Hi, you deleted the Dossia page, and unfortunately I did not have time to review the article to see why it was regarded as lacking significance and/or attempt to rewrite in a non-promotional way. Dossia is significant only because of the importance of the underlying members of its consortium, which include some of the largest employers in the United States (specifically Walmart). When Dossia was announced it intimated that the employers (which self-insure their workers) would pre-load the PHR with healthcare data for their workers. This would make the PHR one of the largest single repositories of patient data in the world, a patient-count basis. For main-stream press coverage of this you can look here: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424761/a-better-personal-health-record/

Unfortunately my day job prevents me from investing too much in editing Wikipedia, which explains my tardiness in responding, and unfortunately, also means that I really cannot invest any more time in investing in making the case for this particular page... although I do agree that it read too much as an advertisement. It probably should be shortened substantially.

Thank you for your contributions. Deleting is a critically important way to make Wikipedia better but I know its also the source of lots of grief.

Regards, -FT

Unfortunately the page, as it was written, read like a news release and was promotional in nature. If you wish I can restore the page as a Draft for you to work on it to improve the page, making the language more neutral, and then run it through the Articles for Creation process. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed my edit for this page because you said it expresses an opinion and is not objective. However, the information I wrote is factually accurate and describes the process that the software implements, and the limitations thereof. This is very important information for people that are doing research on this software and are planning to implement it in their organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.43.24 (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not written neutrally, and it is completely unsourced. Wikipedia isn't designed to be a review of software, but an explanation of what it is. The edit you made would be better in a product review of the site and software. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RickinBaltimore if I am reading the messages correctly you have deleted the IEEE Microwave Theory and Techniques Society (MTT_S) page which I did create a number of years ago as a volunteer. It is one of 40+ similar pages created by volunteers for the technical societies of the The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) a non-profit and the world's largest technical professional association. So I am a bit confused on deletion but I will admit a lack of detailed knowledge on the proper creation of Wikipedia pages. As I have am no longer active in maintaining the page, I would like to pass this to on to more appropriate volunteers and request the page be restored so they may address your concerns. As this is the yearend holiday period, it may take a bit to get the right person on this. Appreciate your consideration as this was not an intention violation but perhaps the unintentional error of a poorly informed volunteer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbarr4 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion was that it was a copyright violation of http://ieeeapmttguj.org/about.php. Recreating the article would be fine, however you willneed to write this from your own words, and not as a direct copy/paste from the site. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gujarat group / site is a chapter / sub-group of our organization -- the original wiki entry was about the parent organization. We have some 200 chapters --This seems backwards, we allow chapters to use our information when they create a website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbarr4 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page however at the time of it's deletion was not about the chapter, but the wording came from the site I listed above. There was too much of a similarity, that it ended up violating our terms for copyright infringement. If you wish, I can send the page to you as a draft, so that the Copyright issues from the site can be addressed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rick, hope all is well and you are enjoying 2018. I have a quick question on this edit, since the case was already accepted, it is a bit confusing. Does this mean you plan to be active on the case? Just asking as you had been marked as inactive on the PD talk. Thanks TonyBallioni (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh....sorry I was saying we should accept it. MY mistake. (I'm new to this and quite frankly this morning was a cluster of clusterfricks) I'm not going to be active. I'm sorry. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! Thanks for the clarification! TonyBallioni (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That'll teach me to take a vacation :) RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

So, I am just curious, is your name actually Rick and do you live in Baltimore? 201.140.186.25 (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Safe to say I'm not outing myself here but yes to both. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be the same LTA who innundated AN/I a week or so ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'm confident of that, and using the trick of mini edits to get autoconfirmed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, why did you revert my edit to List of Columbia Pictures films? You just restored unsourced production companies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources for these movies from the NY Times and People. If the production companies are incorrect, please revise them, but there IS sourcing for them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this source says that Colubmia produced Sicario 2: Soldado, or did you just invent that fact yourself and revert me? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a heads up the site for Sicario 2 has Columbia and the other production company listed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you know that they're a production how? How did you determine that their logo is not contractually obligated to appear, and that they are, in fact, a production company? This is why we require a reliable source. Not marketing material or an logo on the official website. See consensus that production companies require sourcing, which merely reinforces what WP:V says. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another story about the movie. I'm not trying to fight with you about this, believe me. I am finding more hits those that shows Black Label with Columbia for Sicario 2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you reply and I don't respond right away, I have a family engagement to go to tonight, so I'm not ignoring you, I'll get back to you tomorrow at the latest. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @NinjaRobotPirate: Is there some sort of precedent where production companies are listed on official materials despite not having anything to do with production? One would have to betray common sense not to assume that's what the logo indicates. Surely you can understand, at the very least, why someone would view that as a reliable source, short of contradictory information? Swarm ♠ 22:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jax 0677 has asked for a deletion review of F%CK THE HATERS. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 15:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you seem to have accidentally deleted The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim (a redirect I created recently to The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim) as a redirect to a redlink? Was that a mistake? Or did I make a typo when I created it? I don't wanna just revert you and recreate it before asking you about it :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was self-redirecting to The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim (no V), hence why I deleted it. I'll fix it for you now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FUSRODAH....I mean it's done. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah, that would be the problem. Sorry for the typo. Thanks for the quick fix. (You also restored previous 2013 revisions, dunno if it matters much). Man, am I gonna miss viewing deleted revisions... >_< Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should be ok from here I'd say. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Could you say if this was correctly CSD'ed or not? The speedy decline summary said sandbox drafts were fine, but I am pretty sure I have CSD'ed many sandbox drafts. :P Thanks a lot! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one looks to be ok. It's not quite webhosting (though I do question it as it appears to be an autobiography or self promotion). I'd suggest MfD if you think it needs to be deleted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure does. The edit summary stated sandbox drafts to be fine, so should I really MFD it? The content seems unquestionable, according to the summary, as it is in sandbox. Not sure what to do. :( Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It could be seen as promotional, given the user's name and the subject of the draft. This page does say "Pages used for blatant promotion...are usually considered outside this criterion" with regards to what can be in a userpage (or draft, as it follows community rules). RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, deleted now. :P I was almost certain too, that it might be violating that. Thanks a lot, Rickin! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RickinBaltimore, this article has magically reappeared, after being G11'd, from a full consensus delete at WP:AFD scope_creep (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well there wasn't a consensus so much as a speedy deletion as blatant spam originally. The new article is written differently than the one that was deleted, and now there is a claim to notability with the award at the Cannes Grand Prix. If you still believe it's worthy of deletion, you may want to take it back to AfD. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RickinBaltimore, Please let me know what is the real reason you are harassing CJE&M articles. Do you have intent of harming or slandering our reputation. Is wikipedia not an article platform for news of current relevant people and or companies. Do not try and shorten an article that is still being currently edited. Maybe I need to talk to your superior and also maybe CJE&M needs to all together pull out of wikipedia news , and relevant information site. Please wait until article is completed , for any unknown edits done to harm the company can be used against you in court. suejunwon@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenjimayo (talk • contribs) 15:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User is blocked for WP:NLT (and other violations). --Yamla (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yamla. To respond to the comment above, the article is not sourced in any fashion, and I replaced the tag you removed. Additionally, the edit you made was completely promotional in nature (including your email). There appears to be confusion on What Wikipedia is for, and a possible competence issue. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey so this is kind of a weird one. When this was deleted originally, it was obviously under another name, however a new user, despite consensus moved a draft that wasn't even submitted for review into main space. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Arsh_18). It's been deleted and salted under about half a dozen titles if memory serves me correctly. See Rahul Ravi(Malayalam Actor), Rahul ravi. The last is pretty close to the current (Rahul ravi) by Karthikwhatever. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that in the page history. Honestly, I would feel better about taking that to AfD, get a consensus to delete (and if needed salt that as well). The page differs enough from the one at AfD to not warrant a speedy, hence the reason I removed it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Draft:Medhananda was rejected in the fall of 2016 due to unsufficient verfiable sources ( to prove that the person described is "noteworthy"). I could not continue to work on this due to personal reasons within the usual 6 months. But now I could work again on it and improve the sources. So please undelete it for me so that I can continue improving the draft. Thank you GoldenerBall (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All done, happy editing! RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Government Shitdown. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jax 0677 (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Thank you
	Thank you for your deletion of the sandbox articles. Sport and politics (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you're welcome! RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, hope you are in the best of your spirits. I was assigned to work on writing the article for Shine.com and have done my due research and checks (for notability and other requirements). The page itself was created earlier and was deleted. Also, I am having a little trouble using wikipedia. It would be of great help if you can help or ask someone to for the same along with undeleting the page for editing. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amangoinplaces (talk • contribs) 06:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft I deleted due to lack of activity has bee restored at Draft:Shine.com. Please feel free to work on the page there, then submit it through our Articles for Creation for review to ensure it meets our standards and guidelines for an article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is to request if you could review the said page for any discrepancies and problems, and advise on the same. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amangoinplaces (talk • contribs) 12:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this article you deleted is listed as G7 but it was an A7. Also as the actor has appeared in a number of notable films are you sure A7 is met? thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I made a mistake. I THOUGHT I was on the G7/U1 page, and deleting those articles....and appeared I was on the main page. Self-applying a {{trout}} here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick action, the article will probably end up at AFD Atlantic306 (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have responded to you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently undid a contribution by DavidSmoker69 (talk · contribs) who made similar edits on Volkswagen to two other users you recently blocked: NickSmokerAdel (talk · contribs) and MaddieSmoker (talk · contribs). I do not believe I am jumping to conclusions to think there is a correlation. Can you review David's edits to confirm? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What edit? All I heard was a loud {{quack}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I just wanted to make sure. Thanks! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I also rev-del'd the edits, as that's a pretty sizable allegation being made. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That speedy delete on XXXTentacion was meant for a redirect which is supposed to be an "album" that was obviously invented. I didn't expect it to have a redirect, so I put it on the wrong page. However, I do agree that the article it redirects to in question was in need of being cleaned up to be encyclopedic. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I agree the page needs cleanup, but deletion was a bit far :) RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RickinBaltimore,

thank you for your feedback on my changes to this article. Would you like to engage in a discussion about them? I created a new section on the associated talk page.

DrownLies (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

Hey there, just wanted to say thanks for blocking that IP address. All the accounts targeted were folk I trained yesterday, I'd just started on posting thanks on their talk pages. Lirazelf (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the timing and content of edits, I'd say there's a connection between that IP and these [1], [2], [3] too. –72 (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lirazelf: Any idea who this jerk is? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Not a scooby. Seems to have gone back through my edits, I was leaving welcome wagon messages. Very odd. Thanks for the speedy help, all! Lirazelf (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reopened the ANI thread you recently closed; while DRV can handle the decision on whether to undelete that particular file, there's now a bigger issue here, I think. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Floq, by all means if there is discuss away. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just wanted to check on the reasoning for the deletion of Abe Issa on Jan 25 2018? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinny009 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page was tagged for G11 for spam/advertising reasons, however it appears I deleted the page in error and will restore shortly. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that they were originally banned for legal threats for one year since their last threat, if I'm reading it correctly. Was there later action that made the ban indef? If so, is it correct to be blocking the current accounts as socks of a banned editor? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Internodeuser was indef blocked in 2007 it appears, and banned from the legal threats made. They have quite a few socks as well it seems since then, some that were created prior to the ban. @Yamla:: You were the last admin to have indeffed them, can you shed some light on this? RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that was more than ten years ago. I don't remember anything directly, but having looked a bit closer, I have more information. Take a look at User talk:123.2.168.215 as it was before being mostly blanked: here. Apparently, this user is Blissyu2 (talk · contribs) and Zordrac (talk · contribs), known (apparently) for running an external attack site targeting Wikipedia users. There it gets a bit messy. This looks to me like a ban (rather than a block) imposed by ARBCOM, but I'm not entirely sure. Sorry. Most of this is just me looking around at the various accounts. It's so long ago, I don't remember the specifics. --Yamla (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's good enough for me to be honest. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the block of that IP. I am wondering of their edits should be R/D as attempted outing. If you would prefer that I go to oversight I will be happy to do that. This thread can also be removed with the same concerns. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already revdel'd them. No need to blank this, as this is vague enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 20:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you too! RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were oversighted, the page protected, then they moved to AN. THOSE edits also oversighted, IP blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblocked now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Neil, I was just going to ask what the range to block would have been. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2600:1000:b000::/42. Want to know an easy way of calculating rangeblocks? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the /40. You could always block all of the ranges to be sure :) [4] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's being sure. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rick, Enantra is a professional Entrepreneurship Event held in Chennai. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantra It was deleted, but there are so many articles supporting it. It also states that the admin can only recreate it. Article 1 Article 2

These are all top newspapers and blogging sites in India and Tamil Nadu. There are a few articles in the Local Language too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raashiedm (talk • contribs) 18:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as per the same discusion at my talk page, draft first. Nthep (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nthep. As they said, please first create a draft, so it can be reviewed, and if it is sufficient to meet our WP:GNG, and written from a neutral viewpoint, with no advertising, it could be published. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

great minds think alike. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I that the bot AND a user posted a request on AIV, so it had to be bad right? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I gave a valid reason, this whole paragraph is literally just about complaining because Little Mix didn't win, and? This is wikipedia not Twitter i don't get the point about this? A whole paragraph because Little Mix fans aren't happy? Chasmconcert (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that this is a significant part of the awards for the year. It was covered in multiple independent sources, and is notable enough to stay in the article. If you feel it should be removed, discuss it on the talk page first prior to it being removed. I protected the page because there were a number of back and forth reverts going on, and this needs to be discussed first. For the record, I honestly don't care who won or should have won, but I do care about sourced material being removed from the article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He deleted my thing!!!!!! Comet11 (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

---

She's claiming this individual had hepatitis for a variety of reasons, see also their deleted contribs where they claimed she was dying because of eating too much candy... it's been deleted 3 times at least at this point.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chrissy. They way I read the version, as it was, wasn't a BLP violation worthy of a G10 (but it's EXTREMELY poorly written). I know it's been deleted multiple times, and it's up at MfD. It's going to need a little seasoning I think though. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rick,

I'm also in Baltimore, so I found myself naturally drawn to your account name. I found you in a discussion on the XXXTentacion page.

I would love to be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the more I poke around, the less I understand.

Would you be able to provide me some guidance? Or, how do I request you to "adopt me?"

Thanks for your help. I'm sorry if I did this wrong or broke some etiquette rules.

Hopefully, I'll hear from you soon. (Also, if you could just email me at palomapwrites@gmail.com, that might be easier. I seriously don't even understand the talk pages. It's embarrassing.)

PalomaPWrites (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Paloma[reply]

Hi Paloma, and I'd be more than happy to help you! What sort of editing are you looking to do here on Wikipedia? Any interests that you particularly want to write about? One thing I'd really suggest to get a better understanding of how Wikipedia works is to go to the tutorial that is setup here. It's a really great tool to better understand how to be a good editor here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get you to check some deleted edits to 2016 AFF Beach Soccer Championship, a page you deleted about a year ago? How does the current article compare to previous versions Is it similar enough to be WP:G4 eligible? Is it similar enough to suspect sockpuppetry, since both previous versions were created by sock? Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you look at this: [5], it never happened. Tag it for G4, and I'd suggest a SPI report for FallandSpringOlympics. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rick,

I created a second draft for ecoAmerica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:EcoAmerica) after you removed the original page and was hoping to hear more specific feedback from you about the notability of the references I included there, but the record of our conversation is no longer available on your talk page here. Below is what you had said about our ecoAmerica page:

"As it stands right now, there aren't any sources that show how the group is notable. While there are sources in the article, none of them give ecoAmerica enough coverage within them to be considered a reliable source. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2017"

"The Post article I would not say is a valid reliable source, as it was a one sentence mention of ecoAmerica and nothing more after. The NY Times article I'm on the fence about. While ecoAmerica is a focus of the article, it's not the group that is the focus, but the discussion of terminology on climate change/global warming. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2017"

Can you tell me anything more specific about the type of coverage and credibility of sources that would show enough notability for ecoAmerica to publish the page? Do any of the board members and organizations below that ecoAmerica has partnered with serve as sufficient validators?

Frank E. Loy
Richard Louv
Matt Mullenweg
Greg Nickels
Theodore Roosevelt V
Philip Sharp (politician)
Paul Junger Witt

Lake Research Partners (Celinda Lake)

American College & University Presidents' Climate Commitment

This is a small sample of individuals and organizations that ecoAmerica has worked with - would a more comprehensive list demonstrate sufficient notability? And there are other wiki pages that ecoAmerica's could be modeled upon - for example, could you maybe describe what the page for The David Project has that shows enough credibility?

Thanks,
Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Oswald (talk • contribs) 15:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a lot less promotional now, and better sourced on first glance. I'd suggest if you are ready to publish that you send it through WP:AFC for a more thorough review. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a comment on another editor's talk page stating they are Ehsan iq, whom you blocked 7 Feb 2018, using a different account. Dovahkiiniq,[6]

Just thought I would let you know. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the MediaWiki site, I need someone to notice my unblock request. My parents do not want me to use Freenode or any IRC sites, so what can I do to let someone to see it right away? By the way I would please like to have my MediaWiki talk page noticed by another MediaWiki user. Thanks for reading. Newman2 (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newman, unfortunately that's a different Wiki than the English Wiki. If they operate as we do here, once you post an unblock request the admins will see that you requested it and reply to it in time. That's all I can tell you though I'm afraid. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Newman2: To request an unblock at MediaWiki, put {{ping|Blocking Admin's Username Here}} on your talk page at mw: and give a good reason as to why you want to be unblocked. They don't have a formal unblock template like other WMF wikis tend to have. Sierrak28 (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

• Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
• Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
• The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
• The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

• A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

---

This is an appeal of JohnVR4s topic ban. Please relist the discussion that led to my topic ban from editing while I had no electricity or internet and subsequent block when I returned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive964&oldid=815442751 (a link to each diff is here)

User:Mr rnddude also noted this behavior in at least one case and I explained that this is the very behavior that was causing conflict.

The diffs I promised while I still had power are below and support my position entirely.

Relisting comment: Please relist to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus for topic ban and subsequent block from nominator.

Note to Relisting Editors Please Relist this incident to include the following Diffs provided by JohnVR4. please correct any formatting errors. This is an active and continuing issue and still requires resolution. These diffs are required for discussion and were unavailable at the time of closure due to a hurricane]] Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 71.47.109.12 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment of JohnVR4 User:BeyondMyKen Despite your views on "practical reality," it is indisputable that Buckshot06 is not afraid to go to battle of over his version of various topics while he relentlessly disregards our sources and along with user:Nick-D, has repeatedly refused to review the sources as I had demanded. I was nominated for a ban and subsequently blocked by this editor who is trying resolve really absurd content issues that he cannot overcome in any other way. My edits are deleted and challenged and endless discussion and countless meritless concerns materialize from thin air followed by the editors refusal to participate in further discussion while he goes to battle over one single word that is clearly present in the source to everyone but him. This has made it impossible to listen to or work with him.

I’ve re-added disputed text based on discussions under [unexplained removal of sourced content] but the editor has even removed the source entirely and continues to remove the sourced text. This has resulted in an apparent Edit war based solely upon his entirely faulty assertions that these words are not in our sources. The disruption on this page over more than six months is 100% being caused by the involved editor who nominated my submissions for deletion and then has blocked me.

Now, I present an overwhelming amount of specific examples and diffs for discussion to to determine the merit of the above arguments. Please note that not one single example of what he has described to the community as my problematic behavior has been provided by the nominator.

User:Buckshot06 verifies that THIS IS THE ROOT OF OUR PROBLEM:

Here the involved editor exclaims with asterisks and double exclamation points, “*The Sources Do Not State!!*” and makes edits to remove the sourced text.

He says, “Neither mentions the words 'Camp Schwab'. We run with WP:V here, and I am *strictly* paring you back to the details mentioned in the sources you cite. You appear to have a tendency to add material that isn't actually in the cited sources -- evident all the way back to the 2013 deletion debate. If you're going to add primary-source material so heavily, you need to stick quite closely to the sources and not infer or WP:SYNTH from them. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)”

07:05, 19 March 2017 (b) new secret depot sentences not sourced [372]

18:53, 9 April 2017 remove discussions about base moves long after nuclear weapons removed [373]

The community needs to understand that No editor can legitimately argue that Camp SCHWAB is not in the source’’ From that source (It's from Japan Times- ): “The document shows that the area off the U.S. Marine Corps’ Camp Schwab in the Henoko district on the east coast of Nago was most suitable for the offshore base, taking into account Okinawa’s geography and weather conditions. It suggested building an offshore landfill facility with a 3,000-meter runway, a large military port and an integrated ammunition bunker capable of storing nuclear weapons.” Discussion: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Henoko.2F_Schwab.2F_Hansen.2F_nuke_depot.2F_and_relocation_plan

There are many more interactions just like that one and I am just scratching the surface here…

Any editor can that look at U.S. Nuclear weapons in Japan PAGE HISTORY to see how much sourced content being deleted by that editor and every bit of it seems to be done with dubious reasoning.

Our dispute(s) seemed to mostly resolve around A source that I have asked repeatedly to be reviewed by that editor. The editor refuses to review the sources and battles over the content.

The next example, concerned an incident at a Pacific base involving an F-100 “interceptor” and the impact of incident on the removal of nuclear weapons from Asia. He says, "You need a source for nuclear-armed interceptors standing ready for scrambling on Okinawa, and until you provide that, I've remove the paragraph again. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)"

ANY other WP editor can easily verify this information or the presence of a single word in that source on page 6-7 at http://www.nukestrat.com/us/CDI_BrokenArrowMonitor1981.pdf .

Yet, these editors time after time would just argue and refuse to review the source!

No editor can legitimately argue that the Pacific base incident (possibly Okinawa) is not verifiable on pages 6-7 in that source!’’

Discussion:Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Original_research.3F_.2F_synthesis.3F_removed.2C_failure_to_WP:BRD.3F discussion He will not discuss his concern except to tell me to quit flogging a dead horse! the pages history 03:44, 20 September 2017 -remove incident that is not proven to have occurred in Okinawa [374]

10:46, 7 August 2017 removal of incident that is not proven to be associated with Okinawa - WP:V [375]

04:14, 7 April 2017 considering WP:V, this para cannot be included, at least in this form [376]

05:00, 20 March 2017 remove incident that cannot be definitively linked to Okinawa [377]

07:06, 19 March 2017 should not have this here if it's not clearly re Okinawa [378]

07:10, 18 March 2017 remove F-100 incident; no clear evidence was on Okinawa; [379]

Note the word Interceptor on page 7 of the source.

No editor can legitimately argue that the word INTERCEPTOR is not in that source!’’

17:22, 19 March 2017 remove text about nuclear-armed interceptors, which does not appear to be cited; remove F-100 incident which cannot be conclusively linked to Okinawa); [380]

07:05, 19 March 2017 air defence interceptors not sourced [381]

07:20, 18 March 2017 remove this sentence; can't find 'air defense interceptors' in any of the refs [382]

This was yet another meritless content dispute that went on and on simply because he refused to review the sources followed by a dispute over the "nuclear capable missile (Genie)", then "Alert", then "Naha AFB", etc. etc. Discussion: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie (and [383])

17:16, 18 March 2017 neither source mentions Genie missiles [384] etc.

That went next into a dispute over a meritless concern about a terrorist threat vs, the non disclosure policy mentioned in the source which the involved editor misquoted and did not read.

discussed here

At that point, I was threatened with ANI action after presenting two in disputable quotes from our source that directly contradicted the editor’s terrorist threat concerns. Yet, again that editor refused to further review our source. Two quotes:

“The motivation behind the NCND was the increasing need to fend off queries from foreign governments – rather than protecting against terrorists and Soviet military planning, as was later claimed by U.S. officials. The new policy soon became an important factor in the U.S approach to the security treaty negotiations with Japan." and

"Beyond the willingness of the Japanese and U.S. governments to “turn a blind eye” to the violation of Japan’s nuclear ban, it was the Neither Confirm Nor Deny policy that more than anything made the deceit possible. While officially intended to protect the ship against terrorists and complicate enemy military planning, the policy really served as a smoke-screen under which U.S. Navy warships could get access to foreign ports regardless of the nuclear policy of the host country.

Given those quotes, No editor can legitimately argue that a mid-1970s terror threat report was the purpose of the 1950 NCND policy from that source! (Nor can the perceived threat in a 1974 report be tied to the removal from Okinawa which was planned around 1969 and executed by 1973)’’

In response to the correction of that editor over that content, he threatened me with ANI action to sanction me (now realized). Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Terrorist_threat_and_weapons_removed_in_1972-_Apparent_POV (and [385])

“When I file the AN/I over your WP:OR, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES reliance, WP:POV, WP:OWN, WP:SYNTH, and battleground reverting editing, you will be notified, in accordance with policy. In my considered opinion, you should be writing research pieces for publication that allow you to state polemics, not trying to operate on a site that is supposed to be neutral. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)”

I do not feel that it would be possible for any WP editor to present any quality argument to dispute my well-evidenced assertions. I'm here to improve Wikipedia. It is crystal clear that Buckshot06 is hounding me. Thank you. (JohnVR4)71.47.124.243 (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC) 71.47.109.12 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John, as you are not currently blocked (your block expired on 3/19/18), you are welcome to re-file your request to remove your topic ban on ANI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are the admin that implemented the topic ban despite all of the evidence presented by myself and others, all when I was unable to present the additional required evidence that I had said was pending because as stated, I was in a hurricane and had no power or intrnet for and extended time. Again, I'm giving you the opportunity to respond to me directly so I can understand the motivation for your actions in siding with the unfounded opinions of several involved editors who presented zero evidence to back up their position and ignoring the opinions of those editors who took the time to look into it. I don't want you or anyone to look stupid to the rest of the community but those that ignored every piece of evidence that was presented and agreed with the other highly involved editors who didn't present any really need to explain why.

I am asking you to realize your mistake, help correct it and relist (properly) it on my behalf and notify the participants. I brought this issue to your attention on my talk page on 03:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC) and I am waiting for a legitimate response to the message (which I stand by):[reply]

"Consensus is in policy, and quality arguments are given merit-not simple votes, nor ad hominem arguments, nor vagewaves at our policies. I felt there was a disruption to WP that was larger than my ban. I do not intend to argue for anything other than removal of block and topic the ban and restoration of my sandbox prior to six months. I do not feel that I should need to wait six months to appeal. Can you help me determine which of my edits you felt the community found fault with? Which policy did I break with addition of the two sources to my sandbox that ended in a topic ban and 6 month block? I am still very unclear on all of it and I'm not not at all sure where to go to clarify it. I made the quality argument above and in in my last unblock request that the community did not find fault with any of my edits. That quality argument was also put forth at ANI by others such as Mr rnddude and no recent incriminating edits that I made or NOTHERE evidence have been submitted for community review to date.

The cause of my problems stem from one editor with a demonstrated incompetence to see one word in a source. This was looked at by and confirmed at ANI (again by Mr rnddude) and there is/was no amount of further commenting or community consensus that can possibly overcome that well-founded observation. The argument is airtight and it simply is insurmountable by anyone who looks at those diffs. There is a content dispute with one editor who has demonstrated that he simply can't verify a single word in a reliable source, who will not hesitate to go to war over and over again. It is the same editor involved in resurrecting the page, the same editor whose concerns I have been trying to alleviate for over 6 months, the same editor who nominated my draft for deletion, the same editor who nominated me for a block, and the same editor who nominated me for a ban after my last edit, the same editor hounding me and the same editor who states that this issue still needs to be resolved.

I agree with him the issue needs to be resolved but policy consensus is that ANI is not the place to go to resolve it and quality arguments stating that were put forth and there was no counter argument put forth to challenge it. I don't believe that A block or topic ban is resolution regarding the content. The content problems remain. I don't believe a single member of the community would agree with that editor given the section above titled, "The issue to be resolved" submitted in my previous unblock request. There is a plethora of diffs that demonstrate the problem of not looking at the source is THE ISSUE that the community cannot ignore or deny is the root of our content dispute problem. The words are verifiable in the cited source and no arguments by an infinite numbers of editors can ever overcome the merit of the argument stating that simple fact. The words are in the sources. If there was such an editor out there who contests that view, I would say it is very likely strong evidence they are incompetent too. Johnvr4 (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)" 71.47.109.12 (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented the ban due to community consensus that you were to be topic banned. Calling me incompetent as you did in your edit summary is not going to have your ban lifted. You are currently not blocked, and you are welcome to post the request to have your ban lifted, however I will not act as a proxy to do so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That response is not going to fly with me nor with the community. I did not 'call' you incompetent. I said there 'is strong evidence of incompetence' in the below interaction and subsequent topic ban by you and the subsequent blocking action by the involved editor you've defended despite your good faith effort. Now, please consider the below exchange. Please fix 'your' mistake. Now. Today. (emphasis mine)

"Proposal concerning JohnVR4 Johnvr4 is topic banned from contributing to or discussing articles regarding either Japan or weapons, broadly construed, anyway anywhere on the English Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban to WP:AN after six months." (Corrected typo: Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC))...'It does not matter unfortunately. Buckshot06 is an Admin, so unless you can present damning evidence of abusing their position they will not be sanctioned, and even then likely not.' You are best served to drop the dispute and edit elsewhere for a while. Defining this topic your way is not worth getting blocked or topic banned over. Legacypac (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

'I do have fairly damning evidence and have provided those links. I'd like the User space drafts restored right after exactly how and why they were deleted is explored and I want his harassment of me and of my submissions both past and future to end. I would like an agreement from him that that he will review the sources and refrain from fact-deficient assertions when editing this subject or in speaking to or about me. I'm not sure if that compromise can be enforced but that is my very reasonable proposal. If the issue is that two ANIs for similar reasons can't be open at once then place mine on hold. I don't understand the ANI policy but that section has relevant links for the ANI he opened which is slowly getting to the behavior that needs to be understood.' (what or who is BMK that suggested this proposal?) Johnvr4 (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

'Johnvr4: Put aside your belief in the correctness of your position for just a moment, and clear your mind. Then start at the top of the discussion, skip all of your own comments, and read only the comments by other editors. Do you get the sense that anyone involved in the discussion is supporting your position? I think that if you're honest with yourself, you will see that that doesn't appear to be the case. This is a good bit of WP:CLUE for you that continuing to advocate your position aggressively is unlikely to end up in a result you'll be happy with, and could very possibly result in a sanction placed on you. You have to judge whether it's worthwhile to pursue your goal considering those circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)'

'I think every single editor would agree with me if they simply looked at the differences of User:Johnvr4/sandbox between Dec 2016 and it's deletion this week or the Afd version vs the Mfd versions. Buckshot06, Nick-D, and Moe won't ever agree with me again and many might tend to agree with them simply because they are usually highly wise, accurate, and reliable (I admit I would do that 9 times out of ten for that same reason in most cases) but if editors could please take look at those diffs, all of the assertions about my "preferred" version (vs the newer sources), not condensing material, not reducing scope, not improving, of not putting it on the main space, or of leaving it indefinitely would simply fall apart.'

I'm not saying it's perfect by any stretch and it's not even ready for formal draft submission -but it is so close! It's already split into three separate parts for three WP articles and it covers both sides of all the complex issues and is consistent with 177 sources as opposed to the POV current Operation Red Hat that doesn't remotely properly cover the majority points of the 12 of the reference it has had since its recreation. I feel strongly that it simply should not be deleted and that deleting it would be an extreme disservice to the WP project. I just took a 5 month break from this topic and 1.5 hours after returning for a moment to add a new source that addressed Moe's previous concern, Buckshot06 nominates it for MfD with misrepresentations that would take any administrator about 45 seconds to disprove. A Tempundelete of my user spaces would also clear it up. Promptly. Johnvr4 (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

'"I think every single editor would agree with me if..." So, you're not going to do as I suggested and evaluate as neutrally as possible what other editors have already said above. Instead, you're going to stick to your personal party line that you are right, and everyone else is wrong, and everyone else would agree with you if they would only think as you do. That's tautologically true, but I'm trying to point you to what is the practical reality here, which is that you are virtually alone, and no matter how many times you repeat your tropes, you're going to remain alone or heavily outnumbered. If you refuse to recognize that, then all I can say is that I hope you enjoy the sanction that is almost certain to be heading your way -- just don't say that you weren't warned.' Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

71.47.109.12 (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are done here. You can take this to ANI. However, this was not "my mistake", this was a community consensus, which I simply implemented. I will not be removing the ban, nor will I send it to the community. At this point I request that you post this at ANI, as I will not continue this discussion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were the admin who implemented a topic ban when I said fairly damning evidence was being posted for discussion and that There was a hurricane pending in the event I lose access to power or internet during discussion!

Please Help myself and the rest of the community understand how you applied merit to the vote in determining community consensus for my topic ban.

For the discussion the community will need to understand whether merit was given to the highly involved editor who voted only "because I won't take advice"? Or was merit given to the voter simply agreed with the other highly involved editor? Was merit given to the editor that said they agreed with me that this is a content dispute but wanted a ban simply to end discussion about my perceived conduct brought forth by the other party in the content dispute? "This is a content and PoV dispute about a particular subject area, so removing the editor from discussion and editing about that should fix it. If not, we'll know soon enough" or was it the original highly involved original nominator who asked for immediate closure as a solution to to the pending "damning diffs" that were to be discussed? No disrespect is intended but I feel answers to these these questions are required for my appeal. Honest answers are appreciated given the evidence that I presented both before and after the vote. Thanks 71.47.109.12 (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are under no obligation to to respond. I seriously hope I'm wrong but but your method of determining consensus has been questioned in this case and your lack of a legitimate response nor ability to explain it within Wikipedia's consensus policy is going to be problematic. I hope you have a better explanation for the community for not allowing discussion and then determining your version of consensus with a vote that legitimized a mountain of diffs of Buckshot06s seriously dubious edits. I'd like to reiterate my urge for an explanation before I go further.

This entire exercise was wrong and you should know it by now and in my opinion you should have known it six months ago. An apology to me at the very least would be appropriate if you won't remove the topic ban.

I feel that your implementation of the topic ban and current unwillingness to intervene when presented with facts is a de facto defense of Buckshot06's laughable edits- which I've stated repeatedly may be evidence of incompetence. However, that really up to the community to decide once they are presented with the same diffs that I provided you. 71.47.109.12 (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RickinBaltimore. Since you've taken away Hammerhard18's user talk page access and it appears they are unlikely to stop railing against Wikipedia and the injustice of their block, it might be worth watching LisaWoodwood for a while. Hammerhead18 specifically named this account as being his wife. Of course, that might be true, but it may not as well. My guess is if they are family, then the IP address is the same and it will be rather easy for WP:MEAT and WP:EVADE to take place. Only two edits have been made with the account so far, but the edit sum given for one already is pretty much the same the edit sums left by Hammerhard18 and deals with adding critical reviews to film articles. The website/webpage linked to appears to be different than the Hammond one, butthere's no way to tell at first whether these are recognized movie critics writing specifically for this site, the site is an aggregate of reviews taken from other places, or the site is mainly are WP:UGC type reviews. I was going to remove the edit by the Woodwood account since it seems to a 100% case of WP:POINT based upon what Hammerhard18 posted on his user talk, but wanted a second opinion first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye out for that one just in case, thanks for the heads up. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rick

I have just sent you a message regarding my page. Cheers :)

I'm writing to you because you are an AC member and, therefore, is someone of high standing and knowledge of Wikipedia.

I just click on "edit count" at the bottom of my contributions page. It's a nice page showing how many edits I've made and which was the most edited article that I've done. However, I also see a time and date chart (like to show I might edit on weekends a lot or a specific time of the day). I find that very invasive and not helpful to the cause of Wikipedia (to write brilliant and well referenced articles). Of course, one could take the effort of hand tabulating this data but I don't think it is useful or very nice to do that in an automated way.

Is it possible to eliminate that data display on the basis of privacy? The Wikipedia AC should strive to make Wikipedia hospitable and nice. If this is a big issue, I'm not going to fight it. However, it may give me pause and then, if I edit, I'll distribute the time, in essence, censoring myself to have an even time and date chart. I sort of see this as like if the police followed you everywhere on the excuse "you were in a public street so we can do that". Legal to have that time/date chart? Yes, very legal. Friendly and nice to have it? No. (Or if you don't like the police example, use the Facebook example where they collect an incredible amount of info on everyone, even telephone numbers called) Vanguard10 (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, that's not an issue that the ArbCom can take up. That's a technical request, and can be made at the village pump. I completely understand your concern, but I want to get you to the place that's better off to discuss this request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I thought it was more of a Wikipedia Foundation issue but didn't know how to reach them except possibly through the AC. However, if you think that Village Pump is better, I'll do that route. My initial thought is that Village Pump is just a helpful bunch of volunteers that help you with questions and have to no power to order anything. For now, I'll discuss things with VP. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the anon user which you have blocked in the past 72.90.141.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added some offensive material to the Donad Trump redirect. Could you redact their edits in the histories? Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately after being blocked for the second time, 5.151.28.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has gone right back to their previous behaviour. DarkKnight2149 00:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked a month. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]