User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

• Mayor of East Newark, New Jersey
• Mayor of Nutley, New Jersey (deleted)
• Mayor of Aberdeen Township, New Jersey (deleted)
• Mayor of Verona, New Jersey (deleted)
• Mayor of Absecon, New Jersey (deleted)
• Mayors of Bergenfield, New Jersey (deleted)
• Mayor of Long Branch, New Jersey

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I have done this is that it has been six years since you were blocked, with no appeals that I am aware of. While we do allow blocked users some latitude on their own talk page, just coming by to delete things off your talk page without even attempting to get unblocked over such a long period of time just seems unproductive and frankly, unhealthy.

Note that as a community-imposed block, UTRS can only re-grant talk page access, it cannot lift the block. If you aren't planning to try and appeal the block, please just move on. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having consulted Just Step Sideways, I shall restore your talk page access. However, I have also declined UTRS appeal #93760, and my advice to you is that making another unblock request is almost certain to be a waste of your time and anyone else's time who reviews the request. As I said at UTRS, your recent history at Wikidata does not encourage me to think that unblocking you would be constructive, and I really can't see any likelihood at all that a community discussion would lead to unblocking. JBW (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Mr Norton. I came across you totally at random. Looks like you've run into some unpleasantness. That sucks, and you have my sympathy. That doesn't mean I have any idea who did what or why or when or whose fault it was. Just that, right or wrong, it sure sucks to get piled on so heavily and then shown the door after being here so long. I do feel badly for you.

On the merits, quick glance shows that you seem to have some fair points about some things at least. But we'll not talk about that now.

Anyways, when I made the WP:SERVICE awards, I was adamant that they applied to everyone the same, always, whether you were banned, dead, serving ten to twenty in the Iowa State Penitentiary, or anything else. No political considerations can ever enter into it. Therefore allow me to award you your current service award. You are at an extremely high level, highest I've seen. I'm sure that, regardless of anything else, that you have made many valuable contributions to the project, and I thank you for your service.

I have some ideas for a possible appeal if you want one, contact me. Regardless, godspeed and dread nought. Herostratus (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- A well deserved award. RAN's titanic contributions to human knowledge will continue to benefit humanity for at least as long as there's an internet. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! I was just blocked at Wikidata after asking a new Admin guy to restore some items deleted out-of-process, that were created by a third party, their response was to permaban me without any warning. See: Wikidata:Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2024/09#h-Q126487673-20240910172200 If anyone con contact someone from the WMF and send them the link to the ban, it would be helpful.

- The noticeboard discussion you linked to is truly shocking. Sadly my contacts at WMF have long since left (not that they were ever able to assist much with reigning in permabanners or even with memorializing fallen heroes.) I hope someone else is able to help, or if not I guess maybe you could take your talent & energies to a non WMF project, at least for a while. There are changes underway in the collective unconscious; it's possible in another five years or so, Wikipedia will once again be relatively hospitable for inclusionists. PS - unfortunately, it's probably best not to reply. Deleting messages from your talk page is one thing, but there are admins who might see taking part in any sort of conversation that's not about getting yourself unblocked (on this project – not on other projects) as a reason to revoke Talk Page access. PPS Hope you saw Herostratus's kind offer to contact them about ideas for appeal, maybe there will be some way for them to help if you email them. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FeydHuxtable: Wikidata does not have much patience for the amount of haggling and divisivity he was engaging in and pushing, respectively. To be frank, Wikidata rejects the concept of vested contributors and consequently, no one is given a pass for the content work they have done or could do. The foundation respects that and will not intervene. Richard was given multiple chances to fairly appeal their block and instead continued to try to sow divisibility by listing users on his userpage as holding views they did not necessarily hold.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think he is referring to keeping track of the permaban/deletion debate by listing people with a more liberal view of Wikidata:Notability and inclusion, and linking to their arguments; and listing people with a more conservative view of Wikidata:Notability, and exclusion and linking to their arguments. Somehow this is seen as sinister. They also objected to me linking to the archived permaban debate on my talk page, it has been removed twice now, and I am now blocked from using my Wikidata talk page. The rational was that adding the link to the debate was "misuse" of my talk page. Remember this all started by Wikidata:Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2024/09#h-Q126487673-20240910172200 asking that several Wikidata entries be restored that were deleted out-of-process. RAN (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Great Regression is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Regression (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

The article Adolph Lessig has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Excessively relies on one source and is not notable enough

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tenement House Commissioner has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not showing any significance of anything, just a list of two people.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]