Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R. Baley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] R. Baley

(81/7/4); final Andre (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

R. Baley (talk · contribs) - I first interacted with R. Baley when, as a volunteer at WP:WQA, I was faced with a situation in which a new user had a complaint against an established admin. R. Baley provided me with invaluable advice that eventually led to my disengaging from a situation that was causing more drama than it was worth. Since them, I've seen him around a few different places, especially WP:ANI. While he frequently involves himself in other people's high drama situations, his involvement generally serves to help resolve the situation (in contrast to many editors who have this habit, who frequently seem to be doing so to inflame the situation for their own amusement).

R. Baley's edit count is slightly on the low side for an admin, but I hope editors will consider the following before opposing out of some arbitrary personal edit count standard:

  • R. Baley has been at least slightly active every month since October 2006; "experience" should be measured as a combination of tenure and edit count (if you need to quantify it, that is), and what he lacks in the latter he makes up for in the former.
  • R. Baley's edits include outstanding breadth: substantial article building (192 edits to Michael J. Fox, 80 to VoteVets.org), editing in those places many of us fear to tread (47 edits to Talk:Global Warming, 6 to Talk:Intelligent design), policy development (24 edits to Wikipedia talk:Private correspondence), vandal fighting at WP:AIV, BLP enforcement at WP:BLPN, and general participation in solving ugly situations at WP:ANI and WP:AN.

I am very enthusiastic about the prospect of R. Baley becoming an admin. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thanks SI, and I accept. R. Baley (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Initially, I plan to use the bit to assist in more quickly protecting editors from more persistent long-term harassment. I will of course, branch out to other areas as I feel comfortable (probably starting with WP:AIV). As SI pointed out, though I have been active for about 1½ yrs., I haven't done anything to rack up my edit count (I could, if I thought that mattered) but if people take the time to look at my contributions, I believe most will find them both measured and thoughtful 99.9% of the time. I will take exactly the same approach to any actions that would be made with the extra buttons.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I created the Votevets.org article from scratch. Since my edit on Oct. 4 2007, there have been 9 edits, which I think is an indication of a fairly neutral article in an area that could definitely be considered contentious (I have made about 70% of the edits to that article (link) and in Feb. alone, the article was viewed 869 times (link)). I also think that some of my best contributions are to help other editors. A cliff notes version of this can be seen at my talk page and the talk page archive. But the best example of this, I believe, can be seen at Acquire a free image, a guide I wrote to obtain free images from others. I strongly support the efforts to obtain free-use images and want to make it as easy as possible for others to acquire an appropriate free-use license.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Occasionally, though I would like to say that was not the case. As SI pointed out in the nom, I have on occasion butted in at times when I thought I had something useful to contribute. These types of situations have rarely caused me stress. On those rare occasions when I have felt stressed by what's going on, I usually take a little time off. Recently, I have most often felt it, when another editor has been harassed, and has asked for help. This is because I have to quickly get an admin's attention, without causing undue attention, to do the things that only an admin can do (selective revsion-deletion and restore -due to privacy vios and extreme personal attacks, or blocking a persistent harasser who switches IPs at the drop of a hat). In the interest of full disclosure, I was miffed a short time in mid-January of this year (link to thread), but I did apologize the next day.
(add) After looking over my talk page, apparently I got stressed out in Feb. as well (as indicated by my 1 hour snack break). The relevant archived ANI thread is here. I would like to point out that even though I felt stressed, I didn't lose my temper or make (as far as I can tell) an inappropriate post.

Question not asked (but answered anyway):

4. So R. Baley, what is your vision for Wikipedia?
A: (I saw this in an RfA somewhere, and I thought I'd take a crack at it. . .) I want to see that Wikipedia strives to be a repository of all human knowledge and makes that knowledge easily accessible. The internet is a vast and awesome tool but we should make it "not suck" (link). As long as nobody gets hurt (e.g., WP:BLP). I see Wikipedia having an article on almost anything, provided it can be neutrally written and attributed to at least one (to start with!) verifiable/reliable source.

Questions from Black Kite

5. The article List of characters in Grand Theft Auto III does not comply with our non-free policy WP:NFCC. How would you make it compliant?
A: This is a tough question (though, I'm sure there are many on both sides of the NFCC issues that disagree, both pro and con). The short answer is, I probably wouldn't touch it. The longer answer is, that to be brought into comlpliance one would should probably consult Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles. Though it appears that this portion of the guideline has only been in place since January (diff) so I am unsure as to how much consensus there is behind it. More importantly, one has to consider the image use with respect to the WP:NFCC policy you mentioned in your question. Specifically, criteria #'s 1,2,4,5,6,7,9, and 10 could be met (or are met, I haven't checked each individual image). Criteria numbers 3 and 8 (with respect to minimal use and significance) are questionable, and no doubt, long argued over. I notice that not every character has an image (no images for the supporting, minor, and removed characters), but an arguement could be made that the 9 fair use images for the main characters is too many and does not add significantly to the readers' understanding of the subject. Probably the best solution would be to use one "cast" shot of all the major characters, and one shot of the remaining characters, but again I'm not sure how feasible this is. Acquiring images for these types of articles and the questions surrounding the appropriateness of their use are made the more difficult because (as far as I know) there are no, nor will there be, any free-use equivalents.
From what I can remember, I think that my interpretations with respect to non-free content issues are a bit more expansive than yours (considering here both WP:NFCC permitted under the foundation's Mar 23, 2007 EDP, as well as the EDP itself, esp. #3). But know that I wouldn't use admin buttons/status to push an agenda (Just as I've seen you make arguments, but not your position, to advance your interpretation). Despite (what I think are) our differences here, also know that I do actively push for real free content as per my answer to question 2. One of my favorite contributions here, is the guide I wrote, (How to) Acquire a free image. That's about the most I can offer in this contentious area. Hope that helps.
6. Can you explain this rather confusing AfD comment?
A: I saw that the article had been previously nominated less than 2 months prior to the one I commented at (link to 1st AfD) and had been 'kept' by unanimous consent of the 6 editors opining there. Consensus can change, but taking an article back so soon -was something I saw as inappropriate. Don't know if it has any bearing on what you would like to know, but I also added to that comment (link), "If people are concerned about their content being deleted, they need to comment at AfD's, but then go to the applicable policy (-cies) which are used to promote the deletion of their articles." I said that because community-consensus is important. It's not enough to just !vote a one-time 'keep' at an article you are interested in, if an editor is really bothered by the overall process, s/he needs to participate in the dialog which serves as the foundation for the policy or guideline which is being referenced.

Optional question from Keepscases

7. What is your favorite song by The Cure?
A. Ha! More of an Eagles fan myself (thought not quite old enough to have appreciated them in their heyday).

Optional question from Jon513

8. Recently, you expressed an opinion in an MfD that a page should be deleted because the creators of page think it should, perhaps echoing one of the criteria for speedy deletion. Are there any situations where you feel that a page that technically meets the criteria for speedy deletion as G7 (The author of the only substantial content has requested deletion in good faith, either explicitly or by blanking the page) should not be deleted. Jon513 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
A. Just to catch everyone up, that MfD concerns WP:Screambox, it is the 2nd of two nominations (link). Though I saw it, I did not participate in the first nomination for deletion. (To be clear, G7 doesn't really apply unless there are no other substantial contributions by any other editors.) In the present case, my response as amended includes, "Missed whatever caused it to be deleted last time (didn't realize the original creators had requested it). I will assume that whatever it was . . .it was not helpful." This is an understatement -I assume that some really outrageous edits were made. . .to cause the original creators to ask, and then re-ask, for deletion (and they are quite adamant about it). I can't see the deleted edits, but I think that the page became harmful to other editors and to Wikipedia.
As to your question, after thinking about it, it's actually much more interesting than I had at first thought. . .there may be reasons (almost always an exception to most any rule) but off the top of my head I can think of at least one scenario where the deletion may be delayed at least. If an editor created a user sub-page that was in use somewhere (referenced in a ongoing discussion or case of some kind), the page might not be deleted (or at least its deletion delayed). Also since all of our edits are contributed under GFDL, if someone wanted to delete an article or pic they substantially created or uploaded -and it was good, met our criteria in every other way, no-one can just unilaterally withdraw it (though technically this probably falls under the "good faith" part of G7).

Optional question from User:Lankiveil

9. Under what circumstances would it be acceptable to ignore WP:CIVIL?
A. I tried for the longest to come up with some grand statement on civility and the issues that have surrounded it of late, but I can't. I know I'm not perfectly civil, I've come across editors far more civil than me, and I've seen many that were much worse. We can't ignore it and we should strive to maintain a civil environment. . .for me that means I try to defuse situations where I can, and try not to inflame them ever. It has saddened me more than once when I see an otherwise good editor allow their emotions get the better of them over an incident. Bringing their own fuel to the fire, s/he ultimately becomes someone that no one has to worry about blocking or banning ---they're just gone out of frustration. WP:Civility is not a club (there's some irony in there somewhere), and we should keep in mind that some may try to game it. Taken to extremes (in what we define as "uncivil") we may find that we inhibit honest discussion and a frank exchange of ideas.
10. What is your favorite song by The Cure The Eagles?
A. Heh, when I saw this question, I wasn't sure at first. I went to see if any of the CD's I had were here, and not out in my vehicle. Lucky for me, the Hotel California CD was --I set the player to track 9, and listened to The Last Resort. With 'repeat all" turned on, 6 and ½ minutes of Hotel California would follow :-) Also one of my favorites is Walsh's Life's been good, and I'm a big fan of the guitar sound and vocal harmonies (esp. in the a capella part) of Seven Bridges Road.

Questions from Acalamari

10. What is your opinion on questions that don't relate to adminship in any way? Unnecessary or fun?
A. A bit of unnecessary fun. . . answering them so far has made me smile (almost as much as when I noticed H2O's *WP:Spade* support -though admittedly, I actually laughed out loud at that-) as I've been listening to more stuff than I usually would in the course of a day. And I told a friend of mine about The Cure question above. . .he brought over his collection . . .so yeah, fun.
11. You mention above about being an Eagles fan. Is it also possible that you may have seen a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac before as well?
A. Also a favorite of mine, thanks for bringing it up!

Question from User:Raymond arritt

12. I am thinking of a number between 1 and 100. Is it eligible for speedy semi-deletion?
A. This appears to be a trick question due to ambiguity in phrasing of the first sentence. At first I thought, is Raymond's number restricted to \mathbb{N}atural numbers, or does it extend to the infinite set of rational numbers between 1 and 100 (and don't even get me started on pie). Well, "no" I thought, it's got the be the integers, because otherwise why between 1 and 100? If he were considering decimals, too, he might as well just have picked a number between 1 and 2 (but then, of course, no pie). At this point, I realized the speedy S-D policy could not possibly apply because the number "1" itself, was not included in the bounded set considered (as interpreted under SS-D7 -the cowbell criteria). On a side note, I am surprised I never saw a refererence to this policy during the great Rollback debates as this section would have seemed particularly appropriate. x

Optional questions from User:SunCreator

13.Under what circumstances should an admin indefinitely block an IP address?
A. None that I can think of, IP addresses often change. . .rapidly if an editor chooses to do so.
14. When should you SALT/create protect an article? What type of content would you SALT more than others (if any)? How long would you SALT it for and why?
A. Salting, or guarding against the re-creation of a deleted page is not something with which I am very familiar. I assume that pages are protected from re-creation in the circumstance that editors try to create a page that has been properly deleted (or substantially similar to a deleted page). I wouldn't be involved in "salting" pages until I familiarized myself with the community norms and expectations in this area.
15. What is the difference between a username hardblock and a username softblock? Under what circumstances would you apply them?
A. Blocking options: a hardblock is used to block the username as well as any underlying IPs from which the blocked user account attempts to make an edit. A softblock on the other hand, will just block anon-edits, but will allow users with an account name, to log in and edit from that IP. There is also an option to block account creation that I've seen several times, I assume that this option, used with the softblock, allows for editors established prior to the block to log in and edit, but prevents anyone from creating an account to circumvent the block on anon-editing.
Hardblocking is used to prevent disruption by an editor who is editing under an account name. I would prefer softblocking when anon edits are disruptive (like from a school for instance) but registered editors are also known to, or may, be editing from the IP address(es). Registered editors would still be able to edit if logged in, but not "anonymously."
16. How would you handle an un-block request?
A. Carefully. I would probably leave a talk page note that I am reviewing the situation. After review, if I thought an unblock was warranted, I would talk to the blocking admin. What happens from there depends on the context of the situation, but in all likely-hood, the blocking admin and myself would come to an agreement. If not, that would be a situation to take to the administrator's noticeboard for more input.
17. Why is it important that wikipedia not be used as a social networking site?
A. Everyone here, should have as their primary goal, the building and maintaining of an encyclopedia. A little fun is fine, but keep it in proportion/perspective -there are plenty of places around the 'net (and more importantly in real life!) to socialize.
18. What people related incident on wikipedia did you feel you handled poorly? What would you do if the same situation occurred again?
A. Regretfully, I made an inappropriate and flippant remark during the CreepyCrawly incident. When suspicions like that arise again, a dispassionate report at WP:RFCU is called for, along with a polite note to inform the affected editor at their talk page.


Questions from User:DanBealeCocks

19 A new editor, called User:1089297PaloirK creates 3 articles, "Janice A Jenkins", "Paul Todd Jr" and "Martin Michael McDonald-Jones". These articles are each about a screenful long, reasonably well written, and do not contain any obvious BLP concerns. It's pretty clear that User:1089297PaloirK is either one of these people, or works with them. Someone points out the user to you. What do you do? Dan Beale-Cocks 14:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/R. Baley before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support as nom. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Impressive. Just. Impressive. 21655 ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 16:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support - From examination of your special contributions, I get the feeling that your edits are of the utmost quality - edit count sometimes is a good indicator, but by no means definitive or all encompassing. Nice job. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support A quick review of contributions shows a reasonable person with a wide range of posts on policy issues. 'Reasonable' is what this encyclopedia clearly needs. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support Another highly involved editor I was sure had the mop, till I saw this. MBisanz talk 17:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support Very impressive, clearly willing to get his hands dirty. GlassCobra 17:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support: No evidence that the user will abuse the tools. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 17:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support. R. Baley has a clear need for the tools and can be trusted. The project will benefit from a mopping here. Best of luck, Anthøny 19:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support: Seen him around and been pleasantly impressed. Seems mature and sensible, and I think he'll be a good admin. Plus, points for being bold enough to voice his opinion on a controversial topic (Orangemarlin's block) while his RfA is up. MastCell Talk 19:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support: umm...sounds sensible, and some evidence of 'pedia building. net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support Experienced enough. Epbr123 (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support - I choose to support this user simply because he has given me no reason no to. Experience doesn't always come in the form of edit counts. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support --- steady editing rate, good edits, no reason to oppose! --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support Highly involved. Willing to abide by the spirit of policy. Smart enough to see through murky situations and come out with a strong position. Antelantalk 20:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support Generally makes thoughtful comments and helps move processes forward. Jehochman Talk 20:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support excellent editor, good experiences, expect to see good work here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support great experience and has a solid head on their shoulders. Should be a very good admin. Baegis (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support Well intentioned, experienced, the oppose seems unjustified... no reason not to support. asenine t/c 22:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support Great editor, great contributions. Tovian (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support Ready for the mop. --Sharkface217 23:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support What Jehochman said. Even though I don't agree with everything he's ever written, R. Baley seems like a sound chap. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support Seems to have a strong comprehension of policy and shows reasoned understanding of complex situations (see these edits for a complete incident). I think his posts and responses show a balanced and reasonable admin not shrinking from policy just because an admin said so. Just the sort of Admin we need here. Adam McCormick (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  24. After seeing this user number of times on Wikipedia, including having him/her revert vandalism on my talk page at least once, I believe that he/she is ready for the mop. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  00:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support, solid editor and thankyou for the detailed answer to my question. Black Kite 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support will not abuse the mop, good user. SpencerT♦C 01:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support per any discussions in which I have participated with the candidate. In all cases, I found the candidate reasonable, objective, open-minded, and constructive: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Screambox 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunguska event in fiction (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charla and Mirna (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 5, and Wikipedia:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support. Does good work, meets most of my criteria. Communicates, does mainspace work, shows up at AN and ANI, reports vandals. Can't demand much more from a candidate. Useight (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  31. WP:SPADE. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  32. Kusma (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  33. Seen him around in many places editors (such as myself) fear to tread. —Dark talk 09:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support - no concerns at all. Neıl ☎ 09:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support Per previous wholly positive and pleasing interaction. Pedro :  Chat  11:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support Willing to take a stand on principle. Great editor. Mature. What else could we want? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support reliable user. SexySeaShark 16:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support Wizardman 16:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    Per Orangemarlin. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 17:38, April 8, 2008
    User:Balloonman does not allow me to freely participate in RfAs, therefore striking this nonconstructive comment of mine. Dorftrottel (complain) 18:02, April 14, 2008
  39. Outstanding–there is simply no definition more appropriate to this candidate who has amazed me with this comment, which for me, is the best representation of common sense I have ever seen on Wikipedia in a very long time. Rudget (review) 18:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support per Kusma. Couldn't have said it better myself. and more seriously, you have a great track record. No worries from me Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support - Sure. Tiptoety talk 23:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support - of course - Alison ❤ 23:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support--MONGO 00:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  45. Great user, and the answers to all the questions are excellent. It appears that R. Baley has a sense of humor too, which is a very good sign, and seems to be a music fan as well. :) For the record, I was the admin who granted him rollback (one of the first users I ever changed the rights of, in fact), and he's been fine with that, so I think he'll be fine with adminship. Just remember to keep your sunglasses on! :) Acalamari 01:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  46. Support. Can't add much to what has already been said. Are there any more at home like you? Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support Sensible and has a good grasp of policy. Shell babelfish 04:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support Have seen around and always in a good way, meets my criteria. Orderinchaos 14:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support Helpful and sensible. Thought this person already was an admin.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  50. Support - Give the man a mop! TheProf - T / C 15:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  51. Support Support as per Usesight.Through edit count is low the user has contributed in over 18 months to a variety of tasks.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  52. I think so. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  53. Yes, absolutely. No worries here. Antandrus (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  54. El_C 21:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  55. I was quite surprised to find his name up on the RfA chopping block, as I had assumed he already had the added administrative tools. But that's easily changed. Support goes to a quality and trustworthy contributor in every respect. Valtoras (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  56. Support per all the above, and per that below as well. Outstanding candidate for the mop. Vsmith (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  57. Support - I guess so.   jj137 (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  58. Support. Seen him around, and the opposes reveal nothing that can't be addressed. Trustworthy. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  59. Support - Good, thoughtful candidate. The first opposer clearly hasn't read through R. Baley's statement about the quality of his edits rather than quantity BTW. Lradrama 08:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  60. Support - Per everything above. iMatthew 2008 10:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  61. Support. Hal peridol (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  62. One of the good guys. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  63. Support - Looks experienced enough. Krashlandon (e) 23:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  64. Support - switching from neutral. My concerns addressed elsewhere. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  65. Support: - I like the answer to question 12. I dont understand the question but i like the answer:) Think will do a great job on wikipedia. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  66. Support Learning from one's past mistakes is a critically important trait for anyone. -- Avi (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  67. Support This is a no-brainer; eminently qualified. Horologium (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  68. Support What harm could one more dedicated administrator do??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aj00200 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  69. Support •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  70. Support per above. Filll (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  71. Support - Appears to have made several poor assumptions, but signs are he's learning well, so I support. PS I am thinking of a number between 1 and 100. SunCreator (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  72. Support, not perfect (nor is anyone here), but still a great and qualified candidate. krimpet✽ 16:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    As long as he doesn't add himself to Category:Wikipedia administrators who never make mistakes. Hey, why is that still a redlink? :) MastCell Talk 16:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  73. Support. Smart and trustworthy, and good at handling nuance. SlimVirgin talk|edits 00:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  74. Support Experienced, and has a smart and nuanced view of policy. It's also reassuring to hear that the candidate is willing to learn more about subjects s/he's not familiar with before diving into them. --Bfigura (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  75. Support Liked the answers to the questions, not perusaded by the opposes, am confident will not abuse the tools and will be a fine admin. Davewild (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  76. Support Good experience of this candidate, only slightly tainted by their preference for The WoodentopsThe Eagles. Unlikely to abuse the mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  77. Support: With pleasure. --Bhadani (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  78. Support - excellent answers to questions, see no problems, and good luck! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  79. Support Great, trustworthy candidate. нмŵוτнτ 21:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  80. Support Ob--BozMo talk 14:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)viously
  81. Support No problems here! Good luck with your new tools! Razorflame (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. [1] plus the lack of experience.-- Naerii 19:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    Could you expand on what you see as the problem with that edit? I gather you don't like the insinuation in the edit summary that many parts of the Wikipedia bureaucracy are, effectively, votes of a sort? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    What sort of experience do you feel that R.Baley lacks? He has contributed for 18 months in a variety of tasks. Or is your problem with the number of edits? EJF (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    Hi Naerii, for the full context of why I made the comment and subsequently changed "votes" to "opinions expressed" I have linked to the archive of the discussion at ANI here. Basically, I thought that the discussion at ANI should return to MfD, where it had started, but had been short-circuited. I do credit DarkFalls for deciding to ask for a review of his or her own actions, though. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    I have the echo the above comments, while I definitely respect everyone's !vote/comments at RfAs, I'm curious as to where this perception regarding lack of experience comes from. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    Sure. I reviewed his Wikipedia and User talk contributions and whilst he's briefly touched on some areas, he hasn't been particularly involved with anything, especially not tasks related to administrative issues. Things like this request to Jimbo to block someone leave me concerned as the only people I ever see making appeals to Jimbo are newbies and the like. Additionally I am concerned by his statement "Initially, I plan to use the bit to assist in more quickly protecting editors from more persistent long-term harassment". Most users would not start their tenure as an administrator in one of the more controversial areas, especially when involvement in administrative related tasks previously has been scarce. His involvement in the project space really is quite low, for example 2% of his Wikipedia space edits are taken up with voting in the ArbCom elections. The involvement in Wikipedia:Private correspondence is also worrying as that was a train wreck from the beginning. -- Naerii 20:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, I wasn't requesting that Jimbo block anyone (edited to add at 21:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC): diff where I more explicitly state that admins in general, not Jimbo, should be assessing the situation). In the linked edit, I was only creating a subheading for a thread that had long since been started by PJ (not me) on Jimbo's page, to make it easier to edit. PJ was forum shopping, and in my view attempting to elicit knee-jerk responses by inaccurately characterizing a nude photo as child porn and implying that another editor was sympathetic to such (at best) or guilty of pedophilia (at worst). I will link to the appropriate thread(s) when I find them (add link to archive). Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    (ec) He was participating in a discussion that User:Prester John has started. Elsewhere in that same discussion, he actually endorsed the view that Jimbo's page wasn't the correct place for it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    Yes I see Baley has already spoken for himself. -- Naerii 20:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    Coming back to the first question, but what is wrong with that diff? —Dark talk 08:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    Not hard to understand? He counts votes /shrug -- Naerii 19:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    I refer to the invidiual opinions that are expressed as votes. I'm a bureaucrat, too. That doesn't make me a bad bureaucrat. It just means I like convenient and clear wording. Opposing someone because of semantics? Hmm. --Deskana (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose for the most blatant violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith on User talk:CreepyCrawly: "A pov pushing sleeper account created in nov. 2006, makes one edit, and then none until March 2008. . .making a run at Global warming articles. Time to blockyblocky." [2] The edit summary also contained the words "time to blockyblocky." As I documented in many places -- including farther down on User talk:CreepyCrawly, User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/CreepyCrawly, User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/CreepyCrawly/One last try, and posts to WP:ANI linked in that last page, as well as my blog, CreepyCrawly is innocent beyond any possible doubt, and everyone who accused him of being Scibaby must now apologize for making an egregiously false accusation against an innocent user. R. Baley has not apologized. Neither have any of the other eight users who falsely accused CreepyCrawly or endorsed his block. Not only did R. Baley err on this case, but he used gratuitous insults in violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL: "time to blockyblocky", in the message and again in the edit summary. Anyone worthy of administrator status does not speak to human beings in such an insulting, derogatory tone. If you want to report this user to an administrator and suggest blocking, go ahead. (Someone else did that.) If you erroneously thought based on a first impression that this was a sockpuppet, you were not alone, and you probably were unaware of the events that followed. Nonetheless, I consider your ill-advised comment an immature insult which should disqualify you from being able to block other users for quite a long time. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    For the over-the-top "blockyblocky" comment, I apologize. More to follow, R. Baley (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    The most simple explanation to me (which explained the facts known at the time) was that it was a sock account. If you have indeed proved that that is not the case, then I apologize for not jumping to the (in my view at that time, unlikely) conclusion that this was an inexperienced user who just had one edit over a year ago, but about 50 highly contentious edits that day to Global Warming (or related to GW). (more to follow) 23:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    Global Warming goes through surges of intense attacks of our NPOV policy at times. I have tried to help out there. . . have I made mistakes, maybe, though I try *very hard* not to. I also try to get completely uninvolved admins to look at the situations as they arise, so that a fresh set of eyes can re-assess (as it is easy to become jaded). Here is one such request I made around the 2008 new year: the first to an uninvolved admin link) and then upon recommendation to RFCU: link here) That's about all of the context I think is applicable to my comment above (which I agree was not called for).
    I have seen your related thread at the Wikback, and I'm sorry that this experience has been a souring one for you. I know it's too much to hope that you will change your assessment of me, but I hope that given enough time, I will be able to convince you that what I try to do here is in the best interests of Wikipedia and the editors who create and maintain it. Sorry to have disappointed you. Long-windedly, R. Baley (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    I read your comment, and I admire your honesty, but my opposition stands. If this RFA passes, as it probably will, I hope you will take the lesson to heart, and will not write "time to blockyblocky" in anyone's block log summary. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    Anyone who deals with suspected sockpuppets is going to make mistakes. It's the nature of the beast. I've been wrong in both directions - blocking people who weren't actually socks, and exonerating people who later turned out to be socks and did damage in the interim. It's a humbling experience, and it's why WP:SSP always, always has a backlog. But the takehome point is a good one; no matter what one thinks, it's better to keep it neutral, especially in things like block summaries that will haunt you forever. By the way, Shalom, your helpful and thoughtful input at WP:SSP is missed. I hope you come back. MastCell Talk 04:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose per Shalom. I looked at User talk:CreepyCrawly, and what I saw was a spectacular assumption of bad faith by a number of users, including some experienced admins who should know better. Unfortunately, it often appears that those editors who are involved with articles on the Global warming and Intelligent design controversies, among others, are unnecessarily suspicious of anyone who has a viewpoint other than the "mainstream scientific" view. I do not doubt R. Baley's good faith or commitment to the project, and I don't think the CreepyCrawly case was entirely his fault by any means; but I don't think we need more admins who will be quick to block anyone who dares suggest that global warming might not be anthropogenic, and I also agree with Shalom that "time to blockyblocky" was condescending and out of line, and reveals an attitude which is not appropriate in an administrator. WaltonOne 08:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    I was unnecessarily harsh above, and I do understand that the CreepyCrawly thing was an honest mistake. Struck parts of my comment accordingly. WaltonOne 16:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per handling CreepyCrawly. Other admins should also be ashamed of themselves. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per handling of CreepyCrawly as well as the points raised by Gwynand (in "Neutral") about BT's comments on the Orange Marlin / Hersfold block issue (and yes, I am aware of GSTS's edits). While I don't doubt the good intentions or strong contributions of RB, these incidents do make me doubt the maturity of his judgement. Jpmonroe (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. As per above and due to the fact that your edit count is very low, less than 1000 in mainspace edits and 3000 in edits. You've been here around a year and a half but I would prefer more edits and experience. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 07:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Fattyjwoods, and low edit rate of avg c. 250 pcm. Johnbod (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    Honest question: could you define "pcm"? I've not heard the acronyn before. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    "Per calendar month". Don't worry, you will! Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Very Weak Oppose Sorry, the whole blockyblock thing did it for me. However, as a former admin I will admin that EVERY (and I mean that, every single goddamn one of them) does get a kind of thrill from deleting and blocking on a whim when its pretty obvious. This vote should not really be held mainly against baley but the whole damn system instead. Sorry, Baley, there is a need to keep this things to yourself. But, I do wish you the best and I assume you will become an admin. Yanksox (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral - for now, based on your various comments on OrangeMarlin's talk page regarding the block of User:God_Save_the_South and overturn by new admin User:Hersfold... then the block of user:Orangemarlin. I'm neutral because I see you as a good, civil contributor to wikipedia, but the first thing I see in your history regarding something an admin would have to deal with seems... questionable at best. I'm unsure of your understanding of wp:civil. Your apparent "siding" with Orangemarlin and subsequent insinuation [3] about Hersfold's future as an admin didn't sit well with me. I certainly don't want to rehash that whole topic here, but to be blunt, you seem to give numerous uncivil edits a total pass here while taking passive-aggressive swipes at a new admin who made a mistake and then was falsely accused of being a racist. Also, if you'd like to reply here or on my talk page, I'll leave that up to you, but I am definitely open to a deeper explanation of your thoughts on the incident. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 17:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    Hi Gwynand, I have replied at your talk page (link). Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    Gwynand, the admin was very wrong, and was supporting the unblocking of an avowed racist and KKK-member. I don't expect that R. Baley supports uncivil commentary, but he (or she, since I'm a warlock and not a witch, LOL) wants us to not allow civility to trump issues such as racism, POV-pushing, etc. It's good to have an admin candidate that doesn't express milquetoast ideals. It's time to stand on principle, and take the moral high-road, and sometimes (and I mean only sometimes), civility does not trump other issues, especially racism. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    Neutral. Yes, that disturbs me too. Civility isn't a "meme", its policy, and indeed essential for a decent working atmosphere. As always, open to having my mind changed, in fact am hopeful as it appears this candidate actually writes articles. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    I don't believe he was referring to WP:CIVIL itself as a "meme", but rather to the rapidly circulation allegation by some editors (especially pro-science editors editing on pseudoscientific topics) that civility, in practise, trumps WP:NPOV and the like. I stand open to correction, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    I believe you're right, and stand corrected. However, I rather think that makes it worse; if such a meme exists, it shouldn't be idly encouraged. Again, open to correction always. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    (ec) Thanks, SI, that was indeed my intent. I think that the pseudo-scientific topics are difficult in general, but also that our policies and guidelines when followed, determine that good, neutral and accurate articles are the result. This is especially true when a lot of editors are participating/engaging in a specific area. Hope that is more clear. . . the linked post is actually making me cringe a little, as it seems to be unclear -which I try not to be. But referencing the particular Arbcom case with clarity, I felt, would go against the wishes of a since vanished user, by drawing attention to it. Hope this helps, R. Baley (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    RR, if it's any consolation: That meme has existed on Wikipedia for quite some time now; and attempts to drive off anti-science kooks is actually the best way it has been put to use so far. Dorftrottel (ask) 17:43, April 8, 2008
    User:Balloonman does not allow me to freely participate in RfAs, therefore striking this nonconstructive comment of mine. Dorftrottel (complain) 18:02, April 14, 2008
    That meme isn't helping us drive off the anti-science kooks, it's actually being used by the anti-science kooks to push out other editors. R. Baley is one of the best candidates to come forward who sees this problem. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    Hm. Experience tells me you're right, without having to look. It's a common theme. Those who use an overblown sidenote like WP:CIV are plausibly those who have no other arguments. Someone should add a section about "playing or being dumb" into CIV. Or NPA. And BLOCK. Dorftrottel (canvass) 22:26, April 8, 2008
    User:Balloonman does not allow me to freely participate in RfAs, therefore striking this nonconstructive comment of mine. Dorftrottel (complain) 18:02, April 14, 2008
    Actually, based on my recent experience, its also helping drive out anyone not already known to regular editors of those articles. There's a climate of suspicion and a siege mentality, and that has to be gotten rid of; and comments stoking that siege mentality don't help. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per oppose #2. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral leaning Oppose per Question 9. While this user has done much valuable work, I'm troubled by the fact that the candidate seems to think that expressing an honest (or "frank", if you like) opinion and communicating in a polite and civil manner are mutually exclusive. (Less seriously, preferring The Eagles over The Cure also would seem to indicate a colossal lack of judgement =p) Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC).
  4. Neutral. Switched from oppose. I have confidence that there will be no repeat of the "blockyblocky" incident, and therefore I am happy for R. Baley to become an admin. WaltonOne 10:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.