The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Ritchie333[edit]

Final: (138/3/3) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 21:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) – Another user of the right calibre who practically had to be frogmarched to RfA, Ritchie is one of those editors about whom many of you are going to say “I thought he was an admin already!”. Well, he isn’t, but in my opinion he should be, and that’s why we’re here. Software engineer and musician in real life and friend of real ale, Ritchie has been around since the days of yore when one could collect a mop from the store on 2,000 edits and 3 months tenure. Not only has he racked up a participation in no less than 41 good articles, he has created enough articles of substance to be truly autopatrolled, and has more than adequately demonstrated his knowledge of deletion/inclusion guidelines through more AfD than some recent RfA voters have made edits to Wikipedia. Ritchie has also written a raft of poignant but respectable short essays: How newbies see templates, Don't template the retirees, Wikipedia doesn't own you, The Dumpy test, and Hit and run editors. Do take a moment to read them before voting here because whether you like them or not or whether you have a genuine sense of humour or not, they all demonstrate one thing: that Ritchie genuinely cares about Wikipedia and the welfare of its editors and readers.

Like many experienced users, aware that RfAs of even the most mop-worthy candidates sometimes get turned into a fiasco, Ritchie was at first reticent but if there were a bot (heaven forbid) that would accord the bit based on tenure and experience, Ritchie would be automatically accepted so I am asking the community to come to the same conclusion - from a human angle. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination[edit]

I've had my eye on Ritchie333 as a prospective admin for a long time - ever since I learned that he hadn't been granted the mop already. A straight-talking, policy-savvy editor who isn't averse to dealing with the more confrontational areas of Wikipedia, he'd be a much needed addition the the admin corps. He also has a proven track record in article work, creating over 60 new pages and more than 40 GAs, more than enough to show that he knows our content policies back-to-front.

I don't know whether Ritchie has taken his own advice in preparing for this RFA, but whether his best friend is still driving or not, he's done more than enough on-wiki to convince me that he's ready. Thankfully I'm not alone, and the increasing pressure from other editors has finally convinced him to take the plunge. I think it's about time, and I hope you will agree. Yunshui 雲水 12:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another co-nomination[edit]

Don't want to be piling on, but Ritchie is an excellent candidate. First and foremost he's a creator, and in addition he's a creator and writer and editor of good articles, many of them Good Articles. He has plenty of common sense and a very decent knowledge of our policies and guidelines, and I have the fullest faith that he will not abuse the tools. We need good admins, in fact we need them pretty badly, and here is one for you. Ritchie, thank you for running. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thankyou for the nomination; I am happy to accept it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I regularly patrol the backlog at CAT:CSD reviewing nominations to check if they are appropriate, and I expect I would work in this area as an admin. I spend quite a bit of time at AfD and intend to help close down old debates. As I like rescuing articles from deletion, I'd be keen to work at WP:REFUND and help editors get articles restored. I would probably keep an eye on CAT:UNBLOCK, especially regarding spam / promotional usernames, which I see have a regular queue.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've improved 41 articles to GA, but my personal favourites have been Hammond organ, Denmark Street and Ika Hügel-Marshall as they were done as part of a team. Strong collaborative content work is one of the nicest experiences you can have on Wikipedia. Elsewhere, I've reviewed numerous submissions at Articles for Creation, and handled replies at the AfC Help Desk, and I'd like to think I have given many new Wikipedians a positive impression of the site.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have certainly encountered conflict and disagreed with editors. I ignore name calling and insults, and try to resolve issues on the talk page, or walk away from the conflict and work on something else. I have very occasionally been blunt and direct, but never to new or inexperienced editors. I consider all disputes I have been involved with to be in the past and prefer to move on from them.
Additional question from 200.5.117.18
4. Take a look at User_talk:Adamsalti and comment on the actions of the admins that commented there. Do you approve of all/any of them? Do you think the user got a fair shake? Do you think the user was treated in a WP:CIVIL manner? What would you have done were you in any of those admins' shoes? note- the thing is 2 years old so please no ridiculous accusations of trying to solicit a second opinion at a wrong venue - if you don't want to answer, just ignore the question.
A: I remember this discussion being linked from ANI. The user appears to have been blocked as part of the promotional username policy, but the account is not an obvious company name or email address. I don't know what article they were creating, but I assume it was speedy deleted, probably because of no indication of importance or blatant advertising. The user didn't understand why they were blocked, and the policy says that ambiguous cases are best deferred to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. I would probably have filed a report there instead of blocking - if the user was only here to promote one article, that could have been resolved by speedy deletion, and if necessary, salting, without a block being necessary. From there, communication between the user and admins broke down, and I think there was too much aggression from both sides. For an example of what I would do, see User talk:Kenny Crookston. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Northamerica1000
5. What are some potential ways to encourage increased user collaboration on English Wikipedia? Many WikiProjects receive little input nowadays, and finding organized collaborations seems to be difficult.
A: This is an excellent question. One possibility is that people are unaware that projects exist, or that there are programmes to improve content, such as your Today's Article for Improvement. One reason projects may be stale is there are too many abandoned ones, and some could be merged (for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Progressive Rock and Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal could be merged with Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock Music). We could possibly notify new editors of projects and activity when they create a new article or have an AfC submission accepted. A further possibility is holding real life events and workshops, as it's so much easier to show article improvement to new editors if you're in the room in them. I have previously expressed interested in hosting such a workshop - there is a converted chapel in Broadstairs that acts as a library, bookshop and bar, that may be amenable to such a workshop. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from ToonLucas22
6. When do you feel appropiate to block an IP address indefinitely?
A: Almost never. I have seen static Open proxies used for persistent disruption, but I think they are blocked for a year, rather than indefinitely. Our guidelines for IP block length suggest "almost never", though that is not an official policy. Tor proxies tend to expire after a while, so an indefinite block is inappropriate. I would probably defer the decision on blocking proxies to an administrator experienced in that area. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from 186.9.131.255
7. WP:LTA is for keeping track of a small number of persistent vandals. The page says "Only add vandals that have a need to be pointed out, such as sneaky sockpuppeteers, prolific trolls, etc.". Why, then, did you create a page there for someone who has only ever worked to improve the encyclopaedia, and who you explicitly said "has NEVER vandalised"?
A: I felt there were too many threads on ANI relating to this topic, and too many people were getting angry and upset over the issue, so I created a report to consolidate the threads into one place and get a consensus on what action to take. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Bosstopher
8. Under what circumstances would you find it appropriate to close an XfD discussion by citing WP:IAR?
A: I don't think I'd ever specifically use IAR as a reason itself (what rules are we ignoring, and why?), but I might mention it when I feel a particular policy or guideline may not be appropriate. For example, if an article was created by a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned editor, but two editors !voted keep and linked to several good sources to establish notability, I think it would be a good idea to ignore WP:CSD#G5 as the article could be improved by other editors in future, meaning that speedy deletion criteria would no longer apply. I remember linking to IAR in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citation needed, suggesting the usual consensus of not redirecting from mainspace to project space could be excused in that instance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Bosstopher
9. An experienced admin gets into an edit war with a new not-even-autoconfirmed user, over the exact weight that should be given to Barbari bread in the article about bread. The new user then accuses the admin of being a racist, who wants the article to be dominated by European bread. As a result of this the admin blocks the new user citing "personal attacks" and leaves a message along the lines of "nationalist POV pushing kooks like you are not welcome on Wikipedia." The new user files an unblock request. It is rejected by the admin with a simple "nope." The user then makes a second unblock request asking "can some admin who's not a fucking cunt like this guy please unblock me? I swear I'll sue Wikipedia if you carry on treating me like this!" You are the first admin on the scene at this unblock request. What do you do?
A: I'd be astonished if any admin actually did the things mentioned here, and if I happened to be the first to spot this at CAT:UNBLOCK, I'd probably punt and look at one of the other unblock requests.
However, assuming no other admins want to do anything with it .... I would send a message to the new editor, saying I was sorry to hear they got off to a bad start and explain that systemic bias is a problem. I would explain that Barbari bread was a barely sourced stub, tagged for more references for over a year, and that they would be welcomed by the community if they expanded that article to give a comprehensive overview of its history, its cultural significance, and any recipes it was known for. I would conclude by suggesting that if they promised not to edit bread or edit-war again, but focused on the Barbari bread article, I would unblock them, on the understanding that if they went back on their promise and edit-warred again, they would be quickly reblocked.
I would then send a message to the blocking admin, simply saying "I don't understand why you blocked this editor - can you explain?" The most rational explanation I could think is that the admin believed the new editor was an obvious sockpuppet with a long history of edit-warring elsewhere, and was expressing frustration at having to block for the nth time. I might sympathise with new editors adding unsourced content or poor sources (if that were the case), but explain that in no way excuses incivility or personal attacks. What action I took next would depend on the admin's response.
As an aside, I have added a few sources to our article on Barbari bread and removed the refimprove tag. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Jakec
10. Say that an article on a company is nominated for AFD. Several people have argued for deletion on the grounds that the article is a one-sentence, unreferenced stub, but one person has argued for retention, linking to sources that allow the article to meet GNG. However, no one has stepped up to actually improve the article and it has been about a week since the start of the AFD. What, if anything, would you do upon coming across this article and AFD?
A: The first thing I would do is look for my own sources. I would want to see a dedicated article, or at least several full paragraphs, in good quality sources such as broadsheet newspapers (eg: BBC News, The Guardian, Financial Times - no press releases, no trivial mentions). I have access to JSTOR and the British Newspaper Archive and they can be helpful for older or historical organisations. Google Books is also an excellent resource for sources. I'd then examine the sources given in the AfD, and from a combination of that and my own search, work out if the article was salvageable. A heuristic (but not a hard and fast rule) I have previously witnessed is that around 6-7 detailed and dedicated independent sources over a time range of more than a year is normally enough to save a company article at AfD. (eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nobo Ice Cream)
If I determined the article could be rescued, I would expand it using all the sources I could find, and !vote keep on the AfD. If the company was based in a country that does not have prominent English online sources, such as any in mid to west Africa, I would AGF that more sources exist, and relist the AfD. If I failed to find sufficient sources, and was certain no more existed, I would see if there was an appropriate redirect term, and if so !vote merge / redirect to there. If I concluded the company name was an unlikely search term, I would !vote delete, probably with a rationale of "Sources 'x' and 'y' are okay, but I don't really think that's sufficient coverage to meet WP:ORG and I can't see anywhere to merge / redirect to." (Note: I'm a little unsure as to whether or not the question assumes that the AfD does list sufficient sources; were that to be the case, it's unlikely that in this specific example I'd get as far as considering merge / redirect / delete options). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Jakec
11. Would you speedily delete an article that is tagged for speedy deletion for failing the notability guidelines?
A: I'm slightly confused by this question - there isn't a speedy deletion criteria for that. It's possible that an article about a non-notable topic may also meet a speedy criteria, most obviously WP:CSD#A7 (unimportant people, animals, websites, organisations and events - not schools or books), WP:CSD#G11 (blatant advertising requiring a complete rewrite) or WP:CSD#G12 (copyright violation), but "not notable" is not a reason in itself to speedy. When I look at CAT:CSD, my usual triage is a news and book search, and a single mention in either is usually sufficient for me to decline a speedy (even if the coverage is not enough for an article, it could be enough for a merge / redirect), though I might still go to AfD (eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgarian-Swiss Chamber of Commerce). A typical WP:GARAGE band article with no chart hits, no affiliation with a notable record label, zero news and book sources and only self-published web sources probably should be speedied per A7. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from SNUGGUMS
12. If a deleted article is recreated without meeting notability criteria, when would you say is a good time to salt it?
A: It depends on the article's title, how likely it is to be recreated with the same title, and how the article was deleted. If the title was obviously offensive and clearly overlooked from the blacklist on Special:ProtectedTitles (eg: Va te faire foutre), and the article had previously been speedy deleted (probably via WP:CSD#G3 - obvious vandalism / hoax or WP:CSD#G10 - attack page), then it would be appropriate to respeedy and salt.
For an article deleted by AfD, I would examine the debate and determine if I could turn the article into a plausible redirect. If so, that would be the solution - normal editors can then control the content if it is further disruptive. I would probably only salt after I had seen the same article speedied for the same reason multiple times in quick succession, and if I had already told the editor to stop creating it, citing the relevant speedy criteria. I have seen users repeatedly create blatantly promotional and / or copyright violating articles under different names to circumvent salting - in that case, a block is probably more appropriate. However, even then it's possible for a problematic article to be blown up and rewritten (eg: see history and logs of Nobó) and that's what I'd prefer to do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Berean Hunter
13. Please explain the steps that you would take if you thought that someone else had gained access to an admin account. What would you do?
A: I'll assume I have good evidence that the account is compromised eg: multiple rapid blocks, deletes or incivility against policy and also either against the admin's typical behaviour or following a long gap in activity. I would take the advice here and alert the bureaucrats immediately to request an emergency desysopping using Special:EmailUser/Bureaucrats or wikien-bureaucrats@lists.wikimedia.org. I would then expect the bureaucrats to handle matters. Additionally, I might consider indef blocking the account myself if the admin was being blatantly disruptive, but not obviously using the block tool (eg: precedent here - though in that case conclusion was the account was not compromised). Otherwise I would be concerned that a genuinely compromised admin account whose attacker understands the technical procedure for blocking would think nothing of wheel warring by unblocking themselves, blocking me, and carrying on.
Once the crats confirmed the security breach was handled, I would offer to help out repair any damage to pages that occurred during the compromise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Esquivalience
14. Can notability be boosted by fame, importance, or significance? Why or why not?
A: Notability as Wikipedia defines it cannot be directly influenced by that. It can only be boosted by non-trivial recognition from sources independent of the subject. Even for specific notability criteria, it requires works being published - for WP:PROF (notability of academics) it is a notice of a tenured appointment by the university, for WP:MILPEOPLE (notability of military personnel) it may be the public announcement of a medal or award, for WP:NBAND (notability of musicians) it may be the published music charts. Indeed, some genuinely notable academics such as Naomi Sager are not what the typical reader may think of as "famous" or "significant" at all. User:Uncle G/On notability explores this topic further (in fact, all of Uncle G's essays are worth reading).
A single event can lead to substantial coverage quickly though - at the time you asked this question, Mhairi Black had no article, but overnight she has become inherently notable per WP:POLITICIAN, with multiple news outlets instantly reporting her victory in the 2015 UK General Election. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from 186.9.133.5
15. Follow-up questions related to #7 above, in which you didn't really answer the question of why you used measures appropriate only for the most persistent vandals against someone who has never vandalised anything: when do you think it is appropriate to use anti-vandalism measures against good faith contributors? Are you able to reliably distinguish between good faith contributions and vandalism? Are you happy with how your vandalism report against a good faith editor worked out? Are you happy that people constantly undo unambiguous improvements using it as a justification? 186.9.133.5 (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A:
Additional question from Inks.LWC
16. What does WP:INVOLVED mean to you in terms of how an admin should act (and when he should act)?
A: I interpret this as "Were your actions the best possible for the project? Did you have a conflict of interest in the result? Would any other admin have done the same thing?" However, what counts as involved can be controversial - if you need to protect an article from edit warring, even one revert in the sequence can result in editors yelling at you for being WP:INVOLVED. The best course of action I think is to ask a second opinion from another administrator if in doubt - admins can still use WP:RPP, and I don't see any reason I couldn't request protection from a neutral admin if I had the tools, just as I do now as an ordinary editor. Some admins will not speedy delete an article on sight (barring some cases including WP:CSD#G10 - attack page or WP:CSD#G12 - copyvio, where keeping the article violates basic terms and conditions) but tag it, so a second pair of eyes can check. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Inks.LWC
17. If you became an admin, what would you do to ensure that you complied with WP:ADMINACCT?
A: My talk page is always open for comments about any reviewing or maintenance activities I have undergone. This is pretty much what I do now as an AfC reviewer. While declining an AfC submission is obviously technically different from deleting an article, experience has shown me that the resulting disappointment and disillusionment to the editor is about the same, and I've frequently been asked "why did you decline this" questions on my talk page. Our policies might say that this band article over here has got to be deleted per WP:CSD#A7, that's consistent with procedure, but a real person has spent time and effort putting it together, so it's really important to be sympathetic and show compassion in your response, particularly to newcomers as contacting an admin is frequently their first exposure to the "customer service" side of Wikipedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Yes. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's an honor to support. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Finally - pretty sure I e-mailed you about this about 2 years ago, what took you so long?! GiantSnowman 21:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Of course. Kharkiv07Talk 21:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Precious Hammond organ (I asked all my questions before) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - A great asset to this site. I fully trust the candidate and I have absolutely no doubt that they will make a very good admin. — Yash! (Y) 21:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Yep.  Philg88 ♦talk 21:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Said my piece above. Yunshui 雲水 22:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support- yup. Why isn't this guy an admin already? Reyk YO! 22:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per all the noms, and yes I really am surprised that he wasn't already an admin. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, of course. --Stfg (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Productive, reasonable and sensible, is my experience. Andrew D. (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Happy with diffs at AfD. Glrx (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support with absolutely no reservations at all. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, doesn't appear to have any major issues that would warrant an oppose. Nakon 23:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I've had nothing but good impressions working with him in the past. With the these three nominators I have very little to be concerned about. Also nice to see another fellow software engineer and musician :) — MusikAnimal talk 23:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I trust that Ritchie has enough sensibility to use the tools responsibly and reasonably. Epic Genius (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd chiefly like to commend Ritchie on his reviews of Good Article nominations, including one very detailed review that he did for me last year. Epic Genius (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Ideal candidate. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Stephen 23:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. 100% Support - Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck - Well you won't need luck as you'll sail through this easily :) –Davey2010Talk 23:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support the real hero here is Kudpung for getting him to do an RfA! A very, very qualified candidate that will make a great admin! Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support A very good decision to run. Richie will make an excellent admin. -- Marek.69 talk 00:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support why not? Jianhui67 T★C 00:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support with no reservations. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - obvious. Strong candidate with content experience. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support—That'll do. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Very well qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support: Perhaps WP:IAR and call it an unilateral pass. 41 GAs in three years (of active editing) says it all. Esquivalience t 00:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support: It is my most absolute pleasure to say yes. This cannot happen soon enough. In addition to every other good thing, you exhibited caution about something children might see in an article. You are going to be the best! Fylbecatulous talk 01:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Yes, per the great work I've seen him do at AfC and other projects. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I thought this editor was already an admin. I trust Yunshui's nomination implicitly. Mkdwtalk 01:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, why is this even a question? StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34. I trust Ritchie333 to refrain from abusing the tools. This one is a good egg. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Obvious support is obvious. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. I've worked with Ritchie over at WP:GA, and he's a great guy with the best interests of the project at heart. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 05:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support A strong content contributor, an excellent collaborator (I have collaborated with him on many rescues and GA nominations), a good understanding of deletion policy, experience in closing contentious discussions, and a lot of clue. We don't owe it to him to give him a mop; he owes it to us to take one. MelanieN alt (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. likely netpos. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. I view bold purple signatures as prima facie evidence of power hunger. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Because I can't see any reason not to. Deb (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Nothing to add. --Randykitty (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Yes. I have been intending for over a year to work with Richie on bringing A1 in London to FA standard - his knowledge of UK roads is very sound; he has been president of SABRE, the most authoritative and respected roadgeek website in the UK. He is full of energy and enthusiasm - at one point this did lead to a couple of neglected GANs as brought up by Rschen7754 in the Oppose section, and mentioned in Wikipedia:Editor review/Ritchie333; however, this was a while ago, and it is not uncommon for an editor to realise after starting a GAN that they are unable to finish it for one reason or another. I like Richie, and I trust him. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, I really really thought he was already an admin. Graham87 10:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support; hardworking and can be trusted with the tools. There's nothing else for me to say, really. bobrayner (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, if that's what you really want to do. I have mixed emotions about proven content contributors taking up the mop. Of course, it's essential that administrators have proper editorial experience, particularly finding and evaluating sources. But I hope Ritchie333 doesn't spend too much time "cleaning up after pranks and silly nonsense". If (as Drmies says) there's a shortage of admins, surely we should look at reducing the need for them through technical or policy changes, rather than press-gang people who have better things to do! - Pointillist (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't take my word for it--too frequently do I read notes on AN about backlogs, often at RFPP and UAA. I don't think these are necessarily areas that Ritchie is very interested in but every bit helps. I'm doing some copyright investigations right now and those frequently need admin help (and there's a terrible backlog). There's a backlog at RM and I'm just not smart enough to tackle that, but there also a tool is frequently necessary. Also, blogs aren't reliable sources! :) Drmies (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not denying there's a shortage, given the volume of tasks that require admin tools under the current system. I was just reflecting that the other side of the equation is to reduce demand, e.g. by using technology make admins' work more productive or by changing policy so tasks are no longer required, or don't need admin status. With a few honorable exceptions (e.g. @David Gerard's essay) I don't think we question process sufficiently here. - Pointillist (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Will be a big help with the mop, and the age of the interaction concerns leads me to think that won't be a problem. I like what I've seen recently around here. Miniapolis 14:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Very dedicated contributor. I've only ever seen good things from Richie. Kurtis (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I take no exception to Ritchie becoming an administrator. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, with highest honors. - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Good to go. Widr (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support R has been an asset to WikiP for years and the tools will only increase that situation. MarnetteD|Talk 17:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, but reluctantly. Not because of any animus I feel towards Ritchie333 – I'm sure he'll make a fine admin – but it just seems like another signal that clearing admin backlogs has priority over producing content. Eric Corbett 18:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Understandable, but I think that Ritchie isn't really a new page patroller or dedicated vandal fighter or something like that, and it is true that we need some help in those areas. It's not a part that you look at often, I'm sure, and for all the right reasons, but it helps in making things run smoothly. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support why not? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support: All indications are that Ritchie333 has been a good editor and will be a good administrator.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Absolutely. Rhondamerrick (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Long term user ,trustworthy and well versed in policy and the project will only with the user having tools .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Using an answer to an RfA question as an opportunity to improve sourcing on an article is just too brilliant a move for me NOT to !vote for him. Am in a state of awe.(also answers are pretty good, good contributor, etc...)Bosstopher (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Net positive, supporting. --TL22 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I also thought he already was! No doubts about this being a good move. DBaK (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Me, too! I thought you were an admin. Let's get this oversight taken care of, pronto! Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Deserves the mop. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Great work at AfC. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Well-respected, long-term user. This is well overdue. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support: Have had positive interactions with this user, seems levelheaded and appropriate for the mop. Montanabw(talk) 03:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - A great respectful member of the Wikipedia community. I trust them with the tools of an admin. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support A moderately deep look-through reveals nothing but good work. I am confident that making him admin will result in a positive contribution to the project. Mamyles (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - Of course, I support this RfA candidate. I haven't seen an easier, no-brainer RfA !vote in long time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Eurodyne (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Nothing more to say than that. BMK (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support I've encountered Ritchie in several places and been universally impressed. Relentlessly (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support He deserves to become an admin. I can trust him :) No history of blocks for bad behaviour EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Looks good to me. Known to me as a rescuer of things heading for deletion, I can't see him going berserk in CSD or other areas. Peridon (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support A strong content creator (lots of GAs and DYKs) with regular participation in AFD. Strong nominators (three of them!). We need admins who work to save articles instead of rushing to delete them. Q10 and Q11 have convinced me. @Rictchie333: Q11 was intended to test your understanding of notability vs. importance as it applies to A7. You answered it well. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support No concerns here. Will be a great admin. --NeilN talk to me 13:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - good record at AfD, CSD, spot check of edits reveals no concerns to me. WilyD 14:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - Kraxler (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Adequate tenure, obviously (having started in Dec. 2005). Sufficient edits, mix of mainspace work to other things. No indications of assholery. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    THIS is terrific, by the way... Carrite (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Looks like a good candidate and we need more admins. Plus we can always drag him off to Arbcom if he makes a mistake! :-) Giraffasaurus (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Looks like a good candidate to me, and as above we definitely need more admins. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support -- Strong candidate.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - Overdue for a trustworthy candidate. I'm quite confident that Ritchie will quickly learn the tools and put them to good use. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support ...he will do a fine job. Now go and slash the tires on your best friend's car and tell him that you did it...Point 14.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Content creators need the tools. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Suport I have a good feeling about the candidate. Very satisfied with the answers given. —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support - I hope the valid concerns that Rschen mentions in his oppose are not going to be a problem. Good solid candidate. . Buster Seven Talk 20:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Strong Support A prolific and high quality content creator, with an excellent attitude and who has the gut instinct as to what the project means. An author of thoughtful and intelligent in - house essays and with some of the most respected noms on the block. Irondome (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna F remote (talk • contribs) 21:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support, don't see anything likely to be problematic. The oppose doesn't cite anything recent or especially extreme/concerning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Definitely support. Ritchie is an established, respectable user with lots of fantastic contributions to our project. I especially love "how newbies see templates". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysterious Gopher (talk • contribs) 00:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - Excellent candidate, fully qualified. --Laser brain (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Normally I would wait a little longer before participating in an RfA, but this is an exception. Like Kudpung said, he's really a "I thought he was an admin already" kind of editor. Very well qualified, and while I have never interacted with him directly, the activity I've seen him engage in is exactly what I want out of an admin. BenLinus1214talk 02:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Contributed with him across many namespaces, I would say that he really knew what to say, when to say and how to say. He really speaks from his mind, what he finds wrong or right. I also remember that he had been proposed of adminship before, and he deemed that he won't become an admin.[1] That is where he was actually wrong. Hope to contribute more with you Ritchie333.OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support, no problems here! Tavix | Talk  04:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - excellent candidate. Hafspajen (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support; I've looked at a few thousand of their contribs, and passed it by a few dozen other eyes. They seem to have what it takes to be a great admin. Good luck, and may you never get 'both barrels.' →StaniStani 07:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support I can always count on quality contributions from Ritchie (even had the pleasure of reviewing a few of his GA nominations), and trust his judgement. I was going to nominate him for adminship myself if this wasn't already up. No issues from him! Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support .......I hope Ritchie333 will still be a content editor :-) stay clear of useless drama!!! -- Moxy (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support – I don't usually voice an opinion in RfAs but I feel strongly enough to support this one! SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support – as nominator. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support as no evidence indicates they abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 16:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support per this edit here: [2] I wish you would take the ANI board more seriously though and not just refer to it as a load of drama (That might be true but its part of being an admin.). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support - solid edit history, usually level-headed, and good answers to questions. Shanata (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support -- Most certainly. CassiantoTalk 19:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - level-headed, humane, and logical; that's a rare blend but absolutely necessary for an admin. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. Great candidate. --Carioca (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - Ritchie333 has been very helpful in my interactions with him. Enthusiastic yes. Carl Henderson (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Good answers to questions. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support – A well-rounded user with significant experience in several areas. Solid AfD contributions, and from a review of their AfD contributions, is perceptive regarding Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I also appreciated the insightful answer to question #5 I posted above. Also support per the rationales of the nominator and co-nominators. North America1000 02:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Suport - I've considered the points that have been raised below in the oppose and neutral sections, but they have not swayed me away from supporting. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Suport - No concerns. --Gaff (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support I read the opposes and looked into several of the diffs, and found nothing that would disqualify the candidate. This is an excellent candidate nominated by some of our most experienced administrators. Thank you for agreeing to serve as an administrator. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. I don't find the civility concerns persuasive. Should have had the mop ages ago, in my opinion. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support. Since I see a couple of the "incivility" comments as more likely self-deprecating subtle humor (noted that he's a musician), his contributions are outstanding, and his nominators are persuasive, I think this candidacy is an easy support. Donner60 (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Everything seems fine. Rcsprinter123 (orate) @ 15:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support, I think I am fine--Ymblanter (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Obviously. This should have happened years ago (I always assumed you didn't want to be an admin?). And to some of the opposers, I'd much rather have an effective admin who was direct, even rude sometimes, than an ineffective admin who was unfailingly polite. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Absolutely. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support His answers convinced me that he will use admin tools appropriately Supdiop (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Pile-on support. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support: A net positive. He is moving toward the fine balance of being an effective admin who is direct, but also polite. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support without concerns, should make a fine addition to the administrative group. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 23:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support And good luck. → Call me Hahc21 00:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Ritchie deserves to be an admin. He has contributed quite a lot to Wikipedia. He also guided many beginner editors like me! :) Vincent60030 (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support Happy to see this request. Strong, enduring edits. Good answers. Impeccable noms. Can be trusted with tools. BusterD (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support: a lot of good edits, be a sysop is good for you. 333-blue 13:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Yes, see Drmies, Carrite, et. al. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support based on review. Kierzek (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support. Definitely. – SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support - While I had some reservations, especially in light of Rschen's oppose, the answers to the questions are satisfactory, and I think the user will be a net positive as an admin. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. I thought about this for a long time, in light of the concerns in the oppose and neutral sections. However, as mentioned by Yunshui, Rschen's examples are 1-2 years old. I did consider the civility concerns mentioned by Amaryllis, but I have a gut feeling that such issues will not be a major concern. I did not, after all, encounter any issues in the GA reviews I did for the articles he has nominated. I am not swayed to oppose by the comments listed by Gobonobo. In particular, I think the "assholes in action" comment was misinterpreted, since it doesn't appear to be aimed at any editor. Therefore, it cannot violate WP:CIVIL or WP:PA. Overall, I'm confident that Ritchie will be a net positive as an admin. --Biblioworm 03:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Of course. Mediran (alt) (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support of course. IMO he is a perfect candidate for adminship.--Chamith (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support per nom. --John (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support BethNaught (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Cluefull editor who will make a good admin. Hope though that they take the feedback presented in the oppose and neutral sections into account. Abecedare (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. While I believe that Ritchie333 has improved greatly in this area over the last year, I have been concerned with his manner of interacting with other editors he disagrees with, and would like to see a more lengthy track record of being able to work with editors of different philosophies before supporting. --Rschen7754 00:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to a comment on the talk page asking for specific instances: problematic GA reviews (including abandoning them over the slightest disagreements) 1 2, and several other discussions where their involvement only served to add heat to what was otherwise a calm discussion: [3]4 5 6 7, besides threatening me with a topic ban from the primary area where I contribute [4][5], when Ritchie333 clearly had strong feelings about the subject area, which would have caused me to leave the project (and indeed, the effect of those comments was quite chilling). Now, I get that editors can turn things around and change for the better; I'm certainly an example of that. But not this quickly, especially when the incidents showed the complete opposite of the collaborative behavior that we would expect from an admin, let alone an editor; part of me wonders if this is just a temporary moderation in order to pass this RFA. Considering that we are one of the few projects remaining where the community does not have the power to desysop an administrator, I'm not comfortable with giving administrative tools that are too difficult to remove. --Rschen7754 04:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not normally in favour of replying to oppose votes on RFAs where I have a dog in the fight, so to speak, but I feel it's only fair to Ritchie333 to point out that none of those diffs is more recent than a year and a half ago, and most are two years old or more. Yunshui 雲水 08:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is true, but what bothers me is the consistently negative interactions with the same group of editors (obviously including myself) for a period of at least 18 months (about half of Ritchie's active editing tenure), clearly personalizing a dispute, and a complete failure to recognize the problems with those behaviors. --Rschen7754 20:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Vogone (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rschen7754's reasoning has convinced me not to support. --Vogone (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, after looking at Rschen's reasoning and concerns, I've decided to oppose. I value an editor's attitude and civility the most at RfAs. There are too many incivil admins out there, I don't want to take a chance with this one. Actually, contrary to what Rschen7754 said, the community does have the power to desysop, although we don't have a specific page for it. The problem is that when a user tries to get an abusive admin to be desysopped, the admin's friends arrive and save them from a desysop, absolutely ignoring what the admin did. Though it was a tban instead of a desysop request, I've been that user trying to get action taken against an abusive admin, it's wasn't fun and it was disturbing how things went. I don't mean that Ritchie will be an abusive admin, but please understand, we don't need to take that chance. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought only arbcom had the power to desysop. They're a subset of the community, but a small subset. How would the community desysop someone without passing it through arbcom? ekips39❦talk 04:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Some admins are open to recall, though that depends on them actually obeying their own rules. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reaper Eternal: Has that ever been a problem -- has an administrator ever refused to resign if recalled according to his or her own specified recall procedure? I've never heard of such a thing in my six years on Wikipedia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dirtlawyer1: Yes, it has been a problem. It is a rare problem these days because the recall process is such a joke that it is barely used anymore, but I have seen it firsthand. I don't wish to "name and shame" as this person is finally no longer an admin, but I made the tactical error of sending them an email explaining that I intended to initiate recall against them and that it would be better if they just steped aside, and in response they simply changed their critera for recall to a much higher threshold. I believe there have also been past cases where the admin's criteria were clearly met, but they decided it was still wrong and would not abide by it. It's a toothless, worthless process. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Although not a direct way to desysop, it is possible to ban an admin from using the tools on ANI. --Biblioworm 15:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beeblebrox: My first reaction is how dishonorable. My second reaction is that many of the RfA candidates who said they would be "open to recall" gave very little thought to defining the recall process, or how easy it would be to manipulate the process by a handful of determined folks with a grudge. I think the key is how the recall certification process is structured: I would trust you as one of six to ten certifying editors who were neutral uninvolved third-parties, Beeblebrox, but I can't say that of every editor, or even every administrator. If you would like, we can discuss this further on my talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. On the fence for now. I recognize that Ritchie333 has been a good contributor, and has exercised exemplary judgement on many occassions. However, I have some concerns about how he might handle WP:INVOLVED [6] and WP:ADMINACCT [7] as an admin. I need to explore further when I have more time later this week.- MrX 00:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    MrX, I don't see the problem. That first close, anyone could have made that: it's pretty much automatic. The second one, I am not familiar with that matter, but where's the "accountability" problem? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The ANI close ideally would have been done by someone entirely uninvolved with Eric Corbett. Concerning ADMINACCT: Admins are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct. Ritchie333 seemed to think that WP:BLP creates an exemption to that expectation. It doesn't.- MrX 01:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverting BLP isn't an admin action so I don't see how WP:ADMINACCT applies. Am I misunderstanding? You're referring to this, right? - Pointillist (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the ANI thread[8] for context. An admin ignored requests to explain their actions at ANEW.- MrX 11:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. In this instance I'm OK with Ritchie333's stance but I understand your wider point. Thanks! - Pointillist (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. My concerns center on civility and impartiality. I'm still familiarizing myself, but "I silently cheer from the sidelines when Wikipediocracy fires both barrels at an admin doing silly things" gives me pause and this AfD comment seems unnecessarily condescending. And I still don't know what to make of this "assholes in action" comment. gobonobo + c 15:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Twinkle has a lot of magic buttons to automate tasks. None of them are for writing content and adding sources.(user page) Here is Ritchie asking for more such magic buttons! The best content editors ignore twinkle... Well obviously, like the best sculptors ignore vacuum cleaners. Ritchie seems not to have much interest in the counter-vandalism side - that's OK - but shouldn't disdain those who do. As long as we have wide-open access, someone has to preserve the precious content that is created, and for this Twinkle is a very effective tool: Noyster (talk), 09:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhmm, what? Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a comment on those statements (highlighted in green) that Ritchie has on his user page, which Noyster appears to feel are unnecessarily dismissive of those who revert vandalism. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category