User talk:Ritchie333

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

I hope you see this

Ritchie, I very much hope that you will look back here and see what I am going to say. We really need you back. In one fish's opinion, a clear consensus has emerged that ArbCom treated you badly, and that you really are a kind of victim rather than some sort of nasty bully. It's certainly what I believe. You are a valued member of the community, and I personally value you as a wiki-friend. Wikipedia as a whole does not disrespect you. It's just a few people who got it wrong. Wikipedia as a whole will welcome you back – and who gives a flying fuck about the haters? Please, when you feel ready, come back. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Tryp, I feel bottled up inside. Most people at the Arbcom noticeboard have ignored or misunderstood what I want to say, and I cannot clarify things because of this damn gag order. Has anybody asked Tjla12 (talk · contribs) how they felt about their new biography of a woman being template bombed and deleted? And I can’t believe people suggested SN reviewing the performance of an admin tool is “retaliation” and needs to be stamped on. Have people gone insane? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchie333 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

See how easy it is to get admonished? Maybe you'll reflect on this episode the next you feel like slagging me off. Eric Corbett 22:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

If you don’t want to be called a cunt Eric, don’t act like one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Quite. You can recite it, but can you understand it? Eric Corbett 22:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

If I may cut back in, Ritchie, yes, I think a lot of people around here have gone insane. I very much understand how you feel. I've been feeling alienated since MPants got the boot, and then a lot of crap about GMOs, and then Framapalooza, and now you. I think there's an atmosphere of tension around here that is particularly intense lately, and particularly prone to bad decision-making. I kind of dread logging in each day, because it feels like as soon as one clusterfuck settles down, another one rears up. But, on the other hand, I haven't left, and no small part of that is my unwillingness to let anyone except me decide what I do. I think you may remember that I got rather mistreated during the GMO case, and indeed the objectionable part of it was not being blocked, but rather the subsequent circling of the wagons by the then-ArbCom. And they're doing it again. But I really mean what I said above: there is very little sentiment around here that you are in the wrong. The most insane of the insane are a minority. Please take as much time as you feel like, but when you are ready, please come back. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Certainly second this. Arbcom has made a mess of this, with their ambiguous and poorly-worded announcement, which seemingly caught you on the hop, despite assurances that it had been thoroughly discussed during the "case". Their failure to be at all introspective or listen to what I and others have said at the AN page is also irksome. But please do come back whenever you're ready, because we need you. And feel free to WP:TROUT me if you don't want to hear this, but I would seriously advise you to forget and ignore completely the editor that you've been told not to interact with. Don't monitor their edits, don't post comments such as the one above, and if you see them in a page history then just move on. I get that you're frustrated about it, but there's really no need for you to get a block over any of this - the encyclopedia is plenty big enough for you to work away, performing your magic away from anything the other person does. Anyway, I hope you're doing well despite all this drama.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Amakuru. This looks like it caught Ritchie off guard. I can't imagine a more steadfast ally for those writing about women on Wikipedia and I'm saddened to see him punished by Arb when I know he's trying to do the right thing. We need you, Ritchie. Come back when you're ready. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked

Per WP:IBAN: "Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to: [...] make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly". This is a clear violation, an indirect reference to the person you are interaction-banned from, shortly after having been warned that additional violations of the IBAN would lead to blocks. If necessary, I'll revoke talk page access too. I assume you know where to find the WP:GAB if you're interested. Huon (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Such an abysmal decision. Did you not consider reaching out to Ritchie off-Wiki instead? He’s a friend, and he’s been through a shit time recently. A unthinking step has made things 100 times worse for him: please try to apply common sense in sensitive situations in future. - SchroCat (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Well done, Huon, this brilliant action shows just what an asset you are to the project. I feel they'll be a shower of barnstars coming your way for this one. Jesus Christ. What a class one, grade a, balls up of a decision. Cassianto^Talk 06:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Off-wiki? Vermont (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the real world bit, where people can email him or (if they have his number) pick up the telephone. - SchroCat (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

For some sad, pathetic individuals, Wikipedia is their real world. Cassianto^Talk 06:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I would think that an onwiki notification of an IBAN and subsequent warning for violating it is more than enough. Vermont (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Then common sense and decency is lacking in those with the itchy block trigger. This is an editor and admin of long standing and good repute. The unthinking knee-jerk blocking achieves nothing. - SchroCat (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)- -----

• Argh. Welcome back, Ritchie. Words fail me. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• the word is kafkaesque --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Here's what I said about this very issue two years ago: [1]. Reyk _YO! 07:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Huon: Ritchie is still on the admin list, so for another admin to set an IBAN seems below the belt, this is why we have WP:Oversight and this type of action should only be done by Oversight level. Even know I am not an admin, I still suggest you be careful with your actions. Govvy (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Blocks can be issued by any uninvolved administrator; there are no special rules for blocking admins. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

That's pretty dam stupid then, this is what wikipedia is bad at, there is no true hierarchy, Oversight should be adjusted. No wonder you have so many problems. And why I refused to be an admin in this system. Govvy (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: It appears that you misunderstand the term "Oversight" as it is used on Wikipedia. —DoRD (talk)​ 13:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

"2019 is not a year on which Wikipedia will look back with undiluted pleasure. In the words of one of our more sympathetic correspondents, it has turned out to be an annus horribilis."

• Ritchie, take it from me: after you get blocked a few more times you really won't care. Please just ignore this. EEng 12:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• I see common sense has gone right out of the fucking window on this one, In what way does this block help' improve the project ? ..... It doesn't!, Dumbest block of the century and I've seen some pretty dumb blocks in my time!. –Davey2010^Talk 12:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• What the actual fuckedy fuck fuck fuck? Huon - wtf?! Jeni ^(talk) 13:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've had a few minutes away to think about this some more, and I felt the need to come back and reiterate "what the actual fuck?" just in case my comment above didn't stress the point enough. Jeni ^(talk) 13:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• I too am joining the whiskey tango foxtrot brigade. We appear to be in not only a Kafkaesque situation, but it is operated by the children of Lord of the Flies. There is a lack of nuance and commonsense here. This action is an insult to people who have endured actual harassment. Sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 14:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Some assorted comments. The the only one here who makes some sort of argument that Ritchie333's conduct should not be considered an interaction ban violation is Reyk. Unfortunately "saying you're not going to talk about a topic" isn't all Ritchie333 did. If he had stopped the comment I linked to at "I cannot clarify things because of this damn gag order", we wouldn't be here. Secondly, SchroCat seems to not dispute that this was an IBAN violation but seems to think that leniency is warranted because Ritchie333 is "a friend" who has "been through a shit time recently". I don't think we should have separate standards for the inner circle of friends, and while I'm sorry to hear that Ritchie333 may have had a hard time and wish him the best, that may be an explanation for his on-wiki conduct, but not an excuse. I did not consider reaching out privately since a) the case was clear-cut and b) I see no benefit in having this not be a part of the public record. If I had emailed Ritchie333 and told him that he really really shouldn't violate his IBAN and could get blocked the next time, then for real, the next uninvolved admin to see an IBAN violation would not know that I had privately contacted Ritchie333, and I don't see why the next time SchroCat would not still want things to be dealt with behind the scenes. (Also, I happen not to know Ritchie333's phone number, and even if I did, calling out of the blue would be creepy.) Govvy has some misconceptions regarding WP:Oversight that have already been answered; if they want more of an explanation they're welcome to ask me on my talk page. Davey2010, the block helps improve the encyclopedia by (hopefully) ensuring that Ritchie333 stops violating his sanctions and thus does not contribute further to an unpleasant athmosphere for other editors. All the rest is a mix of personal attacks, sarcasm, grave-dancing and incoherent bafflement. If someone has further genuine questions about the block, they're welcome to ask me on my talk page or to bring it to WP:AN for a review. This page is unsuitable for a general discussion about the block, and I will not be responding here any further unless Ritchie333 himself has questions. Huon (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Apparetly SchroCat didn't mean "He’s a friend, and he’s been through a shit time recently." as a reason why I should have considered reaching out off-wiki. I've struck the relevant parts of my comments and am sorry for misunderstanding SchroCat. Huon (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• You might try to appear less condescending. I am unable to see SchroCat's using the word friends, to argue for lesser leniency to his inner circle. He knows that Ritchie is going though a shit time recently, because he's a friend of his and that's the sole context of his usage. ∯WBG^converse 14:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  That’s correct WBG. Huon, please don’t misrepresent me again, particularly when you’ve made one of the crassest blocks I’ve seen in a long time. You appear not to have a full grasp of the situation, and that ignorance of the full facts is s showing in this second rate knee jerk action. SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  What you've actually done is made the encyclopaedia a worse place. Congratulations, have a medal for that one. Jeni ^(talk) 14:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  IMHO a message (or warning if you will) would've been much better and would've done better than blocking, Ritchie isn't an idiot - If you told him "don't say this or that" mark my words he wouldn't ..... I simply feel a warning/message would've accomplished better results here. –Davey2010^Talk 14:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Was there even a breach of the Tban? I dunno, R333's comment seemed directed at me more than anything, that is, my comment regarding use of a tool. That sounds a little like being topic banned from the Prince of Wales and getting blocked for talking about Princess Di  :) ——SerialNumber54129 14:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

"Has anybody asked Tjla12 (talk · contribs) how they felt about their new biography of a woman being template bombed and deleted?" The other editor did some of the template bombing.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• • ...which strikes me as a bit of a stretch. Reyk _YO! 15:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree Reyk but it's the only part of Ritchie's post that I think could come close to a breach.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Huon, I'm concerned that you aren't actually an uninvolved administrator, per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive304#User:Ritchie333_doubling_down_on_personal_attacks --valereee (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 2) Okay, give it a rest, y'all, please. This isn't a block I'd have made, but it's hard to argue it was outside admin discretion; and short of an unblock request in the next 16 hours, it isn't going away. But in the larger scheme of things a 31-hour block is just as little of a reflection on Ritchie's worth as an IBAN with one user, and I doubt the back-and-forth is going to help anybody. Personally I think Ritchie is entitled to take however much time off he wants, and I'd join many others in being ecstatic at his return. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  An admin doing a borderline block, from a semi-involved position and then, replying to others in a condescending and patronizing tone (or I need to ABF that he is incompetent in the English language) is a very relevant cause of concern. ∯WBG^converse 15:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  Reading their statement, I don't believe it is condescending. It's a direct response to prior comments questioning the validity of their action, and seems to me to be reasonably worded. Perhaps you misconstrued the tone? Best regards, Vermont (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• WTF????????? Ritchie, you bloody come back, people need your knowledge, calmness and patience here. Don't get frustrated with idiots! — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Ritchie, I was stunned and appalled to hear about your retirement. Given the secrecy, I have no way of understanding it better, less still the block, which is absurd looking at it from my point of ignorance. I deeply hope that you'll be back here soon to carry on as you always have done, as a wise and encouraging voice who makes a huge difference to the encyclopedia. You're needed now more than ever. › Mortee _talk 19:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

ARCA irony

Hey Ritchie, I'm sure it's of no interest these days, but just wanted to let you know that your proposal to amend the topic ban under which I was operating passed this afternoon with an overwhelming popular majority. I appreciate your part in that, amongst all the other stuff too. Cheers. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 15:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Remember Thank you with open arms? TRM, you are welcome to review any of my DYK noms, - to be sure I'll make a note on the open ones! Ritchie, I'd love a caption welcoming you back. Until then, Die Fliege. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Can't say enough

How important you are to Wikipedia. Take the time you need after you're released from this block. Take care of yourself. You have a diverse group of supporters on Wikipedia and that says so much. So many people above have expressed their concern and their consternation. So many of us appreciate you so much. You are one of us and you belong here. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I suppose that just because I can't figure out the right thing to say is no excuse for not saying anything, no matter how inane. Take the time away you need, then take some more. But please know there are many of us who care very deeply that you aren't around. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

How bout saying "Time served", and following through with it? Anyone? Anyone...? ——SerialNumber54129 17:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The block is for the enforcement of an ArbCom sanction. Per WP:AEBLOCK, the block may only be modified by the blocking administrator (or with their consent) or after a successful appeal by the sanctioned editor at AE, AN, or ARCA/to ArbCom directly. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Serial Number 54129: The trouble is that Huon was enforcing an ARBCOM sanction. Anyone reversing the block without either Huon's explicit consent, or consensus at AN/AE/ARCA, is risking instant desysop; and I suspect that if someone were contemplating such an action, Ritchie'd be the first to tell them not to do something stupid for the sake of the 13 hours that he is still blocked. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Any chance you can tell AntiCompositeNumber to never talk to me again? Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 18:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I could, I suppose. Since you pinged them, though, I'm going to just add that if editor A asks editor B not to interact with them, it's generally a good idea for B to comply, within reason, and trust that they have received the message. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Just so. That was my WP:POINTyish point. I literally summarised the arb case that never was, and you provided the arb decision that never now will be. Mind you, I hope AntiCompositeNumber will forgive me using his comment as the excuse for a guinea pig  :) No IBAN required! I accept that it's slightly simplistic (not to say opportunistic) but, this is no FRAMGATE. It's a bloody simple situation that could've been resolved (read=avoided) as easilly and succintly as you have done just now. Although I admit that sometimes, trusting that the parties have got the message is probably the hardest part... ——SerialNumber54129 19:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Since I appear to have unintentionally caused this

Since I appear to have unintentionally caused this awful situation, I feel entitled to start a new section about it.

When I told Ritchie, above, that yes I think that a lot of people at Wikipedia have gone insane, I had no idea that I would see this much evidence of it the next day. And before anyone goes further over the top, no I am not literally calling Huon insane. But I am very much expressing concern that things have gotten wildly out of hand.

Before I go any farther, I want to tell Ritchie that what EEng said above is spot-on. Please don't let this get to you.

Now, that said, @Huon: I would like to try to clarify what I believe is going on here, and why I believe that Ritchie should not be considered to have violated the IBAN, and that you should please reconsider this block. I left a friendly message to Ritchie that everyone can see at the top of this talk page. Ritchie replied to me in the edit that Huon considers to be an IBAN violation. Here is what I think. It's very clear that Ritchie was replying to me (and I was quite glad to find that he had looked here and replied to me) in a way that is very clearly expressing his frustration. And he has plenty of good reasons to be frustrated over what has happened at ArbCom. He is telling me why he is upset. So he says "Has anybody asked Tjla12 (talk · contribs) how they felt about their new biography of a woman being template bombed and deleted? And I can’t believe people suggested SN reviewing the performance of an admin tool is “retaliation” and needs to be stamped on", and that's the part you object to. Now, I can see your point of view that the reference to template bombing and deletion was a reference to things done by the other editor in the IBAN. But please look at that in the context of the entire sentence. Ritchie is clearly doing two things: expressing sympathy for the editor he actually names, and expressing his unhappiness that his concern for another editor appears to have counted for little. The focus of the sentence is not on criticism of the IBANed person, but rather on Ritchie's point of view about the criticism that was leveled at him. To construe it as, instead, a dig at the IBANed person is really a stretch. And the second sentence, similarly, is about something that Ritchie himself had done, and why he feels it was unfair to have found fault with his doing it.

I then replied to Ritchie, and it never even crossed my mind that he was crossing any lines. I am aghast that I could have played a role in him saying something that would get him in trouble. I think that there is a general consensus among admins that sanctioned editors can let off a little steam, so long as they don't actually cause harm in the process. And in one fish's opinion, the very first thing that every admin should ask themselves before taking action is what is the best way to deescalate the situation, and certainly not to escalate it further if that can be avoided. The overall situation is very fraught, with an abundance of criticism of the entire process that happened at ArbCom, all the more so in the context of the recent Fram controversy. This block rubbed salt on the wound. And I do not see anything Ritchie said as being harmful, because he really wasn't reopening the conflict with the other editor. This was a bad block, and you should lift it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)