Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R. Baley

R. Baley

Voice your opinion (talk page) (35/1/2); Scheduled to end 18:49, 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)

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?

10. What is your favorite song by The Cure The Eagles?

General comments

• See R. Baley's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for R. Baley: R. Baley (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

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).Talk^Help 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. Antelan^talk 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. Spencer^T♦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 Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
29. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk 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)
39. Per Orangemarlin. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 17:38, April 8, 2008

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)

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 [2] 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)

2. 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