User talk:Ritchie333

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

I hope you see this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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