Jump to content

User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 78

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80→Archive 85

Dream

I realize I'm taking liberties with another editor's talk page, but I feel this is the best way to ensure that the passing out of blocks and IBans as a direct result of this incident comes to an end. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello Richie,

I'm concerned about the handling of the Dream situation, so I hope it's okay if we discuss?

Here's a brief summary of how the Dream Hijiri situation developed: Hijiri took an interest in Dream's editing areas back in Feb. Hijiri's initial concerns were reasonable, and even as a big admirer of Dream, I'll admit Dream responded poorly. Both seem to be generally good editors who just bring out the worst in each other. Yet there was perhaps no fault on H's part for how their relationship got off to a bad start. Still, after a while Dream made it very clear to H that he wanted them to disengage (granted Dream expressed this in an impolite way.) Dream then started doing his best to avoid H, and wanted H to do the same. Even before the first ANI Admin Tony Ballioni suggested to H that he should avoid Dream's contributions and "shouldn't seek them out." We had the first ANI that ended with with sympathy for H & censure for Dream, though many saw fault on both sides, with some wanting a 2 way iban.

H continued to talk about Dream after the ANI closed - Dream objected, and got a short block. That was one sided on the face of it, but at that point there did seem to be an IAR rules case that it was justified. H contined to take an interest in Dream even after the block, leading to the second ANI , where this time commnity concensus was mostly against H. BlackKite's excellent close suggested a voluntary interaction ban - an attempt to end the drama without needing a sanction (a iban would have risk demotivating H, which would be a shame as he does some outstanding work plus collaborates well with his fellow experts.) Following this, H yet again starts talking about Dream, yet somehow Dream's the one you saw fit to give a one way iban too.

Please correct me if Im wrong, but isn't it unprecedented for an admin to impose a de facto one way interaction ban onto an established editor? Especially onto the editor who was on the receiving end of unwanted attention?

And even if an admin has imposed such an unusual unblock condition before, surely it would have been better to wait for the blocked editor to respond and agree before acting as though it's a binding condition? FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Essentially, it boils down to this. We are here first and foremost to write an encyclopedia (and as you can see from two threads above this one, I've got a GA review to complete and I've made little progress on it, so if people want to chastise me about something - that's the target you want to pick!). The casual reader who wants to look up what chart position New Rules got to in Belgium doesn't really care about who said what to whom. I realise on a macro level it might seem like people care, but they really don't. Therefore, in the extreme case, occasionally admins have to make an unpleasant decision like this for the good of the project and the community, even though one person has to fail for reasons they think are unfair. It's all about getting people back to work, and if one person just can't bear the perceived injustice, then they sometimes have to lose. Or, as Joel Spolsky put it, "Whereas the goal of user interface design is to help the user succeed, the goal of social interface design is to help the society succeed, even if it means one user has to fail."
Does DF have the right of reply against H88? Well, to an extent, yes. However, you do occasionally get to a point where there is no possible benefit to trying to settle an argument so you can "win" over another party, and you just need to drop it and move on. I was hoping for a reply closer to this. I was thinking now of a situation where I managed to fall out with somebody and cause irreparable damage for things that weren't really my fault .... about 7-8 years ago I was down for doing a gig with Jack Bruce's son Malcolm, where his mum Janet Godfrey was also going to be in attendance, and agreed to drive to the venue with PA and equipment, stupidly not thinking that you can't park anywhere in Soho even at 10pm on a Saturday. I parked outside the venue, said I was pulling out of the gig, got a parking ticket for the 30 seconds I was outside (which I think was about £130), and drove off in a complete huff, thinking I had been shafted for not really doing anything wrong other than being a bit naive about stuff. Or, closer to home, I pretty much lost "control" of Sophia (robot) and The Beatles (album) because other people have taken a greater interest in the content and WP:OWN says that's perfectly okay ... Anyway, the point is, in a community of this size, not everyone is going to agree, not everyone is going to get on, and sometimes you just have to accept that things aren't going to go your way. It's just the way life works.
As an aside, I note that DF is keen on rescuing articles from being unnecessarily deleted, which is something I am in strong support of. Yet on my list of rescued articles, I can't think of a single case where DF has helped me expand the article, supply sources, or otherwise make a real effort to overturn the consensus. I wonder why that is? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) For much the same reason they now have no talk page access for the next month, I imagine. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't look like Dream Focus is trying to "win" anything, only wanting to not be followed around. Instead administrators have said to Hijiri88 that he should stop but giving the impression that nothing will be done and effectively rewarding him for his actions. Peter James (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • How about this: Let every editor who honestly thinks their comments here are going to result in Ritchie unblocking and issuing an apology before going off and blocking Hijiri over this continue to comment in this thread. Seriously: This block was the result of a public discussion; not Ritchie's sole judgement, so just stop. The community endorsed this block before it was even made. This isn't a battle you guys can win, this is just another road that ends in blocks and IBans. Let's leave it at just the one, kay? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
And, more to the point, since the community has endorsed this block (including several admins, not least Boing! said Zebedee who has removed talk page access), if I unblocked DF right now it would probably constitute wheel-warring. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, see, now I want you to unblock them just so I can see the resulting wheel warring complaint at ANI. Ritchie333 wheel warring with himself over Dream Focus block. My favorite part will be where you finally get fed up with your high-handed antics and start trading insults with yourself until you finally declare that you fart in your general direction and a bureaucrat has to step in to stop you from blocking youself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
tsk, tsk, linking to YouTube, you know Martinevans123 did that and got turned into a newt! ...... (He got better) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
So much better, in fact. "Newts are people too, you know!" Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
That's hillarious Martin. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Which begs me to add my periodic reminder: Fair use is not copyvio, and linking is not copying. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Can't beat a bit of Linkin. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • A clear indication that Hijiri88 would not achieve anything and would likely be sanctioned if the behaviour continued would be enough, preferably without a block although not ruling it out if other attempts to resolve it were to be ineffective. If he had already stopped, Dream Focus would have had no reason to mention him and the block that was imposed for doing so would have been justified. The discussion was closed within three hours and without adequate discussion and the community (whatever that is) had not endorsed the block. Peter James (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants - No one is asking for a block or any kind of sanction against Hijiri. At this point I don't see why any sanction is warranted against H at all. I don't even want Dream unblocked - even in the very unlikely event Ritchie could be persuaded to do that, there would be a big risk create hostility against Dream. You seem to be making several other false assumptions there too. But we're getting off topic. My concerns are about Ritchie's seemingly unprecedented admin actions, and the impact theyve had on the encyclopeida in terms of demotivating content builders that the encyclopedia's readers depend on. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry that things haven't gone your way this time. In the meantime, I'm trying to get all Led Zeppelin studio album articles (ie: Led Zeppelin (album), Led Zeppelin II, Led Zeppelin III, Led Zeppelin IV, Physical Graffiti, Presence (album) and In Through the Out Door - do we need to Coda (album) as well?) to GA status in the next month or two so I can make Led Zeppelin discography a good topic. Feel free to pitch in and help. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I don't pretend to understand the basis for the longer-term dispute between these two editors, but I do know that it has erupted into ANI too many times, is wasting huge amounts of volunteer time for people who want to be helping build an encyclopedia rather than engaging in trying to solve seemingly endless squabbling, and there is a clear consensus that Dream Focus needs to drop it. In the short term, the disruption simply has to be stopped. If Dream Focus is the one who refuses to drop it, they have to be forced to drop it, and that is what I have done (other than their UTRS appeal, which I have read but which I obviously have to leave to others to evaluate). In the short term, Dream Focus simply needs to shut up. That does not preclude longer-term dispute resolution if it's really needed, possibly via the Arbitration Committee if Dream Focus continues to refuse to abide by community consensus, but for now a shutting up needs to be enforced. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
    Forgot to point out my opinion that Ritchie333's block was clearly within admin discretion and was in line with community consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Richie. It's your talk page, but it would probably help conclude this more swiftly if we could stick to specifics, rather than divert into generalities. Except we are indeed 'here first and foremost to write an encyclopaedia' - which is exactly why the experienced editors who contribute to that task should not be treated by Admins in a cavalier way.

( The lessons about life, Soho, or the need to mostly let things go are not really needed. If we ever get chatting at a London wiki meet up or similar, you might be suprised about the secrets I could share. Things from both the heights and depths, which you won't find in any book. National & even international issues being settled at the dinner tables of Gay Hussar and L 'Escargot . Secrets discussed in Soho Zobanno that would possibly make even you blush, and I don't mean the sort of common sleaze you'd find at 8 Greek Street, 34 Romilly Stree or 70A Berwick Street. You probably know more about the strictly showbiz side of Soho, but you might find I know just about life in general as yourself. As for having to accept things not going your way here on Wiki - I've been here for 10 years and have seen hundreds of things go against my preference, and over 99% of the time I just silently accept it, or even complement the instiagor while saying words I hope might be soothing to the losing side. Only very rarely in cases that seem excessively OTT do I make an issue of things.)

The specifics are: Dream was continually on the receiving end of unwanted attention, and was already doing everything he could to disengage, except for reporting it when the other editor again started talking about him.

At the second ANI editors were generally of the view H was now at fault, and the closer requested they avoid each other, one of 5 admins to make similar suggestions to H. Yet when H once again starts talking about Dream, and Dream responds, Dream's the one who get's a one way ban.

Again Richie, why did you decide to take unprecedented(?) step of unilaterally applying a one way interaction ban to Dream?

Why did you take it upon yourself to unblock and apply the condition without taking the time to ensure Dream understood and accepted it?

Even the way you wrote the ANI was near unpresented - you suggested a two way IBAN - exactly what Dream wants (& what H objects to.) - yet framed it in such a way as to show Dream be totally at fault. You then posted '...I want solid consensus before indeffing a long-standing contributor.' which could have easily influence the ANI towards a permaban.

Would it not have been better to either leave Dream alone, or if you had to get involved, follow standard practice and give Dream a chance to agree to the unblock condition before it applying it? FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think I had a Gay Hussar once. But alas he was just as slimy as L'Escargot. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would prefer a responce to my concerns from the admin himself. He's a big boy, if he refuses to directly answer concerns, he could say so and close or delete this himself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants - per the false assumptions you seem to be making here, you're one of the last people that should have closed this, IMO. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, y9u know; if he chooses not to respond to being called a "big boy", etc., you might want to rephrase the question...In the meantime, I imagine he's gone off to deal with the difficult third acoustic album (you know, where they all got caned with no electricity). Black Dog here we were yet to come! 21:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd ask what those "false assumptions" were, except I really don't give a shit. Seriously, dude: read WP:STICK. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
High praise indeed!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC) (... did I ever tell you about my time at Le Gavroche, darling??)
He could have picked a better argument than "which is exactly why the experienced editors who contribute to that task should not be treated by Admins in a cavalier way" - for example, one could examine this set of mainspace contributions over the past week to this one, and as were talking about Soho, I'll leave this set of statistics showing who has contributed the most to that article (as an aside, can somebody tell me why the pie chart shows I wrote an absolute majority of the text, yet only credits me with just over 30% in the table?) and who got it passed through GA (and also note the reviewer is not exactly known for being a pushover, to the extent you can get a T-shirt if he passes your GA review). Do not come to this page accusing me of being an "admin" who doesn't do his fair share of the writing work; content is my main gig here, and always will be. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
"...let me tell you that our management consultants actually queried the necessity for us to employ a pantomime horse at all ....."swoon". Paddy Power123 (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Lies, damned lies, and statistics!!! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe that pie chart only considers text added by the top 10 text adders, not all text. Compare this article which was largely written by one person, you see that the pie chart does not diverge much from the percentage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Winkelvi

In case you missed it, Winkelvi is continuing to follow me around like a bad smell both here and on the Commons. Not a day has gone by where I haven't switched my laptop on to discover more of his bullshit directed at me. I've been quietly (and sometimes not-so-quietly) building a case against him, collecting diffs with the intention of going to ANI and asking that he be hanged. However, I think the two of you have some history, you may have some sympathy for him and I respect your judgement, so I'd like to give you the opportunity to have a word with him before I take him to task. It's entirely up to you of course, and I'd be more than happy to deal with him myself. Regards, nagualdesign 03:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

nagualdesign I'm sorry for the belated reply, I don't have a fixated interest in third-rate photographs of penises marked for speedy deletion, so I don't check Commons that often, but I see this has been sorted out via ANI anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Not to worry. I hasten to add that I don't either. In fact, I think I'm going to avoid Commons altogether once all the nonsense dies down. Cheers, Ritchie. nagualdesign 23:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trespass (album)

Typical isn't it? You wait ages for a GA review, then three come along at once! Just like buses

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trespass (album) 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Some Cake for you!

For that ANI post on the 11th. Just don't let Dr Fry cut it or she will figure out a way to get the majority for herself. I watched that video twice and unconvinced it was a fair cutting. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

For those playing at home, the post LX31 enjoyed is this one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Botched SPI

I've had your SPI considered harmful essay on my watchlist for awhile, but forgot about it until you edited it just now. There are a number of SPIs I'm aware of where I believe somebody was misidentified as a sock (also cases where two different sock puppeteers have been mistakenly conflated).

To start with, User:Couiros22 is requesting an unblock. While I don't mind seeing this editor blocked for disruptive editing, it really disturbs me that they are blocked as a sock puppet. There are some major differences in behavior between this account and the accounts that they are accused of being a sock for. Couiros22 doesn't use edit summaries. The other accounts consistently used edit summaries (frequently the vague summary "cleanup"). Couiros22 responds to comments on their talk page. The other accounts are extremely unresponsive. Couiros22 created a redirect Emblema (genus). The other accounts have a long history of moving articles with "(genus)" as a disambiguator to a more specific term (see move long). To me, it's utterly inconceivable that an editor with a clear dislike of "(genus)" as a dab term would then go and create a redirect with "(genus)" and fail to create a redirect with a more specific dab term. These have to be different people. I was hoping you could review Couiros22's unblock request and at least change the reason for the block to disruptive editing rather than sock puppetry. Plantdrew (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: I've had a word and left some comments. I have to say this isn't the greatest case of injustice I've seen on Wikipedia as I think there was a reasonable argument for blocking for just plain old disruption. Also I'm coming to the dispute completely cold without any real idea of what other discussions have happened and whether Couiros22 is just gung-ho editing against widespread consensus or not.
I mentioned a while back on some unblock discussion that I was thinking of running for Checkuser when the next set of nominations comes around, purely in an independent ombudsman's role. I certainly know the technical stuff, I'd just use it as a neutral third party for reviewing unblock requests. It'll certainly make for a lively discussion and I can't see I'll pass when I answer the question "so, what SPI experience do you have?" with "close to bugger all" - but if you don't ask, you don't get. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I think a block for disruption would have been reasonable, it just rubbed me the wrong way that they were blocked as a sock, when it was pretty clear to me that there were significant behavioral differences between them and the accounts they were accused of socking for (usage/non usage of edit summaries, talk page responsiveness, etc.). There are commonalities in areas edited by Couiros22 and the other accounts, but the behavior is not the same.
So once somebody has been labelled as a sock and banned, the sock label can only be removed at the sole discretion of the blocking admin? That is disappointing, if that is the case. Plantdrew (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, in this case the sockpuppetry accusations actually caused more harm than good as they distracted everyone from a real and genuine reason to block. Essentially, the sockpuppetry really should be a sort of "emergency backup" plan when there isn't quite enough to convict them on just common or garden disruption. "Well Joe Blow has got a nationalist POV a mile wide but he hasn't quite got to 3RR yet, oh but look checkuser says he's on the same IP block as Joe Schmoe who kept going up to the line and gaming the system for six months until we all got sick of it". There's one guy at the moment who's screaming blue murder about not being a sock or a long-term abuser, and it doesn't really matter if he is or not because a quick look as his edits reveals his productivity to the actual article space to be about zero, and the diff never lies.
You can't unilaterally reverse a checkuser block - if you try it, you can lose your admin rights, so nobody ever tries it. Because checkuser runs on private data that can't be shared, any block discussion that goes "Checkuser says confirmed", "I'm not a sock, liar" results in stalemate, because nobody else can tell who's right and who's wrong.
As Wikipedia is voluntary project, people only donate whatever time they feel like. Some of us like to spend time on articles, some on templates and formatting, some on vandal whacking, some on sockpuppetry, some on general co-ordination and "glue" for the project. All of these specialists need to work together. (Seriously, SPI bores me to tears so that we have admins who enjoy doing it is a good thing). The problem comes when you get an admin who works on sockpuppetry or antivandalism and nowhere else and wouldn't know a featured article if it bit them on the ass - then when the situation comes to assess the content, have a bit of empathy and say something the other party would appreciate (which is the standard part of any stock salesman technique), they can't do it and look like idiots. I keep thinking of that line from Blackadder II - "try to have an thought of your own Baldrick, because thinking is so important!" See my essay on why all admins should write content. (I realise this comment will upset a few admins, but I'm naming no names - if you think I'm talking about you 1. How do you know I am? 2. I've obviously hit a nerve and you need to think about why I might have this view). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, OK. There was no checkuser performed with Couiros22 as far as I can tell (and I'm pretty confident if there had been one they would be exonerated from sockpuppetry claims). The block template says "see contributions for evidence". Couiros22 and the Nono64 accounts both do a lot of work categorizing organism articles, but their styles are not the same.
And the sockpuppetry block for Nono64 is pretty shaky too, in my opinion (although I'm also not particularly sorry to see them blocked). There are 4 accounts in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nono64 that have such similar editing patterns that they are clearly the same person (Wwikix and Couiros22 do not match the pattern of edits). However, the 4 accounts were all used successively, not simultaneously (except for one single edit to archive the talk page of the first account to be abandoned). My understanding is that it is OK to use multiple accounts over time, but only a single one at any given time, and an editor is not obligated to divulge previous accounts. Is my understanding correct? Plantdrew (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The only sensible answer is "one person, one account". You can get away with editing logged out as an IP, you can have an alt account if you're an admin, you can have a bot account if you run a bot, you can have a second account if you use it for some official business - beyond that, all bets are off. Take drinking and driving as an analogy (although it's a weak one as nobody actually dies with sockpuppetry) - the only sensible answer is "don't drink and drive, full stop", yeah you might be able to get away with one pint with a meal, and you probably won't be breathalysed on red, but you're still putting yourself at risk.
I'll wait and see what Couiros22 (and whoever the blocking admin was - I forget) has to say about my response to unblock request, and we'll take it from there. In the meantime, I've really got to crack on with some GA reviews, as they won't write themselves, so I'll leave you in the company of my merry band of talk page stalkers with their thigh-slapping japes and amusing anecdotes.[citation needed] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Question

Vandalism
Assume good faith

Hi, should I report blatant disruptive editing (and the editor refuse to communicate) to AIV? I sometimes do that with the reason clearly stated and they're being blocked, is this really the correct way to do that? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 11:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's my take of it (disclaimer: just because I have an opinion doesn't mean all admins share it, your mileage may vary, obstructing the doors causes delay and can be dangerous....) AIV should be for editors that need a block immediately without comment - anyone reported there should be someone who, if I came across them myself, would hit the block button without question. For blocks on users who are being disruptive, irritating, have hearing problems but don't meet the definition of vandalism (see my plain and simple guide), ANI can be a better solution. Firstly, the discussion is preserved, whereas the AIV log is cleared pretty rapidly. Secondly, disruptive editors (as distinct from vandals who just don't care) tend to whine a lot on how unfair things are and how completely unjust you were to block them. By pointing to an ANI thread and saying, "sorry it's out of my hands, the community requested the block", you give them less ammunition to fire back at you, meaning everyone gets back to writing the encyclopedia. If I had to point to an accompanying essay, I would say WP:BEANS. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, it is very helpful. However, I still can't determine whether a disruptive editor is deliberately trying to make Wikipedia worse. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) My advice is: If in doubt, don't assume vandalism. Ritchie has a great guide, but I've got an even shorter, simpler one. Unless it's one of the following, it's not vandalism:
  • It's both factually inaccurate and hilarious, or at least potentially funny to a 12-year-old (e.g. Edgar Howard Wright (born 18 April 1974) is an English director, screenwriter and producer and giant poopypants).
  • It's not language (e.g. ashjkgljsdfghajlk).
  • It's inaccurate and repeated across a large swathe of pages (e.g. changing birth years of female actresses to make them older).
  • It proclaims some random person (not the article subject) to have some random qualities (e.g. Peter has a little d**k!!!).
  • It proclaims the article subject to have some very well or very poorly regarded qualities (e.g. Edgar Howard Wright (born 18 April 1974) is an English director, screenwriter and producer and the coolest dude in Hollywood).
  • It's a removal that starts/ends in the middle of a sentence or word (I think this one is self-explanatory).
  • It's a removal that is repeated across a large swathe of articles (e.g. deleting the lede or first section of three different bios).
Believe it or not, there is an even shorter rule-of-thumb. When confronted with disruptive editing, ask yourself "Does this edit make or strongly imply a claim of fact that might be considered to be encyclopedic, in any way?" If the answer is yes, it's not vandalism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikiexplorer13

"I'm not a sockpuppet! You're not dealing with Dawnslayer666 and Armageddon217 who have been even more disruptive! Unblock me now, I have a right to free speech!"

Self admitting block evasion[1]. I think that User talk:Tootifrooti11 needs to be semi-protected now. ML talk 17:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Well we could leave it as a honeypot - any IP caught editing that with personal attacks gets an instant block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trespass (album)

The article Trespass (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Trespass (album) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Image without license

A frank exchange of views

Unspecified source/license for File:Trump Protester in Parliament Square.jpg

Hey dipshit, you forgot to tag File:Trump Protester in Parliament Square.jpg with a free license tag, you stupid pillock. Do it now.

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 14:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I like this bot... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I think Mifter should give serious consideration to adding a feature to the bot so if the uploader has more than 2 years' service and 10,000 edits, they're deemed a "regular" and the bot can dispense with the niceties and just call a spade a spade. Would save on disk space just saying, "oy, no free licence, dingbat" too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I would like that bot better. Hint hint, Mifter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

If you have a moment...

Ritchie always has a moment...
For justice.

Could you stop by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Help needed at Trinity, assess the consensus in the subsection Proposal: Ctmv should be indefinitely blocked from editing and institute a course of action based on that? I don't see any benefit to dragging things outs any further. Thanks. Note: I have sent this same message to all currently active administrators who talk pages I watch. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Damn, that was fast. Thanks! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I looked at the discussion earlier today, and had already made up my mind to close it as a topic ban but thought I would just leave it a little bit longer to cement consensus. So I had the close all prepared and good to go :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Writing about "topic banned from Christianity", I was reminded of this video. (I do admire Richard Dawkins for at least standing up and stating his views eloquently, but he doesn't half troll some people....) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Dawkins may occasionally suffer from a bout of foot-in-mouth disease (where social issues are concerned), but he's wickedly smart and quite funny when he wants to be. "It works. Bitches." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I think my favourite is "You accept every single fact of science without ever questioning it .... BECAUSE YOU'RE GAY!" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly why I accept science. I personally prefer "Your famed intelligence is nothing more than the fart of God." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
There's a nice quote on User:Spinningspark about Dawkins : "I agree with virtually everything he says, but find myself wanting to smack him for his intolerance." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a good one. I don't think Dawkins is intolerant really (but I don't follow him like a favorite celebrity, so I may be wrong), I think he -like many people with an abundance of natural charisma - doesn't think through emotional/personal/social ideas and comments before airing them. And then, once he's publicly staked out a position, he must defend it of course. Admitting you were wrong is a grand quality in science, but in the public sphere and the instincts of those with good social instincts, not so much. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Smacking Dawkins for intolerance? Sounds like someone who never heard of Christopher Hitchens. -- DexterPointy (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I love his limmericks, and Letters to a Young Contrarian. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Led Zeppelin IV

The article Led Zeppelin IV you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Led Zeppelin IV for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ojorojo -- Ojorojo (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Europe '72

Truckin'.....

The article Europe '72 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Europe '72 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

... and just in time, the Bickershaw Festival weather has arrived! Cue the mud pies! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Very nice! Thanks for all your work on that article. 💀 — Mudwater (Talk) 22:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Garrod and Lofthouse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

In your edit at the article you claim "no reason to remove this." On the contrary. I'm a little confused as to how you're not familiar with some of the policies on external links, being an admin and all, etc; but here is the WP:ELNO section stating no social media links:

"Links normally to be avoided=... Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists."

Also noted is the caveat of "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[5]." For this, see also WP:ELMIN:

"Normally, only one official link is included... "

and

"...For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation."

As seen on the article page, there is already a link to it's official page, and also, that page itself has links to social media accounts. These social media links should not be re-added. There's also the issue of both social media pages not being used for the past 3 years, since 2015. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 16:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

That guideline is out of date, particularly in the last 2-3 years. Nobody uses Myspace anymore, and after seeing a huge explosion on Facebook with support for Jeremy Corbyn and Donald Trump gobbing off on Twitter (engaging mouth before brain), means that Facebook / Twitter have become used in the everyday world, regularly mentioned in the news, and have dramatically increased importance. And of course, the Russians have been accused of tampering with them, spreading "fake news" and changing the way we communicate with people, including brainwashing them and spreading propaganda. Additionally, citations to Facebook / Twitter can be suitable links these days, to extent of satisfying WP:BLPPRIMARY. You can also sometimes see them complain about Wikipedia if you look closely enough. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Youtube (a social media site) can be used as a source too. On Lana Lokteff for instance ,it was needed to show her rebuttal to a claim that she was a White Supremist. So there are cases ,at least in that case where using social media as a source is within policy. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Dishonourable and manipulative adminship

After your evasiveness in the Dream thread, I checked your contribs and found you saying :I can't emphasise this enough, the reason to start the ANI thread was to get a consensus instead of just unilaterally indef blocking DF ... I just have to be seen to be fair."

Together with comments like ...I want solid consensus before indeffing a long-standing contributor. and other irregularities with your actions mentioned in the thread above, it's impossible to AGF that your claim to have made a "valiant" attempt at stopping Dream from being blocked was anything other than an audacious lie.

You saw Dream in a vulnerable position, and used deceptive manipulation to try to set him up for an indeff. Thankfully no one supported more than a month. Dream is a good editor and a light spirit who inspires other wikipedians. Your dishonourable attempts to get him permanbaned are despicable. In certain cultures H could tell you about, those who shame themselves so thoroughly would sometimes fall on their sword. It depends on what motivated you. If you had positive reasons, like wanting to reduce a tiny but still real risk to another excellent editor, then perhaps you can redeem yourself without handing in your tools. Just try to act with more humility, and put in the hard work to actually be fair, not just to seem it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: We (you and I) don't know each other at all, but I have very recently encountered FeydHuxtable in an Afd (this AfD). Should this "Dishonourable and manipulative adminship"-thingy go to "court", then feel free to ping me, in case an outside opinion is wanted. -- DexterPointy (talk)
@Nagualdesign: Only within past two days have I seen the handle "Ritchie333" ever mentioned (I read the/your ANI against Winkelvi). I, like you, am at the doorstep of exiting WP, and am currently contemplating if knowing some admins could provide a path to stay. Hence, may have some input on that from you? (Not here, that'd be like spamming Ritchie333's talk-page; I'm only pinging you here, in case you got something related to "Dishonourable and manipulative adminship".) -- DexterPointy (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

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

(talk page stalker) Fall on your sword?? I can’t quite work out if you’re Warlock or The Bishop. But if you do decide to do the honourable thing, could you please first return that Bic crystal I lent you a while back? Ta. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay Devious, don't move! Da Bishop 333 (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Ref. : >>...we tolerate some editors who are known to "not play well with others" but contribute enormously to featured articles, so they should be kept around for the greater good of the project.<< : Where can I find more information (e.g. WP guideline, essay, or whatever) elaborating on this stance towards the editorial body of WP? -- DexterPointy (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

User:GoldenRing/Ramblings on content creators goes into some detail. Also, Observations on Wikipedia Behaviour covers it in point #3 : "One who sometimes makes good edits, but endlessly bickers, threatens, insults, whines, and is eventually banned, will have taken hundreds of hours from other users who would have better spent that time building the encyclopedia." As for specific examples, hang around on WP:ANI often enough and you'll spot them. (As for the counter-argument, "well you just blocked Dream Focus for a month!", firstly I also unblocked him first to give him a last chance, and secondly exactly how often do you see me do that sort of thing?) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
... not often enough?! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: OK, though unless I missed something in the "Ramblings on content creators", then WP:OWB#3 is the closest thing to hitting the target I had in mind, yet ending in "Efficiently managing troublesome editors is one of the best ways to improve the project, but also one of the most difficult." is far short. What struck me in your statement, was the possible lack of attention to hidden costs, which can be phrased as the (unanswerable) question: How many highly competent editors can a troublesome editor cause leaving(?) Implicitly, how many featured articles would the highly competent editors have helped versus the number of featured articles helped by a troublesome editor(?) -- DexterPointy (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there's any benefit of me naming specific editors, but if you really want to pour through some of the details, you could try Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions if you've got a spare weekend to digest that lot. I'm not convinced we lose editors permanently because of a single person; generally it's because the fun has gone out of the project for them and they just want to move on. Civility threads pop up on ANI every now and again, everyone yells a lot, then it fizzles out as people forget about it and move onto other things. Having said that, there are certain parts of Wikipedia, such as the Israeli / Palestine conflict, where you really shouldn't invest any emotional time in if you value your sanity. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I'm not talking about any set of specific editors, but rather the stance towards problematic editors. Yes, there's a relation, but, I'm essentially attempting to question the fire brigade's perspective on their own strategy (and not even tactics), and that's very different from asking where fires are found (which are trivial operational details).
I agree that no single problematic editor is likely to quickly chase people out the door, but a pack is. I'm not suggesting that there are wolf-packs lurking, but I am suggesting there are much too many pockets of WP idiosyncrasy present, making new editors experiences nearly indistinguishable from being attacked by one or more wolf-packs. And not only that, but also: The more competent an editor is within any specific field, the faster such an editor will flee. -- DexterPointy (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Not much in the way of strategic thinking has gone into informing the admin's stance on these matters Dexter, it seems to mostly develop organically. Even to imply a unifed stance may be misleading - admins and other editors have conflicting rules, some strongly feeling that WP:Civil should be enforced equally on all editors, while others agreeing with Ritchie (& me fwiw) that good contributors should be given more leeway for occaisionaly passionate outbursts. No one can explain how it all works , it's the sort of thing you'll pick up if stay here for long enough and keep an open mind. @ slick rick, I'm glad you've responded gracefully to this. As you imply, it's extremely rare if ever that you pull stunts like you did with Dream, overall you seem to have been a hugely postive prescence here. And thank you for the reminders on contrasting outcomes for editors who focus on improving content v those who go about whining. This has given me a great idea for my next contributions (which don't worry, will not be on your talk page.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @FeydHuxtable: Please drop the stick, and stop making baseless accusations and quoting people out of context. The first quote you provide, in the context in which it was originally posted which you carefully avoided providing, clearly meant "I don't want to indef block unilaterally, so I proposed an alternative solution -- an IBAN -- and since that solution affected you I was obliged to notify you", and the second was "I didn't want to indef block unless community consensus left me with no other choice". Neither said, as you insinuate, that R was planning from the start to impose an indef block and looking for an excuse to do so. You should apologize to Ritchie for the above baseless personal attacks against him, and for carefully and deliberately removing the context of those quotations. I will be watching to make sure that you do not make such remarks again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
    (talk page watcher)Please don't watch.Whilst DF has been (rightfully) blocked, your comments on a concerned thread, (long after it has died), might give impressions of a continual failure to dis-engage coupled with potential grave-dancing.And shall any of DF's friends take it too far, be pretty certain that there are plenty of folks who will be quite willing to bring him under the scanner; it has't got to be you, at every opportunity.∯WBGconverse 05:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
    Hijiri 88, let me echo the concerns expressed by Winged Blades of Godric. You are the very last person who should be commenting on this matter. You are hereby warned that further disruptive pot-stirring will lead to a block. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that Hijiri needs to butt out of this thread, but why the hell is nobody saying this to Feyd?! There's no serious discussion about whether Ritchie misstepped with this block, so why two admins would come along to chide Hijiri and not say a fucking word to the editor making thread after thread to prosecute continued unjustifiable personal attack in the same breath is a question just begging to be asked. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Despite the botched ping, I have noticed this, and I am prepared to disengage, but I don't want to be told not to respond when I am being talked about. The comment at the top of this thread reframed an assurance to me that I was not under investigation as something sinister; claiming I am "disruptively pot-stirring" "long after the thread had died" when that would be just as applicable to the comment to which I was responding is questionable, but I'll let it go. I would appreciate everyone else letting it go as well. Cheers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Cliff Oberlin Speedy Deletion

Hi Ritchie333,

I am just starting out on Wikipedia and wanted to give publishing a page a try. I've come across Cliff's name a few times being in the finance industry and thought it may be an easy start. I would like to try editing the page to get rid of any information that you think is a COI or irrelevant, and then I'd like to try reposting with your comments in mind. Thanks for your time. Jumperfan (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jumperfan: I have restored the article to Draft:Cliff Oberlin and trimmed it down to a basic description. You should be able to retrieve the other text in the history as a basic start, but don't restore all of it otherwise it might be tagged as WP:G11 "blatant advertising" again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Trump Baby Balloon at Parliament Square.jpeg listed for discussion

Nice template, sir!
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Trump Baby Balloon at Parliament Square.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Guanaco 21:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion request for List of breakfast drinks

You have participated at Discussion for List of breakfast drinks Therefore, you might be interested in the deletion nomination of the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (2nd nomination) --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Jbh

I've drafted a co-nom statement, if you could take a look that would be great. If you are fine with it, then the rest is just waiting for your main statement. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: I think your co-nom is fine (though I might be back to nitpick over it if I've got a mo). I've added my nomination and the usual boilerplate to that page, once JBH answers the standard questions and accepts, it can then simply be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley and we're good to go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Undiscussed blanking

Hello Ritchie. I recently created an article that—without discussion—was blanked and redirected. Because of 1RR in ARBPIA, I cannot revert. Can an editor simply blank a whole article with discussion or an AFD. Any insight is appreciated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You certainly can; in this instance I would recommend filing an AfD (not RfD, you want to discuss suitability as an article), leaving the article in its current (single redirect) state and explaining that you can't revert because of ARBPIA. I've filed a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Shiloh settlement shooting to manage this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Ritchie. The approach just seemed somewhat underhanded because the article offers different historical context and aftermath than the Asher Weisgan bio. I was a bit flustered, but I think everything will work itself out.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_78&oldid=986579715"