This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ritchie333. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I was just about to finish up the M25 GAN review. I hope you haven't been "got". Don't be a stranger. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I see what's happened, and completely understand your frustration. Good luck dude. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd just like to clarify that I was not trying to imply that anyone at ArbCom is actually from Illinois. Nor even that you are necessarily a "college educated woman". Sorry for any misunderstanding. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Please don't retire permanently
Damn. I saw the AN posting and I could just tell it was bad. Fuck's sake, why the hell wasn't this a public case with public statements? I hope this is a temporary "I need a break Wikipedia" retirement and not a "Apparently I'm not wanted here" – you definitely are – or "I'm done with this shit" – well... it's shit, I'll give you that much – retirement. Now, I'm not gonna see random roads and railways in the UK pop up on my watchlist anymore :( Mr rnddude (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Just to piggyback on the above heading. The project would be unquestionably worse off without you. I wouldn't have even made it to RfA without your assistance! Kosack (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie, I discovered this upon logging in today, and I feel absolutely awful about it. Please do understand that there are many of us who very much value your work here. Please do come back when you feel comfortable doing so. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed; I said nice things about you at WT:ACN earlier today, but I'll say them here too. I don't really know what happened, but I really hope you'll come back after the sting subsides. You're a real talent, a decent human, and someone who cares about the encyclopedia; we need that here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I, too, understand why you want to take a break from the project at this difficult time for you. I truly hope that you enjoy your time off, and that when the right amount of time has passed, that you will decide to return to the encylopedia. Be well. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The world has run amok and we are living in strange times indeed. I do hope that this is not a permanent thing and that when the dust settles you will return. You are a valuable editor, who gets collaboration, and beyond that, you know how to navigate the ins and outs of this quagmire and steer through the drama. I cannot state enough how much you have helped me through the years and am shocked and confused that this has happened. SusunW (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations, Ritchie. Never mind the drama boards, this here is what Wikipedia is all about - writing good-quality and accurate articles on topics such as this, which benefits 700 people every day. I hope we'll see you back soon. UK motorways good topic anyone? Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I WON'T ALLOW IT! However, in case a Fram-like situation develops that merits a shortcut, so far I've got WP:WHICHWITCHDITCHEDRITCH? EEng10:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Been a long time since we interacted, but thought I'd drop by given current events. My thoughts:
I do applaud you sticking to your principles
It's harder to change the system from the outside than it is from the inside.
After reading your post at AC/N - I can certainly understand your frustration and trepidation. I hope your retirement is temporary and that given time to sort things out and developing a M.O. that you'll consider returning. You're very good in administrative tasks, I'd hate to see anything chase you away from that. All that being said - I do wish you the best. — Ched : ? — 18:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Richard Carpenter head shot.jpg listed for discussion
Great - another content creator driven off wikipedia
And now yet another decent content creator is driven off of Wikipedia by the BS, and instead of protecting him and valuing him, what appears to be an involved admin blocks him.
Willst du mit mir ein Altbier trinken, um die Autoren und Inhaltentwickler zu feiern? Lass dich nicht von die Wikianwälte beinflussen.
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)
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)
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... ——SerialNumber5412919:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
The whole buried history of what's gone on is too arcane to follow, but it looks like you've been whacked with the big stick for something trival. You will be missed, especially at WikiProject London Transport and WikiProject London where you have created a very substantial proportion of the new good articles that the projects have gained over the last couple of years. I hope the decision to retire is temporary, but either way these are deserved (though small consolation):
Ritchie, I want to make sure you know that Arbcom were originally considering a Level 2 desysop. They apparently never informed you. See Worm's later statements in this section. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:38, 11 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. CassiantoTalk06:54, 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)- -----
@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)
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)
"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 anus horribilis."
Ritchie, take it from me: after you get blocked a few more times you really won't care. Please just ignore this. EEng12:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC) P.S. If you don't come back, who will make edits like this [2] to my essays? I need you. Wikipedia needs you.
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!. –Davey2010Talk12:33, 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. ∯WBGconverse14:15, 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. –Davey2010Talk14:21, 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 :) ——SerialNumber5412914:32, 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)
(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. ∯WBGconverse15:04, 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)
@Vanamonde93: I think there's a problem when an admin says that it wasn't a block they would have made, but it's OK. I'm fine with saying that in the context of actual sanctions being proposed against the blocking admin, but in the context of discussing whether it would be appropriate to lift the block, if you would not have made the block, then you shouldn't be in favor of the block. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: I didn't say I was in favor of the block. I said it was within administrator discretion, ie it is permitted by, and is justifiable in, policy. That doesn't make it a good block; I thought my opinion of it was fairly obvious. Indeed, had it been an ordinary block, I may even have lifted it; but it's not, and I can't, not without losing my mop for my troubles. What I'm saying is that endless back-and-forth here isn't doing any good: if people want to argue they should go elsewhere and leave Ritchie be. Vanamonde (Talk)00:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that. Speaking out against a failure of process, and a very harmful one at that, is not failing to leave Ritchie alone. The people who should have left him alone are the admins who misused their tools. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
WTF????????? Ritchie, you bloody come back, people need your knowledge, calmness and patience here. Don't get frustrated with idiots! — kashmīrīTALK19:15, 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. › Morteetalk19:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Before Ritchie even had a chance to respond to this block, Huon said If necessary, I'll revoke talk page access too. That preemptive threat from the blocking admin is far too heavy-handed. Lepricavark (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
TBH, I don't appreciate the personal attacks made by Ritchie. Telling someone (Fastily) to "fuck off", isn't civil at all. Just because he has been through "shit times" already (as said by SchroCat), doesn't mean he can get away with everything. Masum Reza📞04:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that going through "shit times" doesn't give Wikipedians an excuse to make such remarks, but at the same time I sympathize with his struggles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie was telling Fastilybot to fuck off, not Fastily the human. And it was an automated message, which he has always disliked. I really don’t think he is “gettin away” with anything there. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Cut the guy some slack for fucksake, People lose their shit and swear occasionally .... it's really not the end of the world. –Davey2010Talk03:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Jfc, Huon, have you lost your mind?! I'm pretty sympathetic towards admins making difficult blocks, but for that? That's a hell of a weak "violation", if you're even going to deign to call it that. The dude was venting about a shadow-IBAN that's highly controversial at best. Certainly not a justified reason to sully a clean block log, particularly for a user who's given way more to this project than you or I have, Huon (and that's not meant to be an insult). It's not like he went full-meltdown and self-destructed. Plus your involvement is dubious to begin with, having personally complained to the community about the exact thing you rushed to block him for. I'm sure you'd argue you brought the complaint as an uninvolved admin, but even still, we're not blind to the optics here. If you're going to sully the clean block log of an admin with 90k edits over a petty "violation" of a dubious IBAN, maybe hit the brakes for a second and take it to AE. Good advice in general, essential if you could be perceived as harboring a grudge against said admin. I'm not assuming bad faith, but this was a terrible judgment call. ~Swarm~{sting}06:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
It goes without saying that it was a bad block, but I guess I should probably say it too anyway, at least so I don't become part of the silent majority "agreeing" with it… Seems a bit asymmetric — if one admin decides to block, no others (except Floq-level admins) may unblock. But if all but one admin decides not to block, the last admin still may. Κσυπ Cyp12:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the standard for unblocking is the same for a normal discretionary block and an AE block: either an agreement from the blocking admin, or a simple consensus. The only added caveat for an AE block is that the unblock consensus needs to be formalized in a designated forum, either with a community consensus at AN or a consensus of uninvolved admins at AE. There is not some unreasonably high bar for overturning bad AE blocks, and I'm at a loss as to why a correct forum was not employed here. We clearly failed Ritchie by not taking this to the appropriate forum to be overturned. It was certainly not an inherent institutional failing where we could not overrule this block. ~Swarm~{sting}04:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, although it wouldn't save the pristine block log, someone should have tried getting it overturned. Sorry that I didn't do that myself. Κσυπ Cyp17:41, 12 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)
the very first thing that every admin should ask themselves before taking action is what is the best way to deescalate the situation – Amen. EEng04:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Tryptofish, you have analyzed the situation quite persuasively, which includes the expectation that a bit of venting will take place in the wake of a sanction. Minor venting in this case. I recommend that this block be lifted because Ritchie has made enormous contributions to this encylopedia and is indisputably a net positive. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
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. - Amen indeed. starship.paint (talk)07:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, all of you. Huon has replied to me at his user talk, and I have told him that I find his reply unsatisfactory. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
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. EricCorbett22:25, 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)
Ritchie, I'm really sorry to see you going through a rough patch. Here's hoping it ends sooner rather than later. Please don't leave Wikipedia entirely; a permanent departure from you would detriment it for sure. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Take all the time you need, but please don't go
Hello Ritchie,
We don't really communicate much, but please do not leave the encyclopedia. Take all the time you need, but we need you here. I hope to see you on here again. AmericanAir88(talk)20:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I won't link to it here but in case anyone's unaware since last posting here Ritchie has made a couple of comments on Fram's Meta page.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
On 25 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Garçon Wines, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Garçon Wines produces a wine bottle (pictured) designed to fit through a letter box? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Garçon Wines. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Garçon Wines), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Today's article is a Richie, a tragic story ... - Thank you for stellar article work! I miss you, and the lightness you were able to add to this thorny place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
DYK for The Debut (album)
On 29 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Debut (album), which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that The Debut was Jackie Evancho's eighth consecutive release on the Billboard Classical Albums chart to reach number one? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
Coordinator
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
This month's refresher course
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
Paid editing
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
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)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Blind Faith 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 Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
One, I've already read the discussion on Fram's talk page, and two, while I appreciate your desire that editors not voice their view on an Rfa prior to transclusion, is there any harm to the encyclopedia by so doing? KillerChihuahua13:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@KillerChihuahua: All it takes is one person who doesn't support Fram being an administrator saying "Hey, why are we bending the rules for this candidate?" and the heavens will tremble. There will be plenty of time to re-add your support when the RfA is transcluded. I'm pretty sure Fram would not want to give an impression of being unfair or exhibiting impropriety, and I'm sure if they took exception to what I did, they would have called me out on it by now. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
No need to ping me when I've asked a question, I do watch.
So because people might complain, we're being rules-wankers? Eh, not complaining (much) and I can see the point. Still a bit silly, but since it would be you and Fram in the crosshairs, totally support removal. KillerChihuahua13:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm fairly certain this is standard practice; some folks found my RfA before it was transcluded, and !voted, and then had their !votes removed by BU Rob. Vanamonde (Talk)16:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I think Ritchie mentioned the other RfA to demonstrate that this had nothing to do with Fram and only to do with our normal practices. Normal practice is a 7-day RfA that starts when it's transcluded. If Ritchie hadn't removed the early votes, it's quite likely someone else would have. --valereee (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I actually already got that from his first reply to me. Again, not sure why the second Rfa was mentioned, since he'd already made it fairly clear he didn't see this as an IAR situation, and I'd made it clear I understood and supported his action. So he's telling me about another Rfa why? He's already explained, I've already said Yeah, gotcha and agree - so I'm missing if there is other information he's trying to communicate. Thank you to both of you, but so far you've not seen any new info being communicated either, so I'm still perplexed. KillerChihuahua18:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The point I was making that it isn't just the need to avoid all appearance of impropriety in Fram's case; the removal is to ensure that the RFA is fair (not giving "insiders" a longer time to comment) and has been done elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk)18:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This is spam, forgive me. I'm gonna go through various GAR/GA pages and look for people who appear active. All I'm asking for is a review, not asking for any specific outcome (i.e., not begging for a KEEP). The GAR is Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bengal famine of 1943/1. If you review and Delist, that's OK, so long as it gets a meaningful review...
The article is big, detailed and has a terrible history in various Content Review forums. In fact, it has been residing in Content Review Hell for a couple years now... In return for a review (not a specific outcome) I'll do any kinda gnomish or research work you wish. Forex, I love converting inconsistent referencing into {{{sfn}}}, regardless of article size. I also help with all the errors that show up as described User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck. And so on. Thank you for reading this; forgive the intrusion. Cheers ♦ Lingzhi2(talk)04:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
