User talk:R. Baley

Previous comments/messages in:

• Archive 1 (May 2007 - September 2007).
• Archive 2 (October 2007 - February 2008).
• Archive 3 (March 2008 - June 2008).

Request for Comments on user:GoRight

Your input at Wikipedia:Requests for Comments/GoRight would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you examine the article "Independent National Socialism" for bias?

I am asking a number of administrators at random to review Independent National Socialism which is sourced completely from a white nationalist webpage called Stormfront, which has anti-Semitic and other xenophobic material on it. A user is claiming that this website is acceptable for use. I believe that this source is not reliable and could be original research, but you you believe that this website can or should this source be relied upon for the article? Please post your determination on the talk page of Independent National Socialism. Thank you for reading this.--R-41 (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

WTG DUDE...I'm filling out right now... Form 3949-A... WTG DUDE...

YOU and YOUR BUDs are are fools...68.75.179.155 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with "WTG" and I don't know what you mean by "my buds". However if you are filling out forms, there is no need to waste your time by posting on wikipedia. You are free to contact the foundation and/or fill out your forms, not to make threats, legal or otherwise. Your actions and comments are not conducive to a civil editing atmosphere. Please stop. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think it would be better for the project...

...I could refrain from editing these articles JoeHazelton has such a woody over. --BenBurch (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really my call. . .I am reluctant to tell anyone to refrain from editing (esp. if they have the self-awareness to ask the question in the first place). Excepting unusual circumstances, you might consider limiting yourself to 1 revert and closely adhering to the WP:BRD model (this is just good wiki-editing in general). Also, be sure to insist on impeccable sourcing when it comes to info that could be considered disparaging to people (moreso when it's someone you disagree with). Using the various noticeboards (BLPN, RSN, basically any outside input, etc.) when you run into a (seemingly intractable) problem, is also a good way to go.

Not sure how much this helps, because of the particular kind of long term socking here . . .I would recommend a more dispassionate phrasing along the lines of WP:DNFTT (for example, ". . . woody . . ." magically becomes --> ". . .unhealthy long-term interest. . ."). R. Baley (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Would appear that he has another sock; Wikidemo. Look at his revert when I added him to the checkuser... I will take your advice on the reverts. --BenBurch (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're going down the wrong path by asserting that Wikidemo is a Joe sock. Personally, I would retract and apologize quickly. R. Baley (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ben, I've had to rethink the advice I gave above. I think your reaction to Wikidemo was not justified. It would be best if you took a week off from the Peter Roskam article. You've just been too close to the eye of the storm, so to speak. I also recommend temporarily taking it off your watchlist so as to avoid any temptation. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

IP talk page

Should something be done about User talk:98.223.48.177, the IP you just blocked... ccwaters (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've semi'd the talk page for a bit. Let me know if anything else turns up. R. Baley (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

So where does truth and reason belong in the article?

Hello. You win, for now. Your tyrannical will over reason in this particular instance. I hope you understand your mistake some day. So where does an obvious fact like the logical fallacy of the appeal to the majority belong in the article? Are you familiar with this logical mistake? Are you open to correction? I sincerely hope you see how tyrannical you acted with my small and clear edit, and no good explanation for rejecting a very basic logical statement. --Joseph Prymak (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joseph, we perhaps fundamentally disagree on which side makes appeals to authority. . .regardless, if you would like to make that particular edit, I suggest gaining a consensus at the talk page per WP:BRD. Personally I don't think it fits in as it isn't really pertinent to the preceding info (which is sourced) or encyclopedic (even if it was sourced), but I'm not the only editor here. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not even say which side makes the appeal to majority. I did not say anything about appeal to authority. Some on both sides make up lists of scientists and appeal to some major amount. I am taking no side, and simply stating a logical fact. You reject some basic logic, not me. I take no personal offense to the use of reason and logic or not. I am however amazed how there is a use of will power by you without a good argument to back it up. I sincerely hope you understand how you have made an error in judgment and logic. By assuming I even took a side, which I did not, this indicates to me that you are biased and on one side. Surely there should be some neutral, logical statements allowed? --Joseph Prymak (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This would be a topic for the talk page of the article(s). As I said, personally, I didn't see that the sentence was encyclopedic or relevant to the section, perhaps others will feel differently. Feel free to discuss your edit there. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not even get a fair warning! The warning came after I did my 4th edit, so how is that a warning? It is not a warning. How can I ignore a warning that did not even exist yet prior to my 4th edit? Again, Baley, you claim what is not real or true. I also did not intend to take a side as you claim. I was merely trying to point out a fact of logic, that either side should not make. I think a good edit would have been to move my edit, or improve it, instead of delete it with no good reason. Clearly you are not editing and just policing the article for your own one sided, not neutral personal point of view. --Joseph Prymak (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, well, that was indeed a warning. I saw you had been here a while, and so assumed, at first, you would be well aware of 3RR. There is a 3RR noticeboard, which your edits, as they were across two articles (and I believe at least 4 edits per article) could have resulted in a report there (and a probable subsequent block). I did not, because you said you would not do it any more. And I never said that you *did* ignore a warning, just that I was apprehensive that you were *going* to do so. I was very much hoping to avoid a 3RR report (pain in the ass those things, less than clear template, gotta collect diffs, etc.). Hope this clarifies things somewhat. R. Baley (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Violet Blue (author)

Can you take a look at this thread at AN regarding Violet Blue (author) and offer any insight or knowledge on the situation? You were mentioned specifically. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, KL. I left a comment at AN, but have to say I'm not aware of any threats, and couldn't find any earlier, with regard to the Violet Blue situation. R. Baley (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

River Thames Frost Fair

I note you edit states please regard the consensus at talk, thanks. I would ask you to where I have not. Lucian Sunday (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that you are just changing it for the sake of changing. . .continuing to do so will likely be considered disruptive by most editors. R. Baley (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have found additional references and have discussed my findings with those that are interested. Could I ask what you interest is ? Perhaps we could discuss this on the talk page. Lucian Sunday (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My interest is only minimizing disruption. As the term British isles includes England, narrowing the scope of the impact is less accurate. That is to say, if some sources say "British Isles" and some sources simply say "England", since England is part of the BI, it is better to say BI (as England is included) than it is to say England (which is not a term that includes all of the BI and thus not as accurately descriptive). In any event, yes, the talk page of the article is the best place to continue the discussion. R. Baley (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You removed references to 3 peer reviewed journals with aWeb page which does not make any such claim. Lucian Sunday (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A question

I think I'm gonna request a free image from a Wikipedia biography subject by following your guide. I was wondering, if I'm planning to upload the image to Commons and the subject doesn't speak English to understand the e-mail, what should I do? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Admiral Norton, just off the top of my head. . .I would check that the commons license (here) is available in the language of interest (available languages are at the top of the license). Assuming that it is, then I would try to find someone, through the wikipedia Babel project, who could translate a request. Does that help? R. Baley (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Votevets logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Votevets logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia meetup in New Orleans

(This is being cross-posted to everyone listed in Category:Wikipedians from Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Category:Wikipedians in New Orleans, Louisiana)

Infrogmation and I are organizating a Wikipedia meetup in New Orleans on Saturday, August 23. Everyone is invited. Raul654 (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Jsn9333

Hey R.Baley! Remember Jsn9333 (talk · contribs), who was blocked and later sanctioned at WP:ANI? Specifically he was advised to stop making spurious edits, attacking other editors, and to prove his good faith interest in contributing by editing topics other than trying to push an agenda? Well, once he was enjoined he stopped contributing. Well, now he's returned (see AuburnPilot's post here). Having not complied with the parameters of the injunction, and having only returned to shovel his agenda. Can you handle this? Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey y'all!

We're going to be having our first Mississippi meetup next month, and I would love it if you'd like to come out! A few of us will be staying overnight, so if you feel up to it, we could have a meet and greet that night and then breakfast the next morning and talk about Wikipedia and everyone's areas of expertise. Let's show 'em how it's done Southern-style! Mike H. Fierce! 21:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! R. Baley (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

I was just having a look through some of the hot spots I watch (I returned from vacation today), and was pleased to see your involvement at Rick Reilly and Joseph Farah. Welcome back! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup service

It's good (?) to know you are still watching!?!  :) --GoRight (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, but I seem to be a bit slow with the buttons of late. R. Baley (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's because you're too busy cleaning up messes. I block first, clean up later, so enamoured am I with seeing my handle in block logs. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure it needs mentioning, but

I am certainly not out to get him. I reported him for some unpleasant behavior some time ago, and Chris blocked him. I don't have his page watchlisted, and am not stalking him. Not sure how to address this issue, except to simply ignore it. Anything else becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, which would be a damn shame. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You have previously admitted to watchlisting my talk page. You specifically refused to unwatch it, stating you had every right to monitor me and watch over everything I do. All the proof's in those old AN/I reports. ThuranX (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not watching your page, though I did for a time, and had every right to. I am not denying that I watchlisted your page. I am denying that I stalk/hound you and whatnot. Remember, you reverted and commented on my edits, attacking me.

Unfortunately, clearing up these fabrications isn't calming the situation down. I am going to pretty much ignore you, unless you escalate this matter in such a way that I have no choice but to address it. Please stop now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology (C)(T) 08:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Block settings

Hello. This user is another sock as involved here, so as it's a Grawp sock, the talk page should be blocked as well. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Gah. Never mind, it's already been dealt with :) ~ Troy (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Troyster87

An article that you have been involved in editing, Troyster87, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J Stalin (3rd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Troyster87 (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho

Thanks for the note — I will not unblock, simply because of the reasons for my blocking. I'm altogether unfamiliar with both editors and their dispute, and the only reason that I blocked was because of the repeated posting of the email address. I don't believe that there's any situation in which one editor should post another editor's personal email address, regardless of the behaviour its owner. If the block is taken higher up, I'll calmly oppose unblocking, but I don't see it as a big deal (it's only 24 hours after all), so I'll not, say, start fighting about it. Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you're an admin — please don't start wheel warring. Again, I'll not oppose an unblock consensus at ANI if one emerges, but I'll "complain" about one other administrator doing it alone. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikiport

Wikiport (talk · contribs) Remember this yahoo? He was causing major disruption on several of the more contentious articles (Fox News Channel, Keith Olbermann, etc) pushing an agenda. He was brought to ANI a few times, and ultimately he was offered the option of making constructive contributions to non-contentious articles for a short while to show he was here to improve Wikipedia by following policy. Instead, he simply disappeared for about 6 months. Well, he's back now and seems to be again trying to bait other editors. I gave him a pretty firm "do it again and be banned" notice on his user talk, but would you mind keeping an eye and following through? Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the last ANI thread I could find concerning this user (link). . . R. Baley (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently they're all running together these days... I believe the topic ban action (including your involvement) was regarding another editor (oops), but I do appreciate you digging up the link. I'm sure we'll (I'll) need it soon. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision

Why did you undo the revision?

Do have a problem with the infobox? And the information it contains?

Or with the scholarly classification that existed in the article for years?

Please follow wikipedia policy on discussing what edits should be removed and on what grounds. I will revert the article, since the additions are in accordance with wikipedia policy and not in contradistinction to it.

Thank you and have a nice day.--Gkeorgke (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You're edit warring with FPS, and frankly I trust his judgment. Presumably you're aware of WP:3RR. Though your account is about a month old, I suspect you have been editing much longer and/or have an alt account. Edit warring in this area will lead to a block.

Your welcome, and I already have. . . R. Baley (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not see your logic here, and why I am the one edit-warring and not him? so you are saying that you are reverting the article so that he does not revert the article himself, and break the three-revert rule himself?

And why do you trust him? Do you have any knowledge on the issue, or are you just gaming the system on his behalf? FPaS has history for Macedonia related articles and his most recent disruptive editings have gone to the ARBCOM for Macedonian related issues.

In the end, do you have any knowledge to judge my edits or are you just gaming the system on his behalf?

If you do have nay knowledge then I am certain we can discuss your points for the article, according to wikipedia policy instead of simply discarding scholarly contributions for POV-pushing of some established administrator.

--Gkeorgke (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• What is your other account? R. Baley (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you will not answer to any of my questions. Please refrain from gaming the system, and editing pages which you have no knowledge to carry out even the most basic discussion.

Thank you.--Gkeorgke (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So you will not reveal the name of your other account then. . . evading a block or ban? R. Baley (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Give it a rest with fishing. Worry about yourself gaming the system. Or opt for some basic decency to engage in constructive conversation regarding the actual topic, which most evidently you are incapable to, so refrain from editing. Have a good day or night. --Gkeorgke (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia 2

Thanks for your kind remarks on Fut. Perf's user talk page - you're certainly right about the "little appreciation" part! If you have any thoughts about the situation, you might want to add something to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VK vandal

Please check your entry. There is no registered user named User:VK vandal OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I put a note at the top to that effect, just not sure what to call the user. I suppose it could be renamed to any one of the random sock names. . .or to Tile join, if it turns out to be related to that account. R. Baley (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick Revision

Thanks for the quick revision on AFA. I didn't notice links to additional pages.  EJNOGARB  21:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No prob, took me a minute to see the additional links at the bottom as well. R. Baley (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support last night in the discussion on my talk page. It was greatly appreciated. BTW, since when does editing Wikipedia take a back seat to a TV show? (big grin) Horologium (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Most welcome! As to the other part, since forever :-) but it was also the season finale (they're running out of time!). Best, R. Baley (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

sigh...

I bring this to your attention. It is essentially a veiled attack on Ryu and you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it for a bit longer. . . R. Baley (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech

Developments were happening fast and thick at ANI and user talk last night. This went down at the very end of my evening, so didn't have time to see the full outcome and follow up. Have started a subthread at ANI you'll probably want to read. In the last few minutes before you implemented the block DougsTech was becoming cooperative.[1] His actions changed my view of this incident; they might change yours. With respect, Durova^Charge! 15:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Durova. I appreciate your efforts to calm things down, but I disagree that DT was exhibiting any better judgment than before your offer to start an RFC/dialogue. His posts were still baiting and insulting and then he began a retaliatory ANI on Ryulong. When I blocked, I remember that the motion to indef ban had slightly more support than not (but that even among those who did not support indef, ~24 hrs was supported).

DT's posts (subsequent to the RfC section you started) led to about 10 more editors supporting an indef, and led Firestorm (sp?) to switch his opinion (conversely, no editors had added there names to the 'oppose' section before I had turned in for the night). I haven't looked at the thread yet today, but am going there after this post to see what, if anything, additionally needs to be done.

Best, R. Baley (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can see that DT has been community banned at this point (implemented by Sandstein). Looking over the reasons and numbers in the discussion, I concur with Sandstein's judgment and probably would have done the same myself (although, I probably tend to allow discussion to go a bit longer). Unless something dramatically changes, I think this should just sit for a while, and the community can revisit and discuss any unblocking conditions should the need present itself in (at a minimum) a few months time. R. Baley (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI. Nothing serious.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the assistance with ThePizzaEatingCaveman. What started as a small edit war became a very stressful incident to deal with.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for fixing up my userpage after the vandalism. I think that's the first time my userpage has been vandalised, funnily enough. It was a thoroughly disappointing experience all in all, I was sort of hoping for something vaguely amusing, witty or cunning! Coldmachine^Talk 19:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, most welcome. Vandalism is usually disappointing with regard to either wit or originality. R. Baley (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Help requesting image

Hey there, I emailed a guy about whether I could use his pictures and he that I can. Now I need some help on the declaration regarding this:

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the image(s) attached to this email.

Does the copyright holder have to provide the links to the images or do I have to do it? That is all I'm confused on. Thanks. Showtime2009 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The text refers to pics which are sent to you in an email as an attachment. If the pictures are already hosted somewhere and the email merely links to it, I suppose that might do. . .if OTRS is able to reasonably ascertain that the person you are emailing does have the right to release the image.

By the way, I haven't kept up with the switch in licensing for the GFDL stuff, just to be safe I would make sure to get the CC-by-SA-3.0 license. R. Baley (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk page as a forum

Hi R. Baley, an editor writes that he does not want summarize O'Reilly's smears and you see nothing wrong with that? Interesting. --Tom (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Some people probably think O'Reilly 'smears' people. Don't watch him myself, but the comment overall appeared to be advocating a presentation of article content -that's germane to a talk page thread about the topic. If the comment were primarily along the lines of, "Hey OREILLY smears people!!!!" or similar (even if long-winded) then yeah, remove it as the talk page is not a forum. R. Baley (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is that it is not necessary nor appropriate to use such language about the subject of the article on the talk page. People have strong opinions about O'Reilly, got it, but its better that people not show their bias on the talk page with such comments because its hard for other editors then not to think that bias will not carry over to their editing. Anyways, cheers, --Tom (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Pzrmd

Please recuse or whatever from my "investigation." Pzrmd (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't do. I don't know your previous account and neither does anyone else (so far). You need to connect it for someone you trust. If there are no problems (for instance with a previous block log) I myself will trust any bureaucrat, you care to resolve this with. Otherwise the Pzrmd account is inscrutable, and is way too interested in the internal processes of the wiki to continue. See also my comment here: Sockpuppet investigations/pzrmd -diff. Please understand why this can't be allowed. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

You beat me to it replacing this file, so thanks. Erikeltic (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved RFC

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_page_indexing. Gigs (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 14:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File:John Batiste votevets video.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:John Batiste votevets video.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Tripoli

• 19:33, 21 June 2008 R. Baley protected Treaty of Tripoli ‎ (persistant anon blanking vandalism; any admin free to unprotect after a few days. . . but the anon watches the expiration -leaving indef for now [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still necessary. This is part of my large scale review of all longstanding indefinite semiprotections. Please see the discussion I started at talk:Treaty of Tripoli. --TS 04:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony, unprotected, I blanked the section on the TP, in case anyone was watching to cause mischief. I didn't intend for the semi to really be indefinite -just wanted the end time to be unknown. R. Baley (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so I gathered. Well let's hope the vigilant mischief-maker has found something more useful to do with his life. --TS 16:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh my....

<Snickers>[2] Thanks for fixing that, oddly that seems to happen more often than I would have expected... Risker (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

my surfing feels out of place today with the touchpad and no mouse. . . R. Baley (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Dan Wallace's picture

Dear R. Baley, I was unable to write to you directly since there was no hyperlink provided. I have a picture to upload. You can write me at [redacted R.baley] for it. Thanks,

Dan Wallace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbw2882 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I replied at your email. R. Baley (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Pregnancy

need consensus to change

Please show me the policy that says that. There is no such policy. An editor does not need consensus to change anything on Wikipedia. You need consensus to keep a disputed image, and there is no such consensus as all of the discussion has demonstrated. Why would we keep a disputed image in the lead section when we have dozens of available, alternative images? You need to support a compromise that ends the conflict, not continue a dispute by restoring an image that has no support. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And just for the record, you've made 34 edits in 2011, ten or more of which were reverts. It concerns me to see someone using an admin account only for reverting other editors. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the record. . .good luck with your edits. best, R. Baley (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. B^e——C_ritical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing R. Baley a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 23:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Watch list

You asked about better ways of using your watchlist when bots are about. There is a good tool, which I can't remember the name of. It is definitely worth asking on WP:VPT. Rich Farmbrough, 03:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC).

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for this edit. I was sorely tempted to do something like that myself, but as a non-admin I didn't think it was my place to do so. BMK (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain why you reverted another admin's non-block close at AE? Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 04:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The close was not reverted, the close message was changed from an expression of the original closing admin's personal opinion, which was irrelevant to the close, to something more neutral and appropriate for an official admin action. I applaud the change. BMK (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, R. Baley. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi R. Baley.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, R. Baley. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, R. Baley. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, R. Baley. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — JJMC89 bot 00:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)