Wikipedia:Editor review/Ritchie333

Ritchie333
After being prodded about it at a WikiMedia Meetup, I'm thinking about going for the mop some time in 2013 and want initial feedback. Although I've had admin / moderator rights on various internet forums on and off for about 15 years (sadly little of which is verifiable), a WP admin is a much higher bar of responsibility that benefits far more people if done right. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   15:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

 Questions

 Reviews 
 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * Most of my contributions are reviewing articles at Articles for Creation, particularly on the help desk alongside Huon, and contributing content to music / band articles, of which I have so far taken four to good article status. I am particularly happy about taking Van Der Graaf Generator to GA status, working closely with SilkTork and Mark in wiki to get it there. A number of other users seem to like Elvis' Greatest Shit, with one nominating it for WP:DYK, but it's not something I think fondly of. I've written a few essays : WP:EOTW, WP:PRAM and WP:BRICKS, and I'd like them to be as popular as WP:STICK and WP:BOOMERANG - if they're good enough. More recently I have been doing things to get a track record of activities that will hold well in an RFA such as non-admin closes and commenting on WP:ANI where practical.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * I have certainly argued, expressed strong opinions, and got irritated with responses on talk pages, but I can't think of any actual edit wars. The best example I can think of is this edit where an IP has added unsourced content I already removed to get it in shape for a GA review; rather than a blind revert, I've fact tagged it. A contentious area for me is WikiProject US Roads and similar projects, where for one reason or another, I just don't see eye to eye with the opinions of the key players. So I edit elsewhere. This AfD is a good example of me getting annoyed with consensus not going in my favour. This GA review is another example of crossed swords. However, I can't think of a single instance where it's gone any further than a discussion, at which point I conclude there's no point going any further, and disengaging. If my opinions hold any value, somebody else will agree with me and run with it.
 * 1) What happened on Talk:Blur (band)/GA1? Why didn't you finish the review?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I took it off my watchlist (oops) and completely forgot about it (double oops). Sorry. Thanks for finishing it off - it got to GA in the end and I think the arguments were all resolved, so we've all put it behind us. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   19:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't finish it - I think Wizardman did. I gave the second opinion that you asked for, and I think Wizardman closed it on my comments.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In my defence I would point out that I believe nobody tried to prod me on my talk page, which would have almost certainly got a response. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   19:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Reflecting on your comments on Talk:A1 road in London/GA2 - what do you feel are the main differences between Wikipedia and SABRE? And what do you feel each can offer to the other (if anything)?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Full disclosure - I was President - basically in charge of everything from dealing with external bodies to permanently blocking people for legal threats and nasty personal attacks - for two one year periods between 2009 and earlier this year). Oh dear, that looks like me ranting on that GA review. In theory, Wikipedia and SABRE can offer each other a lot. Wikipedia's well known and it has lots of people who can do copy editing, fixing small typos, crosslinking and keeping a far broader eye over anything SABRE can. Meanwhile, a few dedicated people on SABRE have done very thorough research into archive facilities and found an awful lot of raw data that can be used as sources for road related articles on here. Unfortunately, there just seems to be a culture clash between the two, which stems from a couple of very senior SABRE people being rubbed up the wrong way through nobody's real fault, resulting in a very anti-Wikipedia bias. and what's happened (as evident from that GA review) in the last year is I've started off defending SABRE, tried to actually do something about understanding Wikipedia policy properly as opposed to merely unconstructively ranting about it, and found we could all do good things together if only we all got on. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   19:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Reflecting on your comments on Talk:A1 road in London/GA2 - what do you feel are the main differences between Wikipedia and SABRE? And what do you feel each can offer to the other (if anything)?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Full disclosure - I was President - basically in charge of everything from dealing with external bodies to permanently blocking people for legal threats and nasty personal attacks - for two one year periods between 2009 and earlier this year). Oh dear, that looks like me ranting on that GA review. In theory, Wikipedia and SABRE can offer each other a lot. Wikipedia's well known and it has lots of people who can do copy editing, fixing small typos, crosslinking and keeping a far broader eye over anything SABRE can. Meanwhile, a few dedicated people on SABRE have done very thorough research into archive facilities and found an awful lot of raw data that can be used as sources for road related articles on here. Unfortunately, there just seems to be a culture clash between the two, which stems from a couple of very senior SABRE people being rubbed up the wrong way through nobody's real fault, resulting in a very anti-Wikipedia bias. and what's happened (as evident from that GA review) in the last year is I've started off defending SABRE, tried to actually do something about understanding Wikipedia policy properly as opposed to merely unconstructively ranting about it, and found we could all do good things together if only we all got on. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   19:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Full disclosure - I was President - basically in charge of everything from dealing with external bodies to permanently blocking people for legal threats and nasty personal attacks - for two one year periods between 2009 and earlier this year). Oh dear, that looks like me ranting on that GA review. In theory, Wikipedia and SABRE can offer each other a lot. Wikipedia's well known and it has lots of people who can do copy editing, fixing small typos, crosslinking and keeping a far broader eye over anything SABRE can. Meanwhile, a few dedicated people on SABRE have done very thorough research into archive facilities and found an awful lot of raw data that can be used as sources for road related articles on here. Unfortunately, there just seems to be a culture clash between the two, which stems from a couple of very senior SABRE people being rubbed up the wrong way through nobody's real fault, resulting in a very anti-Wikipedia bias. and what's happened (as evident from that GA review) in the last year is I've started off defending SABRE, tried to actually do something about understanding Wikipedia policy properly as opposed to merely unconstructively ranting about it, and found we could all do good things together if only we all got on. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   19:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've seen your comments at AN(I) recently and they've been pretty spot-on, so in terms of knowing policy, you should be good.

What concerns me is how you deal with conflict. It seems that you do have a pattern of abandoning GANs when there's even a hint of controversy, as also seen at Talk:M-102 (Michigan highway)/GA1. That's not courteous to the reviewer at all; someone had to step in and promote it under IAR. What also concerns me is your opinion of the U.S. Roads WikiProject. Why did you bring up us and not the UK Roads WikiProject? If anything, it's UKRD that is so completely dysfunctional that you ragequit the UKRD project over it. The fundamental problem with UKRD is a "we're doing it our way and don't give a rip about what anyone else outside the project, including MOS or FAC, thinks."

To me this seems like a "let's blame George W. Bush for everything wrong in the world" scapegoating session, where unfortunately those who have had disagreements with us in the past hop on the bandwagon to grind the ax whenever the opportunity arises. It's not just you, it's just an attitude that I'm seeing from quite a few editors, and many of the instigators are part of UKRD; but it seems to be something you are taking part in as well. Yes, we had issues back in the 2007-2008 era, as any project entirely run by 17 and 18 year olds might. Yes, in our efforts to help editors working on "foreign" road articles we might have gone a little too far at times. But that doesn't define us today.

I've even seen it go to the extremes of Kumioko bashing USRD for my completely unrelated block of Rich Farmbrough (which he eventually retracted after a few days of IDHT) and a sitting arbitrator blast the project for the mistakes of 2007-2008 and the Requests for arbitration/Highways 2 arbitration case, which were completely unrelated to the Racepacket case. I'm getting a bit fed up with the whole bias, and it needs to stop. We currently have 46 featured articles and almost 800 good articles, and our A-Class review has a 90% pass rate at FAC over the last three years. Imzadi1979 has brought over 90% of the Michigan articles to GA or higher. We've helped Floydian, an Ontario editor, as well as User:Tomobe03, a Croatian editor, and Evad37, an Australian editor. The first two have a significant number of road GAs, and the third should be getting his first pretty soon. Why do these good things go unnoticed and editors focus on the bad, or in this case, their exaggerations of the bad?

I want to help the UK Roads Project (as I do want to help any editor who wants to improve road articles). In the US we have tried-and-true practices that work. However, when one's efforts are spurned, it makes it difficult, and that's why we've mostly disengaged and let the articles decay as the other UKRD editors have left. But we're definitely open to help again. And I know it's not all you; there's definitely other difficult editors too.

As a sidenote, as an admin you will face a lot of criticism, whether your actions are right or wrong; being able to not entirely lose your cool will be helpful. --Rschen7754 03:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback.


 * I think you're reading a bit too much into what I said. It's simply that when I thought about where I'd experienced conflict with other editors, for whatever reason it's been on a USRD related talk page. I don't really have any strong opinions on USRD as a project itself, but emperical evidence should suggest that if you're getting a 90% FAC pass rate, which is pretty much impossible to fake, then the project is making the encyclopedia better and therefore by definition is a good project.


 * I can't help you with regards the Arbcom cases, as I wasn't a WP regular back then. All I can suggest is people, in all walks of life, like a good moan (excellent example here). It's just the way life works, so it's probably best to accept it happens, ignore those who criticise without offering solutions, and treat it as water under the bridge. From my experience, anything going to Arbcom seems to end in tears anyway (look how much drama that Malleus/Civility RFC caused).


 * Regarding the M-102 GAN, I started this because I felt it had the potential to be a really good article. This isn't just any old road, this is one that has major social and political significance in Detroit. I felt these points were important and worth mentioning, as it easily explains why M-102 is notable and engages the reader, even one who isn't particularly interested in roads or maps, as to why. Exactly what a good article (in its literal sense) should be, in my view. I didn't expect all my comments to be taken on board, but I was a bit disheartened that they seemed to be just dismissed out of hand. It got to the stage where I thought "I'm not improving the encyclopaedia by doing this", so added my apologies and ducked out. Indeed, you yourself sent me a note saying the GA review was a bad idea. I took the view that, based on past precedent and experience, Imzadi1979 would easily find somebody else to do the review and everyone would be able to move forward. What other options would you have recommended at this juncture?


 * As far as UK road articles go, I think the best way forward is to lead by example, pick a road article where lots of sources can be found, and take it to GA status. A82 road would be a suitable candidate, being a major road and taking in Loch Lomond and Loch Ness. There must be plenty of things I can write about. While I don't have much time to write these articles (unless I drop the music articles that are on my queue), I can advise on sourcing and dig out bits of research data.


 * As far as being criticised as an admin, been there, done that, documented it in WP:PRAM :-) Actually, I think some admin work around here is easier to stomach in that respect - if you block someone for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR, and your documentation is sound, your communication with them can finish there. They can call you a nazi free speech hating troll as much as they want, for all the good it'll do them, or they can get another admin to review the block. Conversely, if you get called up for deleting something, if after a bit of back and forth they're still not satisfied, you can point them in the direction of WP:DRV and wish them well.


 * I hope that addresses your concerns. If not, please let me know. -- Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   10:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, after the second opinion was given, it was still up to the first reviewer to pass the article, and you were the only one allowed to do so. Your continued refusal left us in a bind, and one of our editors finally stepped in and had to pass the article. The other issue is that the GA standards are the GA standards; you can't just force what you want into the article if it's not according to the GA standards. --Rschen7754 20:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Have a look at Talk:A1 road in London/GA3 when it's done. -- Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   21:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * On the surface, it seems alright. Slightly higher than the GA standards, but I tend to do the same with my road-related GA reviews for the betterment of the article. --Rschen7754 10:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we've interacted much outside WP:AfC. There I've seen your intimate knowledge of the policies and guidelines governing content and your sound judgment; you're one of the main pillars of support at the help desk. It might be more helpful if I could offer some criticism or advice for improvement, but honestly I think you're doing a splendid job, and I wouldn't know how you could change to do it even better. Huon (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)