Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/RickinBaltimore

Edit Statistics
's editing statistics per xTools as of 08:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC) First edit: May 23, 2006, 7:33 PM Latest edit: Oct 31, 2016, 12:39 AM

Live edits: 26,425 Deleted edits: 14,882 Total edits: 41,307

Edits in the past 24 hours: 10 Edits in the past 7 days: 381 Edits in the past 30 days: 1,365 Edits in the past 365 days: 13,380 Ø number of edits per day: 10.8

Unique pages edited: 15,005 Pages created: 6,435 Pages moved: 48 Ø edits per page: 1.8

's non-automated edit count per nonautomated edit counter as of 08:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC) Total edits: 26427 Automated edits: 19233 (73%) Non-automated edits: 7194 (27%)

MartinZ02's oppose

 * 1) Oppose—you have not created enough articles. —MartinZ02 (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How many is enough? Rick has created a number of articles, and has contributed to countless more -- samtar talk or stalk 20:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say that twenty‐five is enough. —MartinZ02 (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're having a giraffe, aren't you? Of the 79 articles I have taken to GA, all but one were created by other people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So 24 wouldn't cut it? Or 20?  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to state here what I stated in my vote: First off, nobody owns any article; articles are created, developed and improved through the work of multiple editors, and are not trophies of their creators; being the creator of an article doesn't make it "yours". Secondly, a specific subject can only ever have one article put to its name; the fact that somebody creates a lot of unique articles is merely down to the fact that they were lucky enough to have nobody create those articles before them. Thirdly, WP:Admin tools says admin tools include protecting pages, deleting and undeleting articles, quick reverts, blocks etc. - a lot of them are used for the purpose of counteraction of vandalism, which is the main area Rick says he wishes to work in as an admin. L i n g h o s t 6 6 6  Trick  Treat  23:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have 25 (not including redirects but even counting times where I rewrote articles from scratch), and I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of other admins who don't have 25 either. I suspect that a significant portion of admins who have more than 25 articles did so after becoming an admin, or else made them over a decade ago (with one of those "someone else would have written it eventually" topics like Henry Kissinger or Marlene Dietrich).  Article creation isn't an admin job, it's merely an informal standard to show that the potential admin knows how to cite reliable sources, write neutrally, and cooperate with others.  It's really the last part that matters, because I've seen users who know how to cite sources and write (in article space) neutrally but who are intolerable dicks outside of article space.  RickinBaltimore has demonstrated the most important quality (cooperation) through other means. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not the most important part. We expect people to be able to research topics and write them up. Article creation is an admin job. We have admins who are intolerable dicks because they do not write articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Last I saw, any non-admins were able to create articles as well (otherwise "hasn't created enough articles" would be overt trolling). No admin tools re required to create articles.  Would you rather have admins who create articles but pick fights and abuse the tools, or admins who aren't as concerned with content creation as they are with helping others?  I'm aware that the reality is that most will fall on a spectrum inbetween, but (ignoring the middle), which end is more preferable? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Administrators, the content creator end is preferred. The ideal is of editors administering themselves. As a non-admin, I am allowed to create articles, but often you'll need to use the tools. In practice it is frowned upon without an RfA; which is why I no longer do content creation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't care about how many articles you or other admins have. Since admins automatically gain the autopatrolled user right, it's only natural to demand that admin candidates can create some articles without them being deleted. —MartinZ02 (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And RickinBaltimore's AfD rates are a pretty good indication he knows when an article is ready to be created or not. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not hard to get good Afd rates, all one has to do is to be on the "winning" side. —MartinZ02 (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * He's a kid; maybe someone can advise him on his talk page on how this works than traumatize him further here... Lourdes  01:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That thought crossed my mind as well when I looked at his userpage, I'll leave him a note on his talk page with some advice. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Already done,, but you can add to it if you like. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, on my page haha. All good, I spent a good half hour writing it up. I hope its instructive as to why the opposition is strong without being unduly harsh on the editor. I focused on their vote in my comments and tried to explain the flaws in their thinking. As always, it's a long post and hopefully as detailed as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to echo Linghost666. Content creation is important. Article creation less so, and we shouldn't discriminate against editors whose area of interest is something where all the articles we want already have stubs. Expanding those stubs into reference articles is fine by me.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  21:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson's oppose

 * 1) Oppose The bulk of the candidate's edits seem to have been automated and in the last 8 months.  Before that, the contribution history is quite patchy.  The answer to Q2 further indicates a lack of experience and enthusiasm.  For more details, see the discussion above. Andrew D. (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you provide an example of his edits showing lack of experience? Jdcomix (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have linked to some relevant discussion above. Since then, an earlier RfA has come to light.  That was some years ago but, due to the candidate's long layoffs and their narrow focus, it doesn't seem that their experience level is much advanced from what it was back then. Andrew D. (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To save you all a click, "some years ago" means May 2007. About 75% of Rick's total edits have been made in 2008 or later. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, about 50% of the edits have been in the last nine months. After a peak in 2007, there was a long period of about 6 years in which few edits were made until this fresh start. Andrew D. (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, is that this is another oppose vote from Andrew looking for just any weak excuse to oppose an RfA.  --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I supported the candidate in the previous RfA. I just take them as I find them but it seems that it's only when I oppose that a fuss is made and we get all this badgering. Andrew D. (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Another thing that has come out in the questioning is that the candidate ran for Arbcom last year (as Wildthing61476). He came next to last and I suppose that must have stung.  His increased activity and account renaming seem to be a consequence of this event and I suppose that he realised that he needed to become an admin first.  This ambition is respectable but I still reckon that he needs to master the basics of content creation before he aspires to such office. Andrew D. (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, that totally wasn't an accusation that RickinBaltimore is mainly here for power at all... Content creation is not really useful for admin work beyond being a sign that the candidate knows when pages should or should not exist (which can be demonstrated through time in AfD) and can cooperate with others (which can be shown by just working on existing articles). Counting articles themselves instead of what merits they measure is like concluding that the twilight Howard Hughes couldn't possibly have been even middle class (much less rich) because of how he dined and dressed.  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The candidate has been "not here" in every sense for years at a time. Now we discover a clear sequence of events leading up to this burst of activity and RfA.  The Arbcom election results were posted on 9 Dec 2015.  The failed candidate Wildthing61476 had his account renamed on 10 Dec 2015.  The issue now is not just that this RfA seems to be a follow-on from that election but that neither the nominators nor the candidate said anything about this until probing questions were asked.  As soon as I drew attention to this, one of the nominators immediately moved my comment to the talk page within 3 minutes and then tried to revert other comments too.  This gives the unfortunate impression of trying to conceal these details.  Openness and transparency is better in such circumstances. Andrew D. (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You do realize that WP:Assume good faith is a foundational site policy here, right? And that grave accusations without serious evidence qualify as personal attacks, right?  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you realise that WP:Assume good faith is a guideline, not a policy? See List of policies for a list of policies. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * AGF isn't a policy, true, but it's still very important in resolving conflicts and dealing with other editors in a situation in which people are editing in good faith. If, when involved in a dispute, one assumes another person is trying to cause harm, they are likely to be more hostile towards them, which can deter the other editor or cause them to be hostile in return; this creates a battleground situation and makes resolution harder to achieve. Linguist  Moi?  Moi.  21:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I understand of that argument, Andrew D., if someone runs for a position at Wikipedia, a failure in such running means that any future attempt to secure a position is some sort of compensation for that loss and makes them unfit to hold a position? Seems a bit unfair to me. R. A. S immons Talk 05:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * When a candidate runs for admin or arbcom, there's a reasonable expectation that they will be open about their history. I've now started looking at the details of those 2015 arbcom elections.  Amongst the details, I find SilkTork's questions to be significant.  In response, the candidate says "Good question and one I was waiting to be asked to be honest. I honestly forgot to add..."  Then, the first thing the candidate does after losing is to change his account name.  And, again, he forgets to mention this at the outset of this RfA.  Now maybe he tends to be passive and waits to be asked about such stuff.  But he does indicate that he "forgot" and here in this RfA we see a similar pattern.  Andrew D. (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Really though this is something for the nominators to sort out, and I'm surprised they didn't. The candidate gets a chance to say "I indicate acceptance of the nomination", and answer the standard questions, but there isn't much opportunity to make a full statement in the early hours of an RfA. Perhaps this should change. When invited to discuss this issue Rick did so at the first opportunity. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I started an article about a related concept recently – stealing thunder. It's still sketchy but introduces the idea of pre-empting awkward questions.  I regularly create such content and so have some facility in writing, laying things out in a logical order and  expressing myself in a bold and creative way.  The candidate has done less of this and, in fighting vandalism, will be more reactive – responding to what others do.   If they are using automated tools like Twinkle, then they will tend to be dropping templates rather than writing out text in their own words.  Perhaps this is a significant difference in the skill set of the content creator and the patroller.  I expect an admin to have the full range of skills.  Andrew D. (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * AGF is one of the Five Pillars. 'Nuff said. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, no... It's one of the numerous links used to describe one of the five pillars, namely Civility. (Not to take away anything from the import of your point, to which I agree). Lourdes  04:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it does reinforce the point I've been making since I started WP:RFA2011 that RfA is the one venue on Wikipedia where for some odd reason everyone is allowed to be as disingenuous, uncivil, and silly as they like with absolute impunity. Get that fixed and we'll be back to having to vote on 5 RfA a month.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And we would want that- why?! Muffled Pocketed  11:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Vandal-fighting and lack of content creation - bad?
Okay, so, I have a couple of questions regarding discussions on this RfA, and past RfAs. First off, why is a lack of content creation an issue? I am not very experienced in content creation, and I would say I'm only just breaking into an intermediate or advanced level of substantially improving articles, but I don't understand why other users think that not having a big number of articles to your name diminishes admin potential. You don't own articles you create, they are not trophies and do not make you "better" than another editor. I would like to know the opinions of other editors on this. Secondly, I may well be misinterpreting this, but I've seen, on this RfA and one or two others, what seems to be criticism of and lack of appreciation for vandal-fighting. I remember one time, while in a discussion with an opposing user on another RfA, saying to them that I didn't understand why lack of content creation is detrimental, and they responded saying my view makes the RfA process "flawed" and saying there was "a bloody huge separation in arguments between content creators and non-content creating, policy pissed admins.", using "policy pissed" to describe e.g. vandal fighters in what seemed like a negative way. Also, on this RfA, an opposing user said in a discussion, "If all the candidate has done is to play whack-a-mole with vandals...", which seemed to me as though they were deeming vandal-fighting to be a bad thing. I myself am a vandal-fighter, and I also work at UAA regularly. Does this make me too policy-pissed and a bad editor? Linguist Moi?  Moi.  12:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * just answering why is a lack of content creation an issue?, Ritchie's essay here will probably explain better than I, but an understanding of what good content and bad content is obviously a very important skill the people who get to delete said content should have. Now, some argue this should be demonstrated through creating and significantly improving articles, and others believe it can be shown through AfD and the like -- samtar talk or stalk 12:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the essay, I agree it has good points. Thanks! Linguist  Moi?  Moi.  13:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's partly an ideological/philosphical issue, given that some people focus on vandal fighting and others on writing and/or improving articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that article creation is important, and I have voted oppose in RfAs in situations in which there was an absence of article creation. However, in this case there was article creation in addition to a mammoth amount of work in vandal-fighting. My feeling was that the latter outweighed the less than enormous amount of article creation. Coretheapple (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * People who police pages should know how to produce them. And that must be clearly demonstrated by RfA candidates. While nothing is more conclusive than four or five non-stub articles fully referenced and MoS compliant, a significant amount of non-page-creation content work could compensate for a lack of creations but the evidence needs to be very compelling. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Not wanting to put an admin on a spot, but this is one more reason admins should have content experience, and I updated the essay yesterday here accordingly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (Bit offtopic) While I am not convinced that the word "punishment" is correct in that unblock discussion, I do recommend User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content as a standard reading when the content creation question comes up, it does avoid overusing the words "content creator", "automated" and "mindless" among other things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (Bit more offtopic) Yes, "punishment" is the wrong word there, I probably should have used "excessive". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's interesting to see examples of what happens when these new admins are turned loose. The admin responsible for the block in that case was Oshwah who was recently made an admin despite 63 opposes.  They have created just 7 articles (one of them deleted) but, since becoming an admin a few weeks ago, they seem to have made about 2000 blocks.  Most of them seem to be appropriate but it doesn't seem difficult to find more debatable examples such as rebeccacm – a student who was blocked for creating an account in her own name.  The process is "shoot first, ask questions later", right? Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That block was made under the username "Rebeccamagazine" which contravenes policy as it suggests more than one user. If oppose editors for merely following policy then this whole Wikipedia project starts to fall flat. I suggest you refrain from doing so. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 18:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That was her full name. She was summarily punished for having a somewhat unusual surname. Andrew D. (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The block was made before 1) the user made any edits, 2) the course tag was added to her page, and 3) anyone (including her) had posted anything on her talk page. I would assume any admin would do the same, it just happened to be Oshwah who got there first. It isn't fair to blame that on "new admins". ansh 666 19:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That certainly is an unusual name. And though Andrew D. isn't really discussing content creation, I'm certain that starting articles or writing featured content wouldn't have helped one bit. I'd like to point out that just about every admin sucks when they start out. Some who don't get involved in using admin tools can still suck after many years. We are just looking for people who are not going to suck for too long, and who can adapt to criticism and experience. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The policy WP:GROUPNAME states "Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked." So, this was clearly a bad block and it appears that it's not just Oshwah who doesn't understand the policy and its correct administration. Andrew D. (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But contravenes WP:ISU "Usernames that are simply names of companies or groups are not permitted Personal usernames that imply shared access, such as "Jack and Jill", are not permitted. ". --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 14:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, WP:ISU was debatable because the "Rebecca" might have been personal (and indeed it was). And please read the following section, Dealing with inappropriate usernames, which says what should be done when one encounters such a name.  This starts, "If you encounter an inappropriate username as described above, there are various actions you might take. Use common sense in making your choice, and avoid "biting" newcomers."  It goes on to list specific suggestions like "Consider leaving well enough alone" and "Talk to the user".  It is abundantly clear that rushing to block in such cases is inappropriate.  See also jules-d.com.  Obviously promotional and meriting an immediate block? Andrew D. (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Andrew has a point here. It was obviously an unnecessary block. The user could have been contacted first, especially since they weren't engaged in any problematic editing. I think it's an example of bad judgement, but not 100% a reason to oppose. R. A. S immons Talk 15:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Administrators have influence over the encyclopedia, including the ability to settle content disputes, close contentious RfCs, delete content, and bar content editors from participating. Adminship is analogous in many ways to a judge; just like we do not appoint (or elect, if the electorate is half-competent) non-lawyers to positions of power in courts; we do not hire non-content editors to adminship. In this case, the candidate has expanded a sizeable number of articles, so they have shown understanding of what it takes to be an admin. Esquivalience (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you 100% that if his content work was inadequate he would not be qualified. That is why I tend to oppose most RfAs. Coretheapple (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

GeoffreyT2000's oppose
I agree that this should not have been struck - this is a good faith comment, that appears to have been made on a mistaken basis. The correct approach is to engage with the user to ensure that they understand the apparent error, and have the opportunity to clarify, amend or withdraw their comment. It is however fair to say that, if GeoffreyT2000 does not do so, I would disregard a comment in these circumstances when closing an RfA. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Many of the articles linked in RickinBaltimore's curation log are redlinks. A change is coming that would remove the ability to patrol from the "autoconfirmed" user group, so unless he becomes a new page reviewer, the first statement will remain true. GeoffreyT2000  ( talk,  contribs ) 23:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look at Rick's CSD log, you will note a high correlation of pages being marked as reviewed and also being marked for speedy deletion. I suspect that there was a setting in Twinkle which automatically marked pages as reviewed when he tagged them for CSD. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 23:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's called "Mark page as patrolled when tagging (if possible)" under the Speedy deletion (CSD) heading. AFAIK, it's checked by default. The Curation Toolbar as used at Special:NewPagesFeed also marks pages reviewed when they're nominated for deletion. clpo13(talk) 00:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't really mean anything, the Page Curation tool flags an article as reviewed no matter what action the reviewer takes. If RickinBaltimore flagged all those articles for speedy deletion, they're still listed as reviewed in the curation log. But I can't tell what he actually did on those deleted articles, I'm not an admin. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he marks the pages as reviewed when he's looked at them but also tags them for speedy deletion. Then, when they are deleted they appear as redlinks.  Surely a page like Poop on Wikipedia wouldn't be taken seriously.  Please clarify the objection. Andrew D. (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, RickinBaltimore did edit Poop on Wikipedia, adding a db-vandalism speedy deletion tag. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I'm curious here too.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-11ex;color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Chat :Offline 00:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: of RickinBaltimore last 10 redlinked patrols, the pages were deleted after RickinBaltimore nominated them for speedy deletion. This is normal behavior by Twinkle - by marking the page patrolled it lets others know that it has already been reviewed so they do not need to review it again. —  xaosflux  Talk 02:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, in Geoffrey's own log, there are many redlinked pages! Someguy1221 (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * GeoffreyT2000's vote should not have been struck or indented, even if was based on an incorrect idea. We should just wait for him to make his own mind up and strike or change as he wants. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a bad strike, but, I agree with Graeme here. There are numerous non-sense votes in both the support and oppose sections, to single this one out specifically is inappropriate. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * + that. To indent an illogical oppose (we've had discussions before on this and the consensus has been thus) is not done. Lourdes  03:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging to see if they want to readd their !vote. If it was based on an incorrect idea, they might want to keep it struck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I restored the oppose. It is not the job of non-crats to decide which votes count, unless votes are obviously ineligible. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As a 'crat I think this is for the best - we certainly read the comments !votes and can weigh them appropriately. — xaosflux  Talk 15:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Fixing typo in candidate's answer
Hi, I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia, so I'd like a clarifier on policy for typo editing. I noticed that a wikilink in one of RickinBaltimore's answer posts was not complete, aka, it looked [this]]. Is it proper for me to add the extra [ mark on the front end or should I leave it as is? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My that's embarrassing. Thank you for catching that, and I fixed it. Not sure how I didn't see it when I hit preview originally. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixing typos in the sense of "typp" to "typo" is unnecessary and would be frowned upon (WP:TPO), but fixing something as basic as a messed up wikilink or template would be fine, especially where the editor's intended message is being lost due to the error. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a good bit of policy to know. Icebob99 (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Struck comment
I have struck the following comment on the basis that it appears to have been made in bad faith or, at best, fundamentally misunderstands the RfA process: I would not have had any issue with any uninvolved administrator taking the same action. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I would prefer someone with a Bachelors in Journalism, and a Masters Degree in English literature to do editorials due to the importance of the information that is sent to the public.  Christopher Alan Levingston 04:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleving (talk • contribs)
 * What? That means nothing for an RfA. It dosen't matter what somebody studies. I may end up striking his comment out due to the editor being too new or ineligible. Yoshi24517 <sup style="color:black;font-family:arnprior">Chat  <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:black;font-family:arnprior">Online 04:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't strike out this or any other !votes (barring confirmed sockpuppetry). The bureaucrats will evaluate consensus and weight votes appropriately, with this vote being weighted at zero, I'm sure. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 05:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconded, we've already unstruck one struck vote because the final decision should be up to the bureaucrats to weight the vote. For the time being there are no real guidelines as to who is too new or ineligible to vote - barring of course being blocked or banned from Wikipedia (incl. sockpuppets and meatpuppets). Note for the record that Wikipedia does not do editorials of any kind. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking over Caleving's contribs, I'm smelling a serious WP:NOTHERE account. But yeah, we shouldn't strike it, just point out to him why the bureaucrats are going to ignore the !vote based on the reason given:  by your reasoning, your !vote shouldn't count because multiple users would prefer it if voters have made worthwhile contributions to the site instead of using their talk pages as a blog that violates our WP:No original research and WP:Biographies of living persons policies. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Caleving is now indef blocked by User:Ritchie333 with the reason "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia: trolling, compromised account?". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the editor has had an account for seven years, and their only edits on wikspace in their entire career have been to this page, today. Also note that in late September we see a sudden change to all-caps edit summaries- another aberation. I suggest that the suggestion that the acount is compromised is probably accurate Sod that for GF ;) edits such as this indicate either socking or trolling. And with a content-creation rate of 3.8%, a perfect example of what WP doesn't need. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  13:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

200
If a post-closure Support is allowed to allow Rick into the prestigious WP:200 club, then feel free to add mine. I'd fully intended to support once I'd checked the user, but have been so busy IRL recently I didn't have time! Optimist on the run (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Being one shy of WP:200 is some serious bad luck! -- samtar talk or stalk 13:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)