User talk:R. Baley/Archive3

WT:RFA Proposal
Hi R. Baley, I've edited the proposal to read < 90% rather than = 75%, if this changes your opinion can you edit your comment when you have a chance? Thanks, Avruch  T 02:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left an additional comment, hopefully it's clear enough. R. Baley (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

RFAR
I had something like your approach in mind as a possibility when I commented that arb cases didn't have to be harsh. If it can be done, go for it. FT2 (Talk 00:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dan Brown and exe files
I saw the repeated addition of those random links, and I figured they should be removed. I'm fairly sure that adding an .exe file to a page isn't a good idea. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, he's blocked already. Redrocket (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I figured that would happen, but there was always a chance someone might protect all of the pages instead. Thanks for looking into it.  R. Baley (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Woo, spooky.
I was just opening up your talk page to ask you a question when I saw my talk page messages pop up. I unprotected it, and you're right, it is completely unnecessary. Thanks for the heads up, in any case! Cheers, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! ☺  07:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. the question was whether you were interested in a script that allows you to use the rollback tool with custom edit summaries. I'm not sure if it works for non-admins, but we can test that out, if you're willing. The script is here. Cheers again, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! ☺  07:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think it will conflict with TW? I can add an edit summary if I use rollback via twinkle on the revision diff page. But there's no option to add a summary if I use rollback option on the "revision history" page.  I guess as long as nothing breaks I would prefer the option to add a summary (as I almost always can't help myself in adding one anyway).  R. Baley (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship
 Dear R. Baley, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :) I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"source it"
in the joey travolta article, did you mean add it as a reference? Perl (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What I mean is, if you want to write that someone is a "suicidal gay porn director" (or any variant thereof) you need impeachable sources. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you might prefer unimpeachable sources, but I guess we could have different readings of WP:RS (emoticon would go here if I didn't hate them so much). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha, yes, I goofed on that one! "unimpeachable" is definitely what I meant. In any case, I think Perl got the point :-) R. Baley (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at the diff again and realized that I had accidently reverted the article to a previously vandalised revision. I apologize for the confusion. Perl (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sir That IS WHY I ERASED The content
I am trying to be civil, but I don't like it when people make allegations against me about being a stalker like the way Ms. Knott did. I'm asking you, is that acceptable for her to do as well? I love to do edits about film history, and I don't stalk anybody. Before I even knew who Thegingerone even was, I have been editing many content related to film. Go ahead and accuse me of being disruptive, but that is not what I feel I am doing at all. I feel I'm just another person who wants justice, and I don't stand for injustice. Best.Kevin j (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to back off, I know Theresa Knott does good valuable work here, and I consider her to be both thoughtful and fair, you on the other hand, I only know from your latest postings (which, so far, are not to your credit.) I have yet to accuse you of anything, but you were claiming that your accusations had no racist overtones or implications, despite absolute evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, you don't get to delete whole threads from someone else's talk page.  You are free to strike parts of your own comments ( like this ), or perhaps even blank them if no one has responded (or the parts to which no one has responded).  Finally, you are currently welcome to post on my talk page, but I recommend you stop using capital letters (on-line, capital letters indicate "shouting" not emphasis.  I recommend that you leave a note on Jimbo's page to the effect of withdrawing your complaint, so that it may in a short time be archived.  Thanks,  R. Baley (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Adminship?
I dimly remember you once making some comment about never wanting to be an admin, but I may have fabricated that memory entirely. In any event, have you ever considered it? You seem like an excellent candidate to me: you're experienced (although you might snag a few opposes from people with editcountitis), you contribute in areas in which the tools would be helpful, you're level-headed and reasonable...thank about it, anyway. I'd be more than happy to nominate you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi SI, thanks for your offer, and to elaborate a little, I certainly had those sentiments in the past. However, I am going to seriously consider your offer due to some recent events.  More specifically, in the past if I needed to bring something to an admin's attention, the urgency was low and I felt comfortable waiting.  But lately, I have found myself somewhat involved in matters that are private and urgent and harmful to editors who volunteer their time here.  Sometimes, people are soliciting for help through email even.  I don't mind helping, but my ability to do so quickly without drawing undue attention to certain edits is difficult (and timely responses are occasionally very important).
 * I appreciate your offer, and I will need to think about it for a bit (a couple of days ought to do it). Thanks,  R. Baley (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. Once you've made up your mind, let me know on my talk page (I've watchlisted yours, but I've also watchlisted those of pretty well every other editor I've ever talked to, so sometimes I miss stuff). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As an FYI, I've done up your nomination here. Don't let that pressure you one way or another.  I just did it tonight because I have more time tonight than I expect to in a couple of days. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi SI, sorry to be taking so long, I'm still weighing some things. . .I'll get back to you as soon as I've made a decision. Thanks again,  R. Baley (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've decided to accept and left a note on your talk page. Thanks again,  R. Baley (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Great to hear - you're transcluded. Best of luck! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hey AC
R.Baley, anyone wanting to talk to me isn't offensive at all. What's on your mind regarding the HP dab? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. What's up? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hi Gwynand
I've replied at my talk page. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 18:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Charles Swift CSPAN.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Charles Swift CSPAN.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 21:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Note
Hi R. Baley, I've left a couple of questions on your RfA. They are absolutely imperative to your judgment as an admin. :) Good luck. Acalamari 19:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Anyway, I've left a comment on the noticeboard. I don't normally deal with issues like this, but I suppose a little help should be of some use. :) Acalamari 20:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also this. Acalamari 01:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And I didn't realize you were the one who granted the rollback. . .that whole thing had a wild-west feel to it at the time.  Also a thank-you for the comment at BLPN, given that it has apparently been an issue going on 3 years now, I think it's going to take a few people to keep it under control.  R. Baley (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome for the comment on BLPN, my support in your RfA, and the rollback. :) In fact, I think I'd forgotten I'd given you rollback as well: when I granted your request, the process was new at the time, and since I've granted so many people rollback now, it's not easy to remember everyone who I've given it to (well over 200 people!). :( I do remember, however, that when I granted it to you, I knew you would be a person who would use it wisely, and it seems I was right. :) Thank you. Acalamari 16:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are now an administrator
I'm happy to inform you that, due to your successful request for adminship, you have now been promoted to an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or stop by the administrators' noticeboard. Congrats! Andre (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Congrats, as nom. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on your successful request for adminship! Here's your new T-shirt! Don't forget to visit the school for new admins. Good luck! Acalamari 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thanks! Just got back from a job interview as well. . .today is turning out to be a banner one! R. Baley (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome to my nightmare. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Congrats on your successful RfA! Razorflame (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Question
In regards to this edit, should I add the IP to the list? It's from a different range, but I assume it's the same stalker. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead, he just got blocked. R. Baley (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unblocked, per this edit . R. Baley (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Doh!" AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Don Siegelman
Could you please explain why you reversed my edits to Don Siegelman? What I posted was factually correct. That article is incredibly bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scatteredsmothered (talk • contribs) 13:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping me with this. I didn't have time to do any legwork, and you did a lot more looking in than I expected (ANI is a craps shoot at best). I consider myself an experienced editor... I've been editing since 2004 (though my earliest stuff has all been deleted), and this is the first time I've met a troll who does it so well. I really don't know what to do, but I do note that several other established editors and respected admins are all crying foul with regards to this guy. What should we do? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would go ahead and notify the editor on his talk page for now. Sorry I missed the end edit time (I was looking at the wrong page).  I'll make that correction at ANI.  I don't have much time to follow up right now, but I will add the appropriate pages to my watchlist.  R. Baley (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Notification complete. Congratulations on the RFA and the job.  Thanks for your interest and continued involvement.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Note
New information has come forward since you commented, in that JoshuaZ has used abusively sockpuppets to affect Brandt DRVs in the past. . You may wish to review. Lawrence Cohen §  t / e  17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks LC, I have changed to neutral for now, but I would need to see something definitive for such a long term user, who seems to have had no problems other than possibly the one related to all of that craziness. R. Baley (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Peace
R. Baley, thanks for taking the time to help resolve the endless bad faith, disruptive atmosphere on the FNC talk page. Your remedies will surely help us get back on track, and hopefully allow an editor to prove he's here to work constructively. You clearly put in a great deal of time reviewing the history of the dispute, which is something few others have done. Thanks again, - auburn pilot  talk  00:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the "thanks". I hope to be able to pick a thread like this at least every other week.  I'd like to do it more often, but it does take a good deal of time.  I appreciate your willingness to "get in the trenches" there (so to speak).  Also, I've tried to archive the contentious (or stale) threads at FNC talk.  Feel free to adjust as necessary, but it was getting pretty bloated.  Thanks again, and your welcome. R. Baley (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * AuburnPilot already beat me to it. You definitely deserve a barnstar for all the legwork on this one.  I think everyone is satisfied with the outcome, and it certainly shows that giving you the mop was an excellent choice by the community.  I do want to ask you about how I should handle the continued (freaky) obsession/stalking/shit talking (examples here (more specific), here).  I have no desire to "poke" or otherwise exacerbate the situation, nor do I want to appear to be a whiny luser with nothing better to do.  However, I find this editor's obsession with me (most especially attempting to trash my reputation and attempts to get me "punished") disturbing and counterproductive.  Any advice would be appreciated.  Thanks for everything you've done.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you run into any further edits which concern you, just leave a diff at my talk page. I wouldn't even comment, probably.  Just leave a diff, and I'll investigate and try to resolve it.  Best,  R. Baley (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Thanks.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ping. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ping pong. Really earning that barnstar, eh?  ;-)  There is also a relevant thread at WP:ANI, in which AuburnPilot has suggested (and I agree) that this all appears linked back to another stalking/harassing puppetmaster that was blocked not long before this editor showed up exhibiting the same sort of behavior.  Hope your weekend is going well - I remember you noting that you would be out of pocket for a while soon.  I fear you're the only admin who has the patience and stamina to see this through to (complete) conclusion.  Thanks again for all your hard work. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

your banning me
This is per your message on my talk page. As I understand it, the consensus of the editors (that is, the solution the editors agreed on) in the complaint was a much shorter block. Two of the editors, of the four responding, (Blaxthos and I excluded of course) desired a block of a few days to a week, and one of those desired for Blaxthos to be blocked as well. So is your proposed solution simply your advice to me, or are you saying it is the "official" consensus. I'm just not exactly sure what is going on, please clarify for me. Thank you. Jsn9333 (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talk page (link). R. Baley (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply and clarification. I have another question on my talk page.  Thanks. Jsn9333 (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... and I have another question... (let me know if you are checking my page and my letting you know here is unnecessary)Jsn9333 (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Another response is on my talk page. Please be patient with me and give it a read... this is the last one. Jsn9333 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Jsn9333
I am sorry. I have reviewed the links you have provided in your block notice, and I don't see at ALL where he is violating the terms of his topic ban. The two links you provided were to his own user talk page. I see no violation that merits this block. This user may or may not have been acting properly in other aspects of his editing at Wikipedia, and the topic ban may be fully justified, but I don't see where he has violated that ban, NOR do I see where, in the difs you gave, he did anything else blockable. I am inclined to grant his unblock request unless you can show me where, if he were allowed to edit, he would likely cause problems for Wikipedia during the next 24 hours. Please responde ASAP, otherwise I will probably unblock him... --Jayron32. talk . contribs 18:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would rather you didn't. . .instead of moving on, he has continued to attack Blaxthos, on his talk page (virtually every post does this, "Blaxthos continually bites newcomers at the Fox News entry." is in the 2nd diff. It's a long diff I know, but every comment is).  I'm trying to get everything past the disruptive dispute that broke out at the FNC and its talk page.  If you disagree that I'm going the right way here, please take it to ANI, perhaps more uninvolved editors will look at it this time.  But there's a lot to catch up on, and I urge you not to act in haste.  Thanks,  R. Baley (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I will take it to ANI for further review. Please check there for a thread regarding this... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations for the adminship. Happy Editing - Tinucherian (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Help
Please help stop this bullshit. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

GOOD JOB
blocking and censorship will not work... this is only the beginnings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.180.100 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dumb clucks don't get it... the more you ban and block, the more wikipeidia will suck. The more it's becomes a closed cult, and the more civilians consider wikipridia=Jimbo cult of slander and lies. Less money and support wiki gets.  I have time... it's like the Chinese finger puzzle...more you resist, the more you (wikipeidia) is hurt.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.180.100 (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. Be well, R. Baley (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You be well on the Juice of the Jimbo Wales.68.75.176.186 (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good one! R. Baley (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmm...that's good Jimbo Juice. Redrocket (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipeida is a toxic waste of power drunk admin with bad wire in the head. Ever day, wikipeidia resembles more and more like a jim jones cult and the world is coming to know that truth. Snark don't cover up that fact, a fact that many in the "REAL WORLD" is now beginning to realize... I wonder when the first class action will happen?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.164.104 (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. No offense, but your metaphors need work. Redrocket (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, one would really only assume things would get better for WP by filtering out those that feel like destroying it for fun... —  Dæ dαlusT@lk / Improve 18:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You read my mind
Check out the block log on : you swooped in just before I clicked the "31 hours" button! :-P  --Kralizec! (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries, as you blocked for the exact same duration I was going to use. To be honest, I am glad to see that there are other non-hardass admins on AIV patrol.  Too many of our fellow admins would have just clicked the indef block button without a second thought.  --Kralizec! (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I was waffling between the exact times you were. :-) R. Baley (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

why did you?
These articles are all related and have the same weakness/strength.

Furthermore, Gras11 added an article to the list.

You can't remove some just because of your opinion.

Let the process continue please.

Note that I did not include a child of a politician that is much different (is an independent filmmaker) Watchingobama (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are free to nominate in a separate Afd, but not to change an ongoing one in such a substantial way, especially after so many have already weighed in. Do not do it again please.  Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New section so things don't get confusing.
I understand what you mean, I honestly have nothing against your practices, and actually, mine are similar. I usually leave my talk page alone, letting my bots archive it and the like, so that I may use it for reference if ever required. I know that may not be the same, but, meh.—  Dæ dαlusT@lk / Improve 19:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
I appreciate your comments on my talk page. I've also left a message at the admins page once again trying to explain what happened, and to get some clarification on why there was no communication.

Whatever happens, I appreciate your help in trying to sort out the situation. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As you seem to be involved in the situation, your comments are welcome here regarding Redrockets block. Thank you.  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs) @  '' 02:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing it up. I'm going to give Zscout a bit of time to explain his block or more hopefully, apologize, before I comment further.  R. Baley (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do have to say that you made me laugh with your posts, feel free to call me Mr. Fan2007 :) <font size="2px" color="teal"> « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @  '' 20:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

SSP and Deleting Talk Page Comments
Hello from Lantana11. I am very grateful for your help and understanding in the matter I have brought before all of you. I have learned a couple of things about Wikipedia in recent days; one, that some heated edit discussions are common, and two, that the Wikipedia community is extensive and very quick to offer assistance and advice (for the betterment of the site). I don't plan to repeat the episode that resulted in the SSP, and I feel a lot better about my user status now. Perhaps we will be communicating again in the future. All the best, Lantana11 (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

SGR
SGR was unblocked on the specific condition of not edit warring any more. Plainly, that condition has been violated. Would you please consider blocking? Not giving out warnings, but actually literally imposing the conditions previously accepted? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a fair point there. If a user is unblocked on specific instructions and ignores them, why should they not be re-blocked? Warnings are for people who don't know that they're doing wrong - not a way of escaping sanctions. All this does is to encourage editors to ignore sanctions because they'll "always" get a warning first - until then they can cause merry-hell. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you both have a good point, though nothing I wrote precluded any admin from implementing a block (I believe I said I wouldn't be surprised if someone did, -I was just stating what I was going to do at the time). That being said, since I've stuck my toe in it, I'll go all in and examine the pros and cons . . .should have a decision within 30 minutes or so.  R. Baley (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers - I think you made the right decision. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

SSP and Lantana 11
Hello...I wanted to let you know that I deleted and archived the "suspected sock puppet" notice on my 67.180.135.133 user page. Since the SSP template on my Lantana11 page has been removed, I assumed this was all right. However, if my removing the notice is outside the bounds of policy and only an admin can do so please let me know and it shall be reverted. I do not plan to edit using only my IP address again, but, as you can see, I am very eager to make a completely fresh start. I do not want to make any more errors in judgment. Thanks very much, Lantana11 (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Happy editing,  R. Baley (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to finish--
Thank you again...as a Wikipedian I feel I am in good hands.Lantana11 (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey maybe you can help me with something. A Link to the Past has been vandalizing List of Wii games I have told the user to please see the talk page before doing anything, after that he started flaming with other users, trolling on trolling here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, under Australian release dates and also on my page User talk:Lbrun12415/Archive 2 can you do anything to help.--Lbrun12415 15:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

can you please help
this user A Link to the Past has no left me alone ever since I told him GAMEFAQS is not a source also when he vandalized List of Nintendo Wii games Please help I really need it.--Lbrun12415 00:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You told me flat-out that you will continue to vandalize my comments, and you're trying to get me blocked. Let me make it clear that I'm not the one being harassed by constantly having to revert your vandalism (removing my comments from the Wii list talk page, editing my comment by adding a POV different from my own). Let me just make it clear that you have a really bad understanding of Wikipedia policy, and accusing me of vandalism (which would require a deliberate attempt at damaging an article - aka, an edit made solely for the purpose of making it worse) is also against Wikipedia policy. If you want to be left alone, stop altering my comments and I will. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thought it would help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DarkFierceDeityLink/Archive_2#Response . --Lbrun12415 01:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Lbrun, unfortunately, since the conversation is one-sided (responses from one editor and nothing to indicate what precipitated the comments/responses), I would have to go digging around to find out exactly what transpired. . .not gonna do it. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I love how you accused me of trying to get you blocked, when, after both parties agreed that they were done with the arguing, you're still trying to get me blocked. People can't be blocked if there's nothing to indicate that the blockable offense (if it is even there) is likely to continue, and it is not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand, and perhaps have gone a bit ahead of myself. The user just annoyed me when he asserted a right to edit my comment. And I'm sorry for continuing this discussion on your talk page, I shall cease. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

To both ALP and Lbrun, this appears to be a content dispute. If you can't talk it out civilly amongst yourselves, perhaps it would be time to start a Request for comment (If the dispute is just between the 2 of you then Third_opinion may be a better venue).

Looking over the last few edits in the edit history at list of Wii games tp, both of you accuse the other of vandalism in the edit summaries. From Vandalism:
 * "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." (italics added)

Perhaps neither of you have any good faith left. . .it's still not "vandalism", do not keep accusing each other of it. Other than that, all I have to say is that (when disputed) archiving on talk pages is done by consensus. And under no circumstances Lbrun, should you be deleting comments made by other editors at any talk page except your own. If you have a problem with a comment, you should bring it to the attention of an admin (preferably at WP:ANI). Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The accusations of vandalism were with him slashing a part of my comment on the talk page, and refusing to stop. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not the last time you used it diff. R. Baley (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again Link Gamefaqs is not a source you keep saying it is, which is false information. Thank you have a nice day.--Lbrun12415 02:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My talk page is not for the content dispute. Thanks,  R. Baley (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, not one single policy, guideline, essay, or even suggestion allows you to edit my post. If I say you can't edit it in any way, you cannot edit it in any way. It is vandalism through-and-through, as editing my post in such a way completely alters my statement and my stance on the issue. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And sorry, I'm just getting worked up. I'll stop. But on the subject, I called it vandalism because I thought he, in addition to archiving the discussion, slashed my comment. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for blocked the latest iteration of our least favorite sockmaster. I appreciate the admin help. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just noticed it. . .have to admit, your account name was a little confusing at first. Going by Jaysweet's reaction, though, made it a little easier to sort out.  Welcome and happy editing.  R. Baley (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Dayewalker really stepped into a big mess when he arrived due to the username :) At one point, he was being attacked simultaneously by Hdayejr and by people fighting Hdayejr socks!  ha ha ha, oh well...
 * Question for you, Baley... As a non-admin, what is the quickest way to report a mole for whacking when we get these persistent whack-a-mole socks?  If he goes inactive for a few days, the SSP will be closed.  Should I just keep filing new SSPs I guess?  It seems like there ought to be kind of a AIV-like noticeboard for reporting new incarnations of well-known sockmasters...  Letting these guys accumulate a dozen SSP pages seems like it goes against WP:DENY, you know?  Anyway, thanks for the quick reaction, I appreciate it!  :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was trying to find where I had commented on this before, but can't do so quickly, so here's the gist of it. When I wasn't an admin, I would file a report at ANI for the quickest action.  And if I thought it would be a recurring problem, I would save a *.txt file on my hard drive for background info (updated as necessary) because it can be quickly posted and quickly bring people up to speed.  Also on the background file, it's probably best to watch as threads get archived and add the archived link so it will be easily and quickly referenced for any subsequent reports (should they prove necessary).  I would save the SSP reports for more complicated cases and use ANI for more obvious ones.  Hope that helps,  R. Baley (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, it does. I've actually been quite active at ANI recently, but I usually figure that's for complicated problems that need discussion.  To me, it seems just as counterintuitive to report "simple sockpuppetry" to ANI as it does to report simple vandalism there.  But if there's no other place, I'll do that in the future.  Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Hdayejr Sock
Check out User:72.59.120.112. Thanks for all your help, as always! Dayewalker (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome, just a tip or two. . .if you post "" (which looks the same --> ). . . it's quicker to check (for me at least). And also I think at ANI just stick with (or keep adding to) one thread instead of starting a new one each time it comes up.  Thanks for the help at the arbitration case.  R. Baley (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. I've also started adding the DIFFTIME to the IP sock reports over there, that should help show his patterns and how widespread his socking and attacks are. Thanks again! Dayewalker (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/Xted
All accounts have been blocked as sockpuppets, so the request has been completed. Red Thunder  21:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please delete a set of false accusations
Hi, please delete the accusations Dzonatas posts against me in his latest unblock request. An accusation of e-mail harassment is a serious matter. I'm one of the editors whose posts are apt to get followed, and a false claim such as that one could get picked up and repeated. His message to me included f*** off for life and various other expletives. My complete reply--the only e-mail I've ever sent to him--was Don't ever try to contact me again. I will gladly send you copies of both messages if you wish to verify independently. Thank you. Durova Charge! 00:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No need, I've read enough at this point to just redact. My apologies for not doing it sooner -just got sidetracked.  R. Baley (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Durova Charge! 00:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely let me know if I missed anything. Also, if anything similar is posted, I will protect (and probably blank) the page.  Unless somebody beats me to it. . . Best,  R. Baley (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's good enough, thanks. Durova Charge! 01:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

your ridicolouse accusation of SP!
you wrote "At least he keeps the same account, some users manage to get into an edit war, find their own way to WP:3RR, and edit their monobook --all on their first day! It's enough to make a person wonder, what did your block log look like before you used the SomUsr account? R. Baley (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)" so your only "evidence" to accuse me of SP is that i edited my monobook the first day?! that IS ridicolouse! take that back and appologize, i never got blocked, i never had another acc and never violated any wikirules. i will file a complain against you. enough is enough! SomeUsr|<font style="color:green;background:#FFFF66">Talk |<font color="#990000">Contribs 23:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * File a complaint then, your first day's contrib history doesn't look right for a new user. Especially, with your multiple threats to report everyone and frequent refs to SA's blocklog.  On Day 1 you made over 60 edits, got into an edit war, started templating users, edited your monobook to add twinkle, and made a report at an admin noticeboard.  That's a lot of precociousness for a newbie.  Just calling like I see it.  R. Baley (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * you still have ZERO evidence to back up you lousy accusations. when you call my knowledge of some wiki stuff, which i had right AFTER creating a acc, "evidence" then you got a wrong understanding of "evidence" in this case. wiki is not too hard to understand. SomeUsr|<font style="color:green;background:#FFFF66">Talk |<font color="#990000">Contribs 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't want editors to scrutinize your background, discuss article content instead of throwing around templates and making threats. R. Baley (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A Wikipedian using a second account does not make them a sock puppet. Accusing an editor of being a sock puppet because their account is new, but they appear to know their way around, does not make them a sock puppet. Refrain from accusing editors of being sock puppets when you don't have any evidence of them being sock puppets. -- Ned Scott 10:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ned, I believe you have misread the situation, or at least not investigated before leaving your comment. I stand by every comment made and question asked. R. Baley (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A follow-up note
Hi Tariqabjotu, since you commented at a thread on ANI, I thought I'd leave a follow-up note for you. I've considered your opinion (as well as the long term nature of the account and the fact that the incident was isolated) and have lifted the block on User:Cush a bit early (1 week effectively reduced to ~4 days). Thanks for weighing in, R. Baley (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "I've considered your opinion (as well as the long term nature of the account and the fact that the incident was isolated)"
 * Right... except you forgot to mention the most important part: you forced the half-apology out of him. Seriously, I sure hope other isolated incidents of offensive comments toward other groups are treated with this much vigor in the future. No, strike that; I hope they aren't, because such actions would still be considered excessive. We're not the morality police; we block people to prevent users from disrupting the wiki in the future. People felt qualified to somehow extrapolate this one data point into a career spewing anti-semitic jargon. And, of course, the only remedy for such aspiring Jew-baiters is an indefinite block that may only be lifted once an apology (ideally to the entire Jewish people) is given. Yup, even though he had no block history. We don't seem to treat others like this, but, unfortunately, the entire community seemed to rally behind you and explain, presumably to me, in fifteen different ways why "Jew crew" was offensive (as if I didn't already understand). Why? Well, I might conjecture, but I don't want to be blocked indefinitely and forced to give an apology (oh no, I said too much!). --  tariq abjotu  16:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronoun Problem
You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley's Bio
Please explain in what way you feel I have violated WP:BLP.

As and administrator, I believe that you should be familiar with WP:AGF and WP:CIV. As such I would appreciate it if you would refrain from accusing me of "attacking an editor and misrepresenting the substance of an article to do so."

The material I added was a word for word quote directly from the reference provided, a reference which was already relied upon elsewhere in Mr. Connolley's bio. Unlike the selective editing which had been applied to that other reference, my addition accurately reflected specific statements made in the article. If anything my addition was making the references in the bio more accurate and complete, not less, as you suggest.

(insulting material redacted by R. Baley. Restore and be blocked.  Thanks R. Baley (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC))

WP:BLP does not forbid the inclusion of negative material in a bio, it merely requires that there be legitimate WP:RS to back it up. I have provided such a reference as evidenced by the fact that the bio already accepts and relies upon the same exact reference. My addition was properly included within a criticism section of the bio in accordance with common practice in such cases.

Given this I must respectfully request that you restore the content you removed as it is completely in line with the guidance provided by WP:BLP. --GoRight (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied at GoRight user talk page. R. Baley (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I note that you have not bothered to explain in what specific manner I have violated WP:BLP yet you persist in your threats of a block. While your personal opinion of Mr. Connolley and your desire to protect his reputation is noted, that does not give you the ability to simply ignore long-standing Wikipedia policies and established norms in this case.  Mr. Connolley is subject to the same rules as any other biography on Wikipedia, just like those whose biographies he adds criticism to on a regular basis.  If you can't articulate some portion of WP:BLP which I have somehow violated then I must again ask that you restore the material that I have added to his bio.


 * Or is it actually your contention that Mr. Connolley is exempt from criticism? If so, please provide some justification for this.


 * Note also that the incident referenced in the material from a WP:RS source discusses an incident that occurred right here on Wikipedia and is available for all to see as part of the arbitration archives, and the penalty he received as a result is a true fact. None of this information has been misrepresented in any way.


 * The fact that this incident made it into a WP:RS makes it noteworthy, especially given Mr. Connolley's notoriety in such matters. Perhaps some additional outside perspective is required to resolve this impasse.  Let us take this to the WP:RFC/BIO page to gather some additional opinions as to the applicability of the content.  --GoRight (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are free to take it wherever you like, but I will warn you, that if you attack WMC, that will lead to a block. You may, however, choose to comment on his edits in an appropriate forum of dispute resolution (my talk page isn't appropriate) -though I don't recommend it.  You cherry-picked the article to misrepresent the source which you claim backs up your edit.  The article makes clear that it was an anonymous allegation (ultimately unsubstantiated) -- that any repercussions WMC experienced were temporary and that the allegations were refuted (by the revocation of the ridiculous parole, WMC's subsequent elevation to administrator, and Jimbo's statement that ". . .in this case the system failed.")  To elevate two sentences of fringe anonymous pov (even if reliably reported) violates undue weight, Self_reference and most importantly, WP:BLP.  Furthermore your edit appears to be retaliatory in nature given the current dispute at global warming, and the premeditated selection of a user name which indicates a willingness to push a biased POV.  R. Baley (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Our discussion here is related specifically to the allegations of POV pushing on WMC's part as reported in a WP:RS. I am discussing your arbitrary and flawed reading of WP:BLP as it relates specifically to a properly sourced edit that you summarily deleted, apparantly without cause as you have yet to quote the specific section of WP:BLP that you claim I have violated or to specifically demonstrate how my edit actually violates said section.  If you cannot do so then I again, respectfully ask that you restore the content that you wrongfully deleted.


 * Let us now get to the meat of the issue as this is growing tiresome.


 * First, do you dispute that the reference provided is from a WP:RS?


 * Second, do you dispute that the events recounted actually occured, as described, in that WP:RS?


 * Third, do you dispute that the text I provided was a verbatum quote directly from that WP:RS with no paraphrasing or other forms of misrepresentation of the facts that I cited?


 * Fourth, I would ask that you remain WP:CIV and stop attacking me with unsubstantiated accusations of misrepresenting material facts from a WP:RS, and impugning my personal integrity with comments such as "the premeditated selection of a user name which indicates a willingness to push a biased POV." My moniker does no such thing and, consistent with Wikipedia standards you should be WP:AGF which you apparantly are not.


 * Finally, by "I will warn you, that if you attack WMC, that will lead to a block." am I to assume that you intend to block me for posting properly cited criticism of any sort on WMC's bio regardless of its validity, the quality of the sources, and the truth of the allegations?


 * UPDATE: For example, here is an alternative source which discusses much the same point and the substance of which is in line with the point being made (http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=490337). Are you saying that you intend to bar me from referencing this piece as well?  --GoRight (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * UPDATE II: And just for the record, you citing Self_reference is non-sense. It is wholly inapplicable in this instance since, well, the discussion of Wikipedia is not a SELF reference but the inclusion of an EXTERNAL reference.  Self_reference was never intended to prohibit discussion of Wikipedia as it occurs outside of Wikipedia, which this of course does.  --GoRight (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * UPDATE III: I am taking the general topic of criticism of WMC to Talk:William_Connolley. My specific discussion with your arbitrary censuring of material should remain here.  --GoRight (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't make it past "tiresome" but at least we can agree on something. R. Baley (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So you refuse to back up your actions? Interesting.  Regardless, I would appreciate and answer to this item:


 * Finally, by "I will warn you, that if you attack WMC, that will lead to a block." am I to assume that you intend to block me for posting properly cited criticism of any sort on WMC's bio regardless of its validity, the quality of the sources, and the truth of the allegations?


 * For example, here is an alternative source which discusses much the same point and the substance of which is in line with the point being made (http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=490337). Are you saying that you intend to bar me from referencing this piece as well?  --GoRight (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not confuse my unwillingness to get on your merry-go-round of chatter with a refusal to back up my actions. Given that it appears have single-minded purposeful agenda, not to improve an article, but instead to do whatever you can to attack WMC -I will most certainly block if you re-add material that misrepresents the source as you originally did.  As for the 2nd blog/opinion piece from the national post you cited -it appears that it has been discussed on the talk page.  I expect you to follow the consensus with regard to that as well. Have a nice day, R. Baley (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

William M. Gray bio
Given our discussion above and your views on what you consider to be WP:UNDUE as it relates to elevating minor portions of an article to inclusion in WP:BLP related article. While Mr Connolley was not the original source of William_M._Gray he is clearly supporting the inclusion of that section via this revert.

Please note that in this instance they have taken a single sentence from a larger article whose topic was NOT betting and turned it into approximately 25% of the body of Gray's bio. Given your position above are you willing to similarly step in and take action or are your interventions limted to Mr Connolley? --GoRight (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Happily, what I decide to do with my limited time here is my own decision to make. To date, I have had no interest in the Gray bio -should that ever change, well I hope there's no reason for that to change.  Good day!  R. Baley (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As expected. --GoRight (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Questions concerning Arbcom case
It does seem like a clever solution, in theory; but I don't see any suitable way of enforcing it, since we don't (presently) have the technical capability to impose a non-standard form of protection on the article. Given that the main problem strikes me as sockpuppetry rather than simply the presence of newer editors, I'd prefer to deal with it via existing methods; if that doesn't help, of course, we can go back and try something more unique. Kirill (prof) 01:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the swift reply. (Copied from KL's talk page) Though personally I think it would be quite easy to enforce (a technical means would be nice, but not necessary). But if you guys aren't convinced, that's ok. R. Baley (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Blanking things
...might not be the best approach, is all I am saying. Best. ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And you don't see me doing it without discussion and you don't see me edit warring over it (also sans discussion). But what really grinds my gears is that the whole admin corps sat back while Arbcom supposedly conducted a secret trial, with ludicrous justification, and attempted a power grab.  Only it wasn't the whole of them, it was just one guy.  And then to see people defend it (well hey, at least we got the outcome we wanted --however it happened) is galling.  And now some are defending it even though it is clear that the OM "case" is at the very least misleading in its entirety (no dissent, my ass).  But it just sits there while ArbCom gets their shit sorted out.  As far as I'm concerned, if that page doesn't have the weight of Arbcom behind it (and it doesn't -whatever gets decided retroactively) it's an attack page that is not an "arbitration" and neither is it from the "Committee".  Done venting,  R. Baley (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Relax man, have a beer/soda/whatever you want to drink with me, it's gonna get settled and soon. We just need to have a little patience. And no, it was never personal with me and you. I may disagree with you, even vehemently, but blanking is not the solution here. It's an ArbCom page. Multiple ArbCom folks have shown up and have said they're discussing it. If they haven't removed it or blanked it, that's good enough for me. Let it be, just for the moment. SirFozzie (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (Woah, I posted this here, as you posted that to ANI). Talk about crossing the streams... :) SirFozzie (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words
Thank you for your kind words at Orangemarlin's talk page. A few days ago, I did put in a request for admin coaching, as I am worried that my current relative lack of article-building and reference-finding contribs would torpedo an RfA. Anyway, I was flattered. Thanks so much for the kind words :) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann
Hello. I agree with your undoing of my 6/28/08 edit. (I apologize for being a novice at this.) However, today I added Olbermannwatch.com as an external link in order to balance out the biased content of the links. Do you agree? Best regards, Jtroska (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to say can't agree with that. I haven't kept up with the exact wording on the external links policy, but in general it is safe to assume that if a page doesn't qualify as a source, then it can't be included as an external link either.  Thanks for asking.  Oh and if you are concerned about any other links -be sure to at least bring them up on the talk page.  Or if after reading/studying the WP:EL page, you feel confident in removing any, go ahead per WP:bold, revert, discuss.  Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you...I agree that Olbermannwatch.com should be removed as an external link (someone else has already taken care of this), and I'm okay with the other external links. Jtroska (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)