Simpson's book (which is used a source for some of the pub signs) does give a brief account of why the Green Man is a popular pub name, and I think there's another book source that does the same. So it does actually sound like it could be a good list - there are a LOT of listed pubs with the name! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff R. Thanks for taking the time to provide the info and links. I knew a tiny bit about the legendary figure but it was when I saw this enjoyable TV production The Green Man (TV serial) back in the early 90s that I went out to learn more. Ah if only WikiP had existed back then :-) MarnetteD|Talk 16:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I spotted the William Blake source (it also name checks the Blackheath one which is at DYK now), I just thought the Green Man, Ashbourne was worth doing first because of its sign and association with "esoteric" local sports. I'm sure there's a good hook buried in the source material somewhere. As for a pub crawl, sure why not? Makes a change from Pendrel's I guess. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was getting mixed up with the Green Man, 67 High Street, Plumstead (where Maiden did play) and the band's Leyton roots. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Kate Smurthwaite Comment

I guess it's not vandalism, but I think the IP in question is unwilling to establish a consensus on changing the gender noun and has been edit warring for quite some time with other editors. This is just going to run and run. My understanding is the consensus across Wikipedia is for gender neutral language, and this usage, which neither the sources, nor the subject herself, nor even the subject page comedian itself uses, looks like point of view pushing. I'm interested to hear what you would suggest next. I think Kate Smurthwaite's page gets a lot of disruption because of the nature of her feminist comedy. Cheers. Mramoeba (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mramoeba: I have started a discussion on the talk page. Once we have an agreement in place, then anyone changing it can be subject to sanctions if they haven't put forward a convincing argument to change the status quo. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sounds sensible to me! Mramoeba (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear lord they've moved on to Shazia Mirza now, and for all I know several others, I don't usually edit comedy pages so it wouldn't appear on my watchlist and the IP address keeps changing. Mramoeba (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear me indeed. Have replied at Talk:Kate Smurthwaite, and used that link in my edit summary for reverting "comedienne" at Shazia Mirza. Edwardx (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Are we nearly there yet?"

@The Rambling Man:, @Redrose64:, @DavidCane: - Every now and again, I think about taking an established GA to FA, and this is one possible candidate. Since passing GA 2 1/2 years ago, I've added about 5K of prose, copyedited a bit, reorganised some of the pictures and boxes to be more presentable, and mined more book sources in my local library. I'm starting to get to the point of diminishing returns where I find additional book sources are just repeating what I've already cited, which is generally a signal that it might pass 1b + 1c. The MOS terrifies me, and I've never been particularly confident I can write 1a quality prose. What do you lot think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to review it from top to bottom. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Okay, I've set up a PR here - go for it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

How to create right article after deletion? Is it possible? I have encyclopedic company description

JohnF3317 (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule of thumb, if a search term does not appear in any existing Wikipedia articles, it is unlikely that it will be a suitable standalone topic. Social Dance TV does not appear in any current live articles. YouTube channels are a dime a dozen. I'm a bit of a fan of Geoff Marshall's channel - note that the article cites multiple reports from BBC News, clearly indicating interest from the wider world. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) oh, I enjoy watching Geoff's videos as well. My family can never quite understand the fascination with watching clips of transparent bin-bags blowing in the wind, and watching him ride obscure parliamentary services to High Wycombe, but at least it's cheaper than going to those locations in person...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the summer, I was thinking of taking the kids out to Doleham for a walk, but the limited stops there make it completely impossible. So I watched Geoff's video instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've been on any section of the Marshlink line, but seems like I'm missing out. I will have a read through your article on the subject later on and check out Geoff's Doleham footage.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been on the line many times. (Feel free to chip into the PR I've just opened as mentioned in the above thread). On a summer's day, the view out of the window, where you can see for miles and miles in all directions, is something you just don't get anywhere else in the local area. However, if you actually want to get to Rye or Hastings for something, crawling into Winchelsea at a walking pace is bloody frustrating, and although electrification, dualling, anything to make services faster and better is a political hot potato, I wouldn't hold your breath. And if it's a sunny summer's day, good luck actually getting on the train - I've seen people waiting at Ham Street just give up trying to get on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've just finished watching the Doleham video, it was very entertaining. Especially when they noted that a 2-car train is too long for the platform there, and that it has a meeting point, as otherwise you wouldn't be able to find someone when meeting them there. The idea of looking out at wide open spaces is a good one too... I saw Geoff's video where he went out to the Burnham on Crouch and Southminster line a while back. I'm working in the City now, and a stones throw from Liverpool Street station so sometimes tempted to head out there for an extended lunch, but it would probably be a 3 hour round trip and someone might notice my absence!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts?

Hi, Ritch (happy you're back) - see this IP - appears to be from an ISD in Frisco, Texas - kids playing around, perhaps? Is it best to just ignore it? Atsme Talk 📧 14:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dog articles attract a silly amount of vandals. One reverted edit is not worth blocking over; if they carry on, I'll have a look. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked - IBAN violation

Ritchie, this edit is an obvious violation of your IBAN with Praxidicae. Since you have already been blocked once before for violating this IBAN, I have blocked you again for a week. You need to stop this behavior. Leave Praxidicae alone. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ritchie, I hope that you do not react to this by quitting WP again. I've looked carefully, and it seems very clear that you did indeed violate the IBAN. Maybe it was done carelessly rather than maliciously, but it really is a violation nonetheless. The best thing you can do is to accept that this is the case, and not fight it, but also not to feel hurt or discouraged. Shit happens, but people still respect you very much, and no one wants you to leave. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I refer the honourable gentlemen to the answer I gave a short time ago. EEng 01:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you didn't strain anything, because this is quite a stretch. Banning policy specifically disallows direct interactions, and does not apply to simply editing the same page. The supposed "violation" here is Praxidicae tagging issues with an article, and Ritchie spending the next two hours fixing those issues. The only "interaction" to speak of was Ritchie removing the tags accordingly, which seems like more of a technicality than the actual intent of an IBAN, and certainly not something warranting a week-long block. It's particularly difficult to interpret a user spending hours rescuing an article with no actual interaction at all as a violation without going substantially out of your way to assume bad faith. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie has been explicitly asked to leave Praxidicae alone, particularly with regards to responding to her CSD tags. Responding to a CSD tag she placed on a page is an explicit violation of the IBAN, especially considering he removed the G11 tag she applied (IBANned editors are not permitted to "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means"). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, copyvio article is tagged by Praxidicae with CSD, then Ritchie333 rewrites the article without any copyvio. How was Praxidicae harmed in this? El_C 02:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie is subject to an interaction ban that prohibits him from interacting with Praxidicae. One of the main reasons the IBAN was enacted was Ritchie's insistence on hovering over Praxidicae's CSD tags and reverting them. This edit was a continuation of that behavior. I'm sorry if you can't see that that's problematic, but the quality of one's edits has never been an excuse for violating any kind of ban - topic, interaction, or otherwise. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But maybe Praxidicae can be persuaded to waive any objections to Ritchie333 responding to her CSDs if he ends up spending a few hours actually rewriting each of these tagged articles! El_C 02:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This pattern is shown in the histories of Bill Homewood, Balaguer Guitars, and Vern Watts to name a few, all in a very short period of time. Additionally you can match other articles where is just seems like Ritchie is stalking Praxidicae's contributions with the amount of time between edits and frequency of this occurring. This is directly prohibited in our harassment policy and is why the IBan was enforced here. So while I get Ritchie is improving articles, there are millions more to improve instead of stalking her contribs for them. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to improve Bill Homewood because The Adventure Game was one of my favourite TV shows as a child; I was interested in Balageur Guitars because I'm a musician and like reading articles about gear and I can't even remember editing Vern Watts except I note the redirect was kept at RfD. I pretty much never look at who tags an article; just what the tag is and what action I should take towards it. Might sound a bit callous, but I generally don't particularly care who writes the encyclopedia, on the grounds that our readers probably don't either. Who tags an article is of no interest to me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How do you further explain then the constant editing behind Praxidicae? Even down to stalking the AfDs she nominates to edit within the next minute? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That link times out for me. There have certainly been occasions where I have declined a CSD and seen it go into AfD while I’ve been thinking of improving it, so a decision has probably already formed in my mind. I will say this is the first time anyone’s mentioned this to me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may take a few loads, but it will show. In the meantime, i've uploaded the first two screens of it. File:Harassment evidence part 1.jpg & File:Harassment evidence part 2.jpg -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t for the life of me recall what I was doing with the AfD log, and in the Flooded With Them Hundreds RfA, that was just pile-on comments about my oppose as I recall. I don't have any particular memories of any of the other stuff; it's all ancient history, water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The interaction analyser works for me and I've drilled down on some cases. This doesn't look like harassment; the timing just seems to be a natural consequence of new page patrolling. For example, look at the history of Balaguer Guitars. That page is created at 18:36 and Praxidicae tags it for speedy deletion at 18:38, just two minutes later. Ritchie333 responds to the speedy deletion tag at 18:59, which is 21 minutes later – ten times longer than the initial reaction time. Presumably, he was working the speedy deletion queue or new page feed and was attracted by the title of the topic, being interested in guitars. This looks to be exactly what you'd expect for new page patrol work, where new articles are acted on as soon as they are created. Ritchie is an admin and so is expected to respond to speedy deletion tags speedily. Twenty minutes is plenty of time for other admins to act but I suppose that no other admin was active or interested at that time. The real issue seems to be that Ritchie hasn't just been rubber-stamping Praxidicae's tags but has been pushing back in some cases. But that's the correct process and Ritchie looks to be acting in good faith because they agree with Praxidicae in other cases. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuvasri Lakshmi (2nd nomination). Praxidicae tagged a new creation with G4. Ritchie declined the speedy deletion but then !votes Delete at the resulting AfD, where the topic is given due consideration. Interactions of this sort will happen routinely at NPP as the same crew of editors is working the same set of recent creations. Differences of opinion are to be expected and should not be characterised as harassment because this will tend to discourage admins from working in this area and so work won't get done. Andrew D. (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the indention, I assume that you are replying to me except that I don't see how your response is not a strawman (never did I say that this was not a technical violation or that this does need to stop) and address the necessity of the chosen time-span, which was my original query. ∯WBGconverse 07:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with El_C here that it seems perverse to punish an editor for quietly rescuing an article that we would otherwise have lost. Perhaps Arbcom would prefer Ritchie to message other editor(s) off-wiki when he sees her tagging something that could be rescued? We lose an awful lot of articles because no one willing or able to rescue them saw them in time; Praxidicae is performing a valuable service in spotting copyvios, but copyvios can be fixed if the topic is notable, so that people other than admins, such as readers, can see the articles. Surely we should demonstrate that we value that, too. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine suggesting that anyone else who is subject to an IBAN should get around it by emailing other people off-wiki to have them proxy edit for them. Really and honestly imagine making that suggestion about any other IBANned editor. No, Ritchie should not alert other editors off-wiki about anything Praxidicae is doing. Ritchie should do what anyone else who has been IBANned is expected to do and forget that the other editor exists. As Amanda said, there are millions of other articles to rescue; he can rescue those. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine thinking that quietly fixing the problems with the article, thereby rescuing it from deletion in the best way possible, is harassment. I personally can't imagine thinking that way. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking and harassment is a serious and credible concern, especially when it is organized and recruited off-wiki. Mkdw talk 06:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yet Arbcom has trivialized stalking by classifying remedying the problems the editor identified as stalking. (I think we can agree it definitely wasn't harassment, but I fail to see how remedying the problems in an even better way is stalking, or should cause any disquiet, if the editor's concern was with the problems identified in the tags, as surely it was? Arbcom is in fact leaving Ritchie with no alternative except seeking others to proxy for him (if he happens to notice who left the tags; I now see he admits he hadn't even looked, just set to work to fix the problems. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If only it has been limited to that since his IBAN. Ritchie has continued to discuss Praxidicae on off-wiki forums, continues to discuss the matter with ArbCom, and now violated his sanction on-wiki. We have received several complaints from editors within the English Wikipedia community and it may very well escalate to a point beyond ArbCom's purview. Mkdw talk 06:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to discuss it with you via email but you never reply. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Odd considering between all the members of the committee, including myself and Worm That Turned, you have received a few emails [over the past few months], including at least one since you have been blocked. Mkdw talk 07:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve received one reply to the email I sent WTT yesterday, an offer to meet up and discuss issues about a month ago, and that’s about it. I’ve certainly had nothing from you at all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I sent you a lengthy email on August 27 and you responded a month later on September 30. You received it because my email is in the reply body of your email back. Mkdw talk 07:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was advised to send that by WTT, after I'd had a productive discussion about these issues in the pub and he understood where I was coming from. I was originally going to ignore it, but he advised sending a follow-up email politely discussing the issues. That's the 30 September email. I appreciate you're all busy chaps, there's not many left, and Arbcom is the most thankless task in the world, but even a holding reply like "Thanks for your reply, we're looking into it and will get back to you". I would have happily discussed all issues off-wiki via email with Arbcom until all parties were satisfied, even if it took months. But I don't think our conversation was in any way finished as I identified key problems that ought to be addressed. And ironically enough, one of those has now manifested itself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: ...that'd be ArbCom's reverse ferret  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 07:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, he addressed the G11 tag. The two are VERY different and it's pretty clear that this needs more discussion before someone just hands out an Arb block. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Winged Blades of Godric, I personally strongly agree with the one week escalation. Ritchie is most certainly not new, and as an admin should clearly know by now what is and isn't allowed when under an IBAN with another editor. The primary contention with Prax and Ritchie was the CSD tags, and regardless of whether he improved the article or not, he clearly removed the tags with hardly any time for any other admin to address them. He began publishing edits (starting by immediately removing the tags with the edit summary "kerzapp"), to that article less than a half hour after Prax added the tags, so short a timespan may also deserve some scrutiny. Regarding what El C proposed, I doubt that they would be willing to do so, even if they were allowed by the IBAN to mention Ritchie directly or indirectly except in the context of appeal. To Yngvadottir, I wouldn't call removing CSD tags, revdelling 12 revisions, and violating an IBAN "quiet" in any sense. Ritchie had a choice to walk away from that article, other admins would have attended to it as needed soon enough (WP:NODEADLINE). As I pointed out, it was less than a half hour before he got involved. If it had languished for days, I might be more sympathetic. Frankly, I'm a bit skeptical that he didn't notice Prax in the edit history when revdelling. Waggie (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen from the history, the tags were not merely removed, but addressed - the entire prose had to be rewritten so it did not closely paraphrase the original source from the Victoria Warehouse website, and also remove any flowery and self promotional language. This needed to be done immediately and up front; simply removing the tags would have been silently putting an undetectable copyright violation in the encyclopedia, which is not acceptable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ritchie, I appreciate the response, thank you. I'm not denying that the issues were addressed, and I agree that it's a good thing. I don't think anyone is denying that. However, my concern is that you showed up very rapidly at that article (less than 30 minutes), and that another admin certainly could have addressed the issue in at least some fashion in a timely manner. The issue is that you clearly know that you have an IBAN with the editor who placed the tags. Someone else could have easily addressed these issues. Indeed, if I AGF and assume that you realized mid-way through your editing that you had violated the IBAN, you should have stopped then, instead of continuing. I'm sorry this is confrontational, but can you understand my concerns? Thanks again for your time, Waggie (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Waggie: FYI, your concerns are misguided: perhaps refocus on this. The loneliest number, and all that. As well, passive-aggression is not mandatory, whatever you may have learned in your three years here. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 06:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree then, though I think I'll do it a little more politely and constructively. Best wishes. Waggie (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, ​ we will agree that you do not have the moral authority to comment on content creation. One article in three years and nearly three-quarters of your edits using semi/automated tools? Your opinion here is unhelpful and unnecessary. ——SerialNumber54129 06:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And you aren't addressing anything that was said, just attacking the editor with an Ad hominem attack. Care to provide any actual evidence or just wish to attack the editor? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DeltaQuad: I'm sorry? Would you like links that prove...err...one page created and 72% semi/automated edits in three years? Or do you think it's useful that totally uninvolved editors arrive on blocked users' talk pages to inform far more experienced editors than they that the block is good? That's not just unhelpful and unwarranted, that's verging on harassment also. Which is kinda ironic, no, since that was what this supposedly well-founded block was based on. No ad hom, no aspersion, and calling an apple an orange does not make it so. ——SerialNumber54129 06:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't understand what harassment is. It's a "pattern of repeated offensive behavior" as defined in WP:HARASSMENT. And I was speaking to the evidence where anything that was said was wrong. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you prefer it described as enabling trolling? The principle stands, those who choose not to see that, will not. ——SerialNumber54129 06:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we must simply disagree then, though I notice the discussion here is about editor conduct and IBAN violations, not content creation. That said, I stand by my edits as constructive and useful to Wikipedia, regardless of their specific nature. However, if you take issue with any of my edits for whatever reason, you're welcome to take it to the appropriate venue and it can be hashed out there. Please note that I do not intend to respond to you any further here, as this clearly isn't achieving anything constructive in the context of Ritchie's block. Waggie (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Waggie: As you can see from my mainspace contributions last night, I was working on improving Marshlink line, rewriting the initial history from new sources as requested, and having beavered away at that for a bit, I needed a break. I often look at CAT:CSD to see if there are any articles I can fix instead of delete; much of the time there isn't, but there are occasional diamonds in the rough. I spotted the Vic Warehouse article, and thought a live music venue article looked like just the topic I might enjoy improving up to DYK standards. Incidentally, that's why I paused once all copyvios were removed, everything was reliably sourced, and there was more than 1,500 characters of prose, which is the minimum floor for DYKs. Why did I want to do this? Well, it's simply because I keep an eye on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs and want to bounce up the table a bit. Incidentally, CAT:CSD lists pages in alphabetical order; I don't know how recently the candidate was added to the list, who made it, or under what category. I just trend towards topics I might want to edit. Occam's razor is useful here - the simplest explanation ("writing articles and nominating DYKs is fun") is frequently the most appropriate one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ritchie, thank you for the explanation. Waggie (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should have noticed that the editor who tagged the page was Praxidicae, and left it alone. It’s as simple as that. Your ongoing harassment cannot be annulled by your creating content simultaneously. Vermont (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why anyone should notice who does what tagging. It should be irrelevant, particularly when the work conducted was 100% to the benefit of every single human being on planet Earth and of precisely zero consequence to Praxidicae who I'm sure would also be pleased to see that an article had been saved and completely revised to the betterment of the project. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and fixing the issues she had correctly identified; one presumes she tagged for speedy deletion because she thought no one had the time or inclination to fix them instead. See my comments above, glad to see agreement. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"kerzapp", if I recall, came from Uncle G, and I thought at one point was a shortcut to WP:Blow it up and start over. In other words, "The current state of this article is unsalvageable, I'm redoing it from scratch". Although having just had a look, Wikipedia:KERRRZAPPP goes to WP:The Heymann Standard. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ritchie333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry, I didn't notice who had tagged O2 Victoria Warehouse Manchester for G11 and G12 until I had finished the first urgent rewrite to avoid close paraphrasing and excessive puffery and hit "save", by which point it was probably too late. For what it's worth I thought the tags were justified and deletion would have been within the bounds of administrator discretion; I just fancied improving the article so I could nominate it for Did you know? - as a musician, I'm interested in articles about live venues and my interest in Manchester history and architecture has been piqued by the meetup earlier this year. Anyway, I would like to be unblocked to do that, to continue my working in improving Marshlink line towards FAC, and to attend to any GA and DYK reviews I have put up that require my input. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is a procedural decline. Since the block has been clarified to be an arbitration enforcement action, no admin can unilaterally unblock. You'll need to request an appeal to WP:AN or convince Premeditated Chaos to unblock you. Sorry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ritchie, WTF have you done? I can't unblock you because I regard you as a friend and therefore have a COI. It seems as if you possibly did abuse your iBan, but these types of ban are indeed easily and innocently breached. Unless another admin will unblock you, it looks as if you might have to sit this one out, but for heaven's sake don't risk compromising your adminship and above all, don't leave again in a fit of pique. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second Kudpung's comment here. I have been watching this discussion with some bemusement, unsure what to make of it. I do think the block was heavy-handed, particularly given that the original 24-hour block was widely condemned and the next step above that should be a 72-hour. But an IBAN is an IBAN and it should really be possible to edit without infringing it. I have no idea if your editing of this article shortly after Praxi tagged it was an innocent coincidence, or if it resulted from you looking at her contribution history, but either way please don't take this badly. Sit out the block (unless an uninvolved admin decides to remove it), move on from this, and if you see that something you want to edit has been recently touched by Praxi. It just isn't worth the hassle and we really really don't want to lose you as either an editor or an admin. Wishing you all the best, and I look forward to the continued push to FA for the Marshlink line when you're back.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, another ridiculous situation bought on by admins (I use the term lightly) who clearly have issues with Ritchie. Rinse, repeat. Jeni (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(tps, feel free to remove) Ritchie333: I don't think it would be in your best interest to be unblocked by the community after being blocked by an arbitrator enforcing an arbitration decision of this nature.

And I know this is somewhat out of the committee's hands (and the editor who alluded to it probably did not mean it in such a manner), but the new 'keep your nose clean, or T&S might step in' aspect of conduct enforcement indeed has a significant chilling effect on editorial and administrative action, and that concerns me. I'm curious if it introduces Section 230 issues.

I trust it would be safer for you to appeal the block directly to the committee. –xenotalk 13:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very troubling. Arbs telling Ritchie to "leave X alone" when Ritchie just fixed up an article. People uploading images called "Harassment evidence". Suggestions that a purely editorial action could result in a T&S hit. We're now clearly in the realms of guilty until proven innocent. Jesus, WTF has this place become? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A place where "editors" are now blocked for rescuing articles, and those that enable it can still claim to be...editors? ——SerialNumber54129 15:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get an IBAN is an IBAN and all ... but come on who's going to check who tags what before working on an article?, I'd prefer if both could work on articles together providing they don't make reference or revert each other.... Prax can do what they enjoy and Ritchie can do what he enjoys .... happy days. –Davey2010Talk 14:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you were under an interaction ban that stemmed primarily from hounding an editor over their CSD tags, I would 100% expect you to take the responsibility to check who tagged any article you were handling at CSD. It takes two seconds to click the history tab and read the username. It's not that difficult. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How far does this bureaucratic overeach extend then? What if Praxidicae had made the last-but-one edit? Any edit? Is Ritchie effectively banned from any article that Praxidicae now edits? Or is it just CSD tags Praxidicae places that Ritchie is prohibited from addressing (and addressing well, with no hint whatsoever of all this screaming "harassment")? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IBAN provisions specifically state that editors under an IBAN cannot revert each other by any means; Ritchie's removal of the CSD tags Prax placed was a clear violation of that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Premeditated Chaos Oh, I thought Ritchie's first edit was to remove a whole heap of copyvio trash, not simply to "revert" the edit. Can you clarify that please? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removing her tag is still a revert of her edit, regardless of what else he did alongside. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"her" tag? Are you joking? The edit did much more than that and you know it. Are you know suggesting that Ritchie has to check the history of every single article he ever edits to check that he does not remove content ever added by Praxidicae? Or just CSD tags? It's important this is made clear because what Ritchie did was not a revert of Praxidicae's edit, it was the removal of a bunch of copyvio back to a point where the article could be salvaged. It actually had nothing to do with any other editor whatsoever, but given that Ritchie is being watched and people are assuming bad faith now, I guess we're now in a WP:ABF project. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So if an admin enacts upon a G12 request by deleting the copyvio and stubbifying the article they are in fact “reverting” the tagger? That’s quite a stretch. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) He removed the G11 tag she placed as well, which is a revert no matter which way you slice it. But even without the G11 removal, admins should not be taking admin actions involving people they are IBANned with. That ought to be obvious. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, he addressed the G11 tag. The two are VERY different and it's pretty clear that this needs more discussion before someone just hands out an Arb block. And as you have been told in black and white, he wasn't deliberately taking actions involved with people he was IBANed with, he was fixing an issue on an article which happened to be tagged by Praxidicae. The two are at opposite ends of the spectrum but we just lumped on a one-week ban without discussion. ABF. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, PMC, that’s incredibly unconvincing, if not utterly pathetic Wikilawyering. We all know what “reverting” is, and you damn well know that removing tags because they are no longer needed because you’ve fixed the issue is is very obviously not the same as reverting. Christ, what a feeble justification. Reading this thread, it’s exceedingly obvious no one can come up with any good reason for the block, which we reasonable people are conveniently barred from overturning as a bad block. ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, quite a stretch indeed. I think we need clarification on what IBAN really means now. What is the statute of limitations on any of Praxidicae's edits - will Ritchie get a month-long ban for editing an article previously edited by her a month ago? A year ago? Or just from the point of the IBAN? Is Ritchie now obliged to check which words were contributed by which editors before editing any article? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I would not and no amount of blockings would change that, If I were IBANNED I honestly wouldn't check the history at all .... I just wouldn't care to be honest. –Davey2010Talk 15:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Davey2010, well I hope that's never the case for you then because I would hate to lose you as an editor and I would hate to lose Ritchie as an editor. I will admit that I myself don't always check the history before declining a CSD (see evidence of that here which features a cameo by Ritchie) because I'm not looking for reasons to delete, I'm looking for reasons to keep so I get that. I also am fortunate enough that I'm not under an iBAN and if I ever were I would either need to adjust my actions or know that I could be blocked. "Don't care enough to change my actions" can be an explanation, and a fair enough one if a person's willing to accept the consequences, but it's also not a reason to undo a block for an IBAN violation (an IBAN placed because of interactions around potential speedy deletions). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Barkeep49 that means a lot, Same here you're a fantastic editor and I'd hate to lose you, IMHO checking the history would be time consuming and I guess in mind the time it takes to flaff about looking at the history could've already been time saving an article. –Davey2010Talk 16:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unrelated and taking to users talkpage. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • @Mkdw, DeltaQuad, and Premeditated Chaos: I have sent you all a copy of an email I received by mistake a few weeks ago. Assuming it is authentic, and there is no reason to think it is not, at a minimum it sheds some light on Praxidicae's the author's real world 'behavioral pattern' which should be considered here. Jbh Talk 15:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC) (Last edited: To not impute authorship since it is unclear from context. 17:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)) (Just saw this edir conflicted and did not save)[reply]
  • That's a hell of an accusation, and my preliminary looks show that this is completely out of context and that the text you saw was not written by Prax. I've redacted the accusation for the time being. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had changed it an hour or so ago. The email read like it was being forwarded to the target but that may simply be because of the context in which I read it -- addressed to me, not a report since no one reports such things to me. Jbh Talk 17:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xeno is quite correct, Ritchie; no one except ARBCOM can lift your block at this point without risking instant desysop, else I'd have done it already. Might I also suggest you appeal directly to them? (To be clear, I also have thoughts about the substance of this mess, but I don't think this is the time and place). Vanamonde (Talk) 15:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear a sitting arbitrator say that. I see no reason to think that this IBAN is some special ArbCom iBAN which is unappealable or appealable only through AE/AN. To me it looks like the arbirtration committee, as is their remit, placed a 2 way iBAN (couched in other language but 2 way never-the-less) and then an arbitrator, in their capacity as an administrator, placed this block. As such I think another, uninvolved administrator could respond to the unblock request above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I was just informed by a clerk that this is an arbitration enforced action and so can only be appealed at AE/AN. My apologies for that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How were you informed? AE blocks need to explicitly mentioned in the block-log per policy. ∯WBGconverse 15:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The IBAN was imposed by ArbCom, so presumably blocks made by admins applied under its purview can't be simply undone by another admin. Maybe some part of procedure hasn't been followed, but I'd take it as that.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be so per PMC's reply to Carcharoth over User_talk:Premeditated_Chaos#Hello. ∯WBGconverse 16:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy is WP:NEVERUNBLOCK. The clerks can handle the paperwork of logging (I don't know that it needs to be, the IBAN was imposed by motion rather than via a case, so the relevant procedures are obscure). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the fact that this block was not tagged with an Arbitration Enforcement template, it is a block for violating an arbitration decision, and therefore the policy spelled out at WP:AEBLOCK applies. This block can be overturned by consensus at AE or AN, or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. The IBAN itself can only be lifted by the Arbitration Committee. – bradv🍁 16:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm missing too much info to comment knowledgeably here, but perhaps some percentage of this is correct:
    • This was an AE block that was not identified as an AE block. That should be rectified by User:Premeditated Chaos before an admin sees the unblock request and acts on it.
    • I get the impression this block was discussed on the ArbCom mailing list before it was made. If so, that should be made clearer.
    • It is very difficult for people to differentiate between innocent accidental interaction caused by both of them working on NPP (which would make this an overreaction), and continual low-grade pestering done in a way to have plausible deniability (which would arguably make this too short a block). My instinct is that this was an innocent interaction, if only because I've talked with Ritchie enough on and off wiki enough to strike me as a decent human. But there is a whole lot that I know I do not know.
    • Perhaps a way forward would be for Ritchie to acknowledge that because of this difficulty, he will in the future spend the extra 10 seconds needed to find out who has tagged an article before he edits it, and choose to edit another article instead if it was tagged by Prax.
--Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted the block log to explicitly say it's a block made to enforce an Arbcom sanction. The block was not discussed or voted on on the mailing list. I saw the complaint because I was online, I looked at the edit, and I made the call to block. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos: You said I saw the complaint because I was online. Did someone post a complaint on-wiki that drew your attention? If so, could you please provide a diff? (If in fact it was off-wiki and private, I'm obviously not asking you to link to that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was posted to our mailing list. I happened to be in the process of dredging my inbox when it came in. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I think that's reasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the fix and for the info. I assumed the large number of Arbs commenting here implied otherwise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to the email on the list to advise I'd done the block, but it wasn't voted on prior to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And just to expand upon Floq's third point, we are now assuming guilty before innocence, we're going for WP:ABF from now on, is that the case? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's an IBAN violation in black and white and I blocked to enforce the IBAN. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(a) not at all, as explained, her edit wasn't reverted, the article was stripped back to a salvageable state. You did not communicate with Ritchie, just blocked him. For something that could (and has) easily been explained. The project is dying a death here, WP:ABF rules. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious “arbitration decision” that was short-circuited behind the scenes to avoid community scrutiny aside, we have a very troubling trend here. We have an arbitrator here that demonstrated zero understanding on how arbitration enforcement usually works, in addition to questionable understanding on common blocking practices, in particular Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Duration_of_blocks and WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. This is precisely why templates like {{Uw-aeblock}} exists. We initially had no idea whether or not the block was enforced as an arbitrator, or in their capacity as an administrator. We also initially had no idea whether or not the block was an arbitration enforcement over an arbitration decision on an interaction ban, or simply a block over violation of a mere interaction ban. All of these are important details that needs to be spelled out explicitly when the blocked is being made, not afterwards.

This ongoing trend of skipping over WP:AE for requesting arbitration enforcement, in addition to having arbitrators following editors around on and off Wikipedia, and hastily enacting disproportional sanctions while failing to follow any of the common administrative practices and procedures (instead of assessing the situation in order to make an informed decision that are explained with clarity and appears neutral to all parties), is frankly depressing. Alex Shih (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding like I'm wikilawyering, this looks to me like an adherence to the letter of the WP:IBAN law instead of the spirit, specifically the bullet point "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means". If Ritchie had simply reverted Prax's CSD tags with no other changes, I believe the block would be justified. One question I would like to put forth is, is there a length of time after which edits would not be considered a violation of the IBAN? For example, let's say that instead of editing the articles at the time, he made a note of the tagged articles and waited a day or two after they got deleted to make his edits. Does that still count as an undo? If yes, then does that mean he is forbidden to ever improve these articles until the IBAN expires? —howcheng {chat} 17:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you've written. I asked above about the statute of limitation on Praxidacae's edits. Presumably this now just sets a precedent that any aspect of any edit ever made by Praxidicae if removed for whatever reason by Ritchie would constitute a breach of the IBAN. I somehow don't think that's what is intended here. P.S. IBANs don't expire Howcheng, and in this case I can hardly see a case for it to ever be removed given the nature of its imposition. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that when both editors are acting in good faith, common sense should apply. I mean, doesn't this go directly against our WP:SOFIXIT ethos? If Ritchie is forbidden from both rescuing these articles from immediate deletion (especially when he can do so) and asking other editors to intervene, what course of action should he have taken? —howcheng {chat} 17:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree wholly with your comments, User:Howcheng. This seems so very heavy-handed and clumsy. I find it hard to imagine that Ritchie went out of his way just to "harass" Praxidicae. Does Praxidicae have any input to this entire process? Perhaps that's forbidden by policy. I'm sure some suitable compromise could be reached. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the crux of this matter is the question of whether the edits in question arose completely by chance, as a run-of-the-mill CSD patrol; or if they were the result of Ritchie deliberately looking at Praxi's user-contributions list, spotting the O2 Victoria article there, and then choosing to edit the article on that basis. Ritchie's version of events above says that it was the former scenario, he just visited CSD as a break from article writing and then didn't even notice that Praxi was the one who'd flagged the CSD. Technically this may have been an IBAN infringement but, taken in isolation, it's hard to see how it could be construed as harassment. But PMC's note right at the top of this section says "You need to stop this behavior. Leave Praxidicae alone." That suggests that PMC believes this came about because Ritchie is still following Praxi around and represents a pattern of behaviour which is ongoing and needs to be stopped. The strong wording of PMC's statement and the relatively harsh length of the block are indicative that PMC thought this had happened deliberately. Of course, only Ritchie knows the true answer to this question, but if one assumes good faith, as we are constantly reminded we should do, and note that there doesn't seem to be any sort of pattern to this, and (correct me if I'm wrong) it's just an isolated incident, then we should default to believing his version of events.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a good faith exception to IBAN feels like it would invite a lot of trouble for enforcement that our current exceptions and policy about what constitutes a violation doesn't. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) This is not an isolated incident, and I'm getting tired of having to repeat that. This is another instance of the exact kind of repeated hovering over Prax's CSD tags that prompted the IBAN in the first place. If Ritchie had noticed Prax was the tagger when he went into the history to do the revdel and subsequently self-reverted, I'd happily believe it was a mistake. That's not what happened. I don't believe Ritchie just so happened to coincidentally pick one of Prax's CSDs at random from the CSD list and then also failed to notice she was the tagger when he went into the history to do a revdel. It beggars belief. AGF is not a suicide pact - when someone has been sanctioned for problematic behavior (and has been blocked for violating that sanction before), we don't normally trip all over ourselves trying to assume it was all just a startling coincidence when they do it again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of us are getting tired of various things. However, the page where this incident happened is in a topic area that Ritchie is particularly interested and active in. (That's the kind of thing where editor-interaction analyses can give false positives.) I don't know all the past history between these two, and I certainly could be wrong, but it isn't like he wandered into a topic area he is never active in, in order to do this. And something that just seems strange to me is that nothing he did was inconsistent with what she was asking to have done at the page. OK, he did undo the CSD tag that she placed, and I've already said that I consider that to have been a violation of the IBAN, but he then went on to fix exactly the problems that the CSD tag drew attention to. That's not what I would expect from someone who intends to interfere with the editing of someone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And about editor interactions, I cannot help but notice that the same administrator has been behind both this block and the underlying ArbCom IBAN decision. I'm not saying that's a violation of anything, but I do think the optics sit uncomfortably with the assertions about Ritchie just happening to show up. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The IBAN was proposed to the entire Arbitration Committee via the mailing list and after significant discussion was unanimously supported by everyone who voted (leaving out Joe's recusal). I took point on the initial email to Ritchie and the subsequent noticeboard posting, but saying I was "behind" the IBAN implies that I somehow enacted it on my own against the objections of seven other arbitrators (or somehow without contacting them at all), which is inaccurate. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was proposed to the entire Arbitration Committee? I don't think that it simply proposed itself. My understanding is that you drafted it, and... it was approved by majority support: [12]. And you made it clear that you felt strongly that Ritchie was at fault in a way that Prax was not: [13]. I never said (nor, I think, implied) that you did it without consultation with the rest of the Committee. And, since I'm digging up diffs, I still think what I said here: [14]. But as I already said, you are not in violation of anything. It's just that the optics are suboptimal, particularly in the context of whether one person keeps showing up where another person has. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I drafted that particular wording, but was not the initial proposer of the IBAN. And, as I've said before, I opposed the de-sysop when Level 2 was initiated. However, I acknowledge your point about the optics and I'll step back from anything concerning Ritchie going forward. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have some as yet unanswered questions about, at least, the optics of the block, but I really have to disagree with those who are saying that it should not be regarded as a policy violation if it improved content. Would it be OK to violate a topic ban because the edit improved content? Of course not. But I am inclined to AGF that Ritchie is telling the truth when he says that he actually did not notice who had placed the tag. This looks to me like a careless violation, rather than a mean-spirited one. But that still is a violation, and I think that Ritchie should, going forward, take a bit more care and check the last few edits before risking an unintended interaction. (The last few edits, not an archeological dig throughout page history.) And I very much hope that he will communicate just that to ArbCom, and that ArbCom will then be satisfied that the block can be lifted. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, archaeology, a.k.a "The Curse of Wikipedia". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]
I think questions remain over whether addressing a maintenance tag relating to copyvio violates an IBAN in any sense. Where does this end? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it ends when editors who have been ordered to stop following each other around, stop following each other around. Of course copyright tags should be dealt with, but there is always someone else who can take care of it. There is an editor who is under a 1-way IBAN with me. In the past, they would show up on talk pages where I had been active, and comment in threads where I wasn't present, at the same time that I was commenting in other sections, on the same day. They didn't say "Hey Tryptofish", but I can assure you that it felt to me like they were following me on purpose. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, that's entirely dependent on whether you believe Ritchie was acting maliciously or not. If so then you should be advocating throwing the book at him. If not (as he himself says) then communication should have been the first course of action from Arb (e.g. "Hey Ritchie, did you realise ...?") not slapping a week-long block for an edit which was in every sense positive and actually not a revert of someone with whom he has an IBAN. And you fail to address the primary issue now, which is at what point does Praxidicae's edits become beyond the statute of limitations? If Ritchie removes text which Praxidicae has added a month ago, a year ago, is that an IBAN violation? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 05:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've already made it very clear that I believe that he was not acting maliciously. And I have always been a strong advocate of the value of WP:BEFOREBLOCK, so I very much agree with you that it would have been better to communicate first. But I can still, simultaneously, hold those opinions as well as believing that Ritchie should not have done that. As for the question of how far back it goes, I think that what WP:IBAN says is pretty much right: it's no problem to "edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other," but they should not directly "undo each other's edits". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't "undo" anything, he addressed the content of the G11 tag. How many times must that be spelled out here? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[15]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. He addressed the tag, he didn't "undo" or "revert" the edit. I'm afraid you and the blocking Arb (who is bordering on INVOLVED it appears from above) have got this quite wrong. And then to see others doubling down and taking the chance to hit with the "harassment" nonsense, this place has gone to the dogs. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not forgetting that other bit: [16]. Martin "Mad Muffet" evans123 (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]
I find it highly doubtful Ritchie didn't notice, as he revision-deleted Praxidicae's edit. Unless his eyes didn't stray a millimeter from his cursor while he checked the box directly to the left of Praxidicae's name, he saw who tagged it. Vermont (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, he should have noticed it. And it's not an excuse. But humans make all kinds of strange mistakes. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How true! The question is how to deal with such mistakes: go by teh rulez which demand punishment regardless (even if it's not called that name, but education or what?), or say, ignoring all rules (WP:IAR): thank you, Ritchie, for improving that article, but next time better watch out for who tagged it, and have a friend perform the act. In case you don't know, PMC: Talk before you block. How about assuming in good faith that it wasn't done on purpose, other than the purpose of improving the article?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Every day, we lose what the wrongly blocked would have given that day. And a little bit of our souls.

nb: User talk:Wehwalt#Sanddunes Sunrise

Martin said "idea" (on my talk), that gave me an idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I speak as a relatively new editor here, but... what the hell did this guy do? Expand an article? ...and get blocked for it? | abequinnfourteen 23:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor, Praxidicae, tagged a copyright-violation and promotional article for deletion. Ritchie removed the tags, revision-deleted the copyright violations, and rescued the article from deletion. That is all well and good, however Ritchie has active interaction ban (2-way) from interacting with Praxidicae due to previous issues of harassment/contributions-stalking, especially relating to deletion tags, thus making it a violation of the interaction ban. As he must have seen the username while revision-deleting the edits, if not earlier, he knew (or should have known) that responding to that tag would be a violation of the ban, at which point he should have moved on to edit another article. The block is as a consequence for violating the ban. I hope this summary helps. Best, Vermont (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: "due to previous issues of harassment/contributions-stalking, especially relating to deletion tags" This is called proof by repeated assertion. At the top of of the thread, I have explained in some detail why this is not true, and Andrew D has cited a couple of case studies to explain in detail why it is not true. However, you only need to look at the millions of people supporting Donald Trump to know that facts and detailed hard evidence do not sit comfortably with some, who would prefer to wave them away with cries of "fake news". PS: To you and Premeditated Chaos - how dare you accuse me of lying. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There were some screenshots above in this section relating to the contribs-stalking issue, and you can’t deny that this and perceived harassment was the cause of the IBAN; had there not been issues with those there would be no conflict whatsoever. Also, how can you expect me to believe that you didn’t notice who made the edit while you checked off the box immediately next to their username while revision-deleting it? I can’t accept that you, as an experienced administrator, would not even look at edits you were RDing, or even to just look at the username a centimeter or so away from the box. I apologize if you are offended that I do not believe you, but recognize how unlikely it is that you would, in good faith, entirely ignore a page’s edit history prior to making multiple admin actions on it and rewriting the page. I hope this explains why I hold my opinion. Regards, Vermont (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: where are the screenshots you mention? I haven't seen them. The only evidence of contribution-stalking that I've seen is the mention of articles Bill Homewood, Balaguer Guitars, and Vern Watts above, but those incidents all took place before the IBAN was put in place. Is there any evidence that Ritchie has been routinely combing through Praxi's contribs since the IBAN? I can see the merit in Barkeep's argument above that IBAN breaches are a bright-line, and we don't need to look at whether they were intentional or not... the block itself may well be justified per Liz's thoughtful advice below. But what has really disappointed me is the hostile rhetoric that has accompanied it, both from yourself and PMC. Don't forget that there is a real human being at the other end of the wire, and real human beings make mistakes sometimes. And in the same way that a victim of harassment feels chilled and discouraged from contributing here, the same applies to someone who's given a plausible version of events, but is not believed by those in power.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just search for the despicably titled "harassment evidence" JPGs. ABF all the way. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see them now, thanks. I see they've been uploaded under a "fair use" tag! But again, there's no evidence of when these interactions took place. As I already noted above, Bill Homewood was before the IBAN so shouldn't be considered when deciding if there was an infringement. Were any of these events recent?  — Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, ironic that the two "accusation" images should be speedily deleted... Reminds me of something my old cadet leader told me one day, that his career was typified by "the blind leading the blind"... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with contribs-stalking refers to pre-IBAN, as I was talking about the cause of the IBAN. I'm not aware of any issues since then save for this one, and therefore no, there is no evidence he is routinely combing through her contribs, nor do I think he is. I apologize if my comments were perceived as hostile; that was not the intention. Vermont (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After further review, I feel like PMC's refusal to unblock Ritchie even after the multiple times that Ritchie's block has been proven dubious indicates that PMC purely has a personal reason for the refusal, without regarding evidence. | abequinnfourteen 21:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read every message here since this morning but the solution seems obvious (and may have already been proposed) but Ritchie you simply need to look at the edit history before editing an article. I was getting complaints from editors tired of receiving CSD notices and so I now look at the category history before notifying the category creator of a speedy deletion & have ceased sending notices to those who do not want to receive them. It's an extra step & initially a hassle but now it's automatic & I don't think twice about it.

I think even those affirming the block believe that Wikipedia doesn't want to lose either of you & checking the history of a page will likely prevent these encounters from happening in the future. Just a thought. Liz Read! Talk! 02:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie you simply need to look at the edit history before editing an article – Presumably that was meant ironically. It may make sense for esoterica such as category deletion but for general article editing it’s completely unrealistic. EEng 10:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was ironic at all. It now seems that people who are IBANed are not able to edit anything previously edited by the person with which they are IBANed since the current definition of "revert" now includes just about any kind of editing which results in anything being "removed" whether its to improve an article or salvage a speedy deletion. Seems like wikilawyering and ABF at its finest. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More accurately, one should look at the history of an article before preforming admin actions on it, especially revision deletion. Of course, asking him to check history prior to making any edit is simply unreasonable. Vermont (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a logical outcome of the FramBan change to how Ibans work. Perhaps we need an RFC to redefine Ibans back into something that doesn't require an Ibanned person to check the history of any page they want to edit. Aferall, for pages with thousands of edits going back ten years would be time consuming. ϢereSpielChequers 21:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ritchie, you can appeal to the community at AN, to administrators at AE, or to Arbcom directly. Do you want to submit an appeal at AN or AE? Arguing it here is a waste of time but it seems apparent that you have a reasonable appeal to make. ~Swarm~ {sting} 18:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think at the very least, clarification of the scope of IBAN is required now. And perhaps even clarification of what "undo" and "revert" means when it's abundantly clear to a number of us that the edit for which Ritchie was blocked was absolutely neither. Lastly, we need some clarification on whether it's acceptable for Arbs and admins to start throwing around terms like "harassment" and even uploading (incorrectly) images with names like "harassment evidence" without evidence, accusing people of lying, and therefore harassing those people themselves. Some of the borderline behaviour from arbs and admins here has been nothing short of despicable. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appeal copied to AN. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article

Ritchie333 is indisposed at the moment
@Preciousobichi:, Ritchie333 is indisposed at the moment. If you're willing to wait a day or two, I'll look things over and if there's no WP:COPYVIO issues or spam problems - I'd be willing to put it in your user space. If you're in a hurry for it, you can make a request at WP:REFUND — Ched (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ched:, i will gladly wait. Thank You.Preciousobichi (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Preciousobichi:, actually Barkeep49 restored it, then moved it to User:Preciousobichi/Fii3rd. I followed him around to put the BLP template on the talk page. :-) — Ched (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Yes, the article creator asked to userfy/draftify the article and a few other editors supported it, I have no idea why Ritchie333 decided to go hard way and delete the article nonetheless. — kashmīrī TALK 16:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have checked the article and the only COPYVIO issues I see are ultimately places that copied from our article so no COPYVIO issues at all. As user resotriation is listed as part of an AfD close I see no reason not to honor the request rather than making them fill out the REFUND paperwork and so I have gone ahead and done it. I had typed out 98% of this message before getting grabbed at work so I didn't finish posting here, but yes this is  Done.​Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49:,Thank you. Preciousobichi (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drifting

Hi @Ritchie333: Your starting to drift and your worrying me. scope_creepTalk 13:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I used to be a real cool Admin... but I drifted”? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... drifting towards the kafkaesque, every time when procedures are made moar important than content. I'd forgive you the sin of rescuing that article, Ritchie. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"trying too hard not to lose my control"? ... as they say in Cape Town. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for goodness' sake ... there is so much here I don't understand but just from the enduser/cluelesseditor PoV I am very dismayed that someone of Ritchie333's energy and commitment is hors de combat for a timechunk. Can I send someone bribes of chocolate, money, bonio dog biscuits etc? Write to my MP? I would really like Ritchie back. DBaK (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He'll be back next Wednesday. Hopefully refreshed and raring to go!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope so. Unfortunately the question marks over the legitimacy of the block, its imposition without discussion or even communication, the unanswered questions surrounding the accusations of lying, the real meaning of "revert" etc etc etc all remain unanswered, not to mention the issues around INVOLVED. Goodness me, what a total fucking mess this place has become. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
18 October
Raymond Arritt
go on with life, have a laugh,
don't get too upset over this
This edit, 7 years ago OTD, helped me survive - I'd probably have left then without it - take what's good for you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) With respect, not a total fucking mess. It still has a lot of good editors and good admins, including Ritchie, who soldier on trying to write an encyclopaedia. This bunch of Arbs, on the other hand ... dredging up old diffs that can be plausibly explained by new page patrolling (which the encyclopaedia needs); bending over backwards to interpret fixing valid concerns flagged by another editor (and saving an article, both needed by the encyclopaedia) as malicious stalking; devaluing the concept of harassment by assuming bad faith to construct a pattern in bad faith; apparently taking all complaints as automatically justified, thereby throwing out the entire concept of blocking as prevention and further casting the concept of harassment in a dubious light that doesn't at all benefit the community; and as Ritchie says, steadfastly accusing him of lying. And if I understand the dark hints correctly, we're to abase ourselves before Arbcom's judgement and accept this abuse of the community and aspersions against the whole wiki collaborative ethos because they're just doing it before "Trust & Safety" does it? Arbcom are supposed to be upholding our rights and our mission in the face of WMF tyranny, not (as it appears to me from what has been said above) jumping in first saying "Like it or they'll do the same or worse." I hope Ritchie does return, again, because we need editors and admins who work for the good of the project. I don't always agree with Ritchie (or for that matter with Fram), but they aren't the problem with this place. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the irony is that the host of users who suddenly emerged to accuse Ritchie of lying and posted images (incorrectly) with titles like "harassment evidence" aren't being accused of harassment, because that would be too obvious. What those users did was pure and simple harassment, bullying and revolting. It's funny that it's one rule for one, and one rule for another here these days. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An admin who took the time to help a problem I had flagged up (I did it wrong), improve a situation without taking sides and calmly follow through after seeing how the land lies. Thanks for helping to improve wikipedia rather than box tick and move on. Just a thanks. No sides taken. Hope you are back soon. Mramoeba (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ritchie333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Per the WP:AN Thread

Accept reason:

Per the clear consensus (permalink: [17]) at AN to unblock. Thryduulf (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finally... some sense! Jeni (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&oldid=922004194"