User talk:Polargeo: Difference between revisions

Thankyou to everyone who supported me in my RfA. I left a message at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Polargeo 2#Thanks but forgot to make the note on my talkpage. So here it is. I was overwhelmed by the support and hope you will be pleased with my use of the mop. Polargeo (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

That McIntyre has attacked his interpretation, and he has replied is cast iron:

[1]

Since when is citing the individuals own work slander?

Stirling Newberry 16:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any citation of any reference in your edits. I also would prefer to reply on your talkpage where I posted my initial concern. Polargeo (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck. I'm pleased to offer my support a second time. Pedro :  Chat  13:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have nominated you, by the way, if I'd known. You'll make a great admin if things go as I expect them to. Good luck! -- Atama頭 17:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I am just waiting to see which oppose voter comes up with the killer comment, some incivility of mine or some bad !vote at AfD or poor CSD tag. RfA is a nervy time. Polargeo (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ever. Near the end of mine I began to fear my watchlist. --King Öomie 18:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my neutral comments probably didn't help your RfA much, when I made them I thought you were a certain pass. Since your RfA I have tried to be more positive. Polargeo (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you made them, so did I. No hard feelings. --King Öomie 18:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple of geniuses that really think I'd oppose for you using "obs" as an edit summary. You'll pass with me in the oppose section, but wanted you to know that my edit summary summarizes my position. -Atmoz (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed my brain wasn't working properly when I posted my comment. Sorry about that. —Dark 09:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were right it is a valid oppose. Although one that should be ignored based on flimsy evidence for poor edit summaries. You weren't to see that it had been moved from the support section :) Polargeo (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many people are expecting me to come out with something like "He opposed me so I'll oppose for REVENGE" which of course I would never do. You're more fit to be an Admin then I am.--SKATER ^Speak. 01:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was sorry to oppose your RfA. I think if you spend some time on those CSDs and keep plugging away on any issues raised in your RfA you should make it if you want to. Maybe I'll see you back there later in the year. Polargeo (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the pass (barring the possibility of 70 people coming out of the woodwork and opposing)- and congrats on the Hundred Club! --King Öomie 14:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos, Polar --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is only half way though and I have seen RfAs flop spectacularly before. I don't think I have any hidden shockers but some people at RfA have very high standards and expect prospective admins to be saintlike and I know I am certainly not like that 0 :- ) Polargeo (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belated congrats. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Polargeo 2. –xeno^talk 19:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't decide what would be funnier - if you edited through protection at your own RFA or if you blocked the edit warriors. Certainly one or the other would be worthy of lolz. Gratz, by the way.Hipocrite (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I've given up with bothering about it now. I said my piece and have left it up to others to edit war over :) Polargeo (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't think I'm teeing off on you with my questions at your RFa, but, as someone who mostly edits on BLP matters, your work on that article, which you gave as an example of your article work, raised significant questions for me. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I know I was sailing a little close to the wind and this is not the way I usually operate. However, I was attempting to rescue an article on someone with fairly low notability who has had several relationships with very notable people. It is extremely difficult not to sail close to the wind unless you just accept that the best thing is not to add any of information at all. In this case I think I can justify my edits though. Polargeo (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't think of this as my normal article work. It was a random article I came across new page patrolling that was incorrectly tagged by another editor. I just couldn't think of anything else I have ever edited which has been proposed for deletion in answer to the RfA question. Polargeo (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just wanted to say Good luck! Glad to help you! :) All best! --Tadija^taking 10:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I appreciate it, the support is very welcome. It may look like it is going well but I have had some very tricky questions. I'm just waiting for a few opposes to come piling in! Polargeo (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for pointing that out. --Kimon^talk 01:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Polargeo. You have new messages at Minimac's talk page.
Message added 20:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Minimac (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Polargeo! Your RfA was successful. You are now an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I hope you have just as happy a time editing in the future as you did before your RfA. You may want to look at the admin guide to read up on any tools you are unfamiliar with.

I am sure you will be getting a shower of congratulation messages now, so I will just shuffle off for now. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the swift RfA close. I am looking forward to deleting the mainpage and blocking Jimbo :-), or maybe I'll restrict myself to the more boring admin stuff. Polargeo (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get on it. Time's wasting. I hear Jimbo's been making all kinds of crazy NCAA edits.

Good luck and I have a lot of faith in you. We need dedicated admins and I am nothing but excited about having someone else I trust in the admin pool. Shadowjams (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I saw your note on the RFA talk page and thank you for "stepping up to the plate" to assist WP further. Pedro :  Chat  11:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations/commiserations! Well done, thoroughly deserved! If you need any help/advice/shoulder to cry on, feel free to drop me a line. GedUK  11:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody T-shirt, always a size too small :), have you kept the receipt? Polargeo (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, yes I have! ϢereSpielChequers 12:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to hell. Tan | 39 16:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tan. I am enjoying deleting stuff but am waiting for a more senior demon to cover me in excrement and pull out my insides. Polargeo (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me to! Good job! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet more congratulations William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

← Late congrats ;)  fetchcomms☛ 22:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dito.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say CONGRATS! :) :) --Tadija^taking 10:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable? The PROD notice was justified as the article clearly fails WP:ENT, even with the extra sources. It still fails WP:ENT in its current state. I don't see how it is "poor practice" when the fact of the matter is that it does not meet the criteria for inclusion, even with attempts establish notability. -Regancy42 (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply on your talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I considered this to be a uncontroversial deletion nomination. PROD notices need be justified by some form of rationale (in accordance to policies and guidelines) and WP:ENT is the right criteria in this situation. Anyways I doubt it'll survive AFD. -Regancy42 (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently participated in discussion at an AFD for a broadcast station. I have recently posted the above topic on the talk page of the notability guideline for organizations and companies, to see if there is interest in adding language related to the notability of radio and TV broadcast stations to that guideline. Your input would be most welcome. Thanks. Edison (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An answer to your message is potentially long and quite complex. Well done on getting the mop - I am limited in time to make the comments at this point - will follow up soon SatuSuro 10:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did; why? Nyttend (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, Amigo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Silviu_Ionescu

How do I get it back ? Ronald2010 121.7.86.175 (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does not stop you creating the article. I suggest you make a draft first in your own userspace. I have added some welcome notes on your talkpage which will guide you to this or see WP:FIRST. If you have any more questions just ask. Polargeo (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just read that the article was moved to [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2009_Singapore_Romanian_diplomat_incident | another place ] Sorry to bother you. Ronald2010 121.7.86.175 (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the talk page deleted? Was it vandalised? How do i get it undeleted? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because it only had automated edits and the "bot" that made the edits had requested deletion. You are free to create the talkpage if you wish. I will also reply on your talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

14:05, 9 April 2010 Polargeo (talk | contribs) deleted "Tiofoto" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))

I would like to get a second chance of doing this page. It was supposed to be a contribution to the photographers (many worldfamous and most of them have passed away). I made the mistake of publishing it to quickly and would like another change so as to get a "green light"

Dj (hope I am posting this at the right place)

Hi, this is actually a major hospital. The noob who started it was probably just filling in a red link. Can you reconsider your prod? Bearian (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had declined a speedy. Looks like the noob hasn't come back and tried to improve the article. My general feeling is that very short unreferenced stubs do not really improve wikipedia but now you have cleaned it up nicely I will remove the PROD. Polargeo (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I thought I was being extremely nice to the noob in declining the speedy when the entire content of the article was "Birthplace of Brandon Garrett". I don't think it helps to encourage noobs to leave articles like this safe in the knowledge that someone will come and sort it out for them (hell this is in an even worse state than the articles started as part of the newbie experiment). From his talkpage it looks like he was bitten back in January much more harshly and I cannot work out why. Anyway I will go and leave him a welcome message :) as it appears that the two editors who have previously edited his talkpage declined to do this. Polargeo (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, kind person. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i will recreate the article of Pinoy Greyhat, and i wish that you could help me doing this. Thanks God speed.~~knytmare~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pghat (talk • contribs) 15:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This [2] is unacceptable per WP:Civility. If you have evidence, present it, otherwise strike the claim immediately. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 13:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unacceptable to highlight the shockingly poor BLP errors you are making. After spending a considerable time trying to tear my reasoning apart based on some incorrect assumptions of BLP you then post the most shocking BLP transgressions in the history of the article. You then simply change the reference without even checking that the quotes were backed up in your new reference (which they were not). I am perfectly within my right to highlight this poor practice. Polargeo (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and BLP transgressions yawn. You are not the first WP:wikilawyer I have argued with but I would prefer it if you stuck to the aim of improving wikipedia rather than wikilawyering. Polargeo (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement: "Okay Armstrong's personal blog then and so should not be used for anything other than his own opinions and that must be clear whenever it is quoted from." -- Are you willing to be consistent on this position and say that the personal blogs of all scientists can be used only for their own opinion, and must be clear as their opinion when so used? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been very strict on this. The RC is an absolutely cast iron source for the criticism of a notable climate scientist about climate science. However, I personally wouldn't use it as a single source for a balanced view on something. Unlike the JSA sources which have been used time and time again. Polargeo (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you agree that, when RC criticized something, it should be clear what the source of that criticism is? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to look at each situation but in the current article I don't think "Climatologist Gavin Schmidt described Armstrong's wager as "essentially a bet on year to year weather noise" rather than climate change" can be any clearer who the source is. You on the other hand seem to accept shoddy source after shoddy source for all sorts of claims whilst attempting to wikilawyer over everyone elses additions (you have been warned about your poor sourcing). Therefore making any guarantee with you over sourcing is pretty much a joke. Polargeo (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venezia Giulia is currntly used in English. Support your idea in the talk page of Julian March (if you have proper sources: it is not enough to claim it... as you did...). Greetings.--78.13.165.121 (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see you bothering to support your claim. Polargeo (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have bothered in supporting DIREKTOR. But you did not even read all the several sources presented. Next time don't write anything....--78.13.165.121 (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are a sock. Polargeo (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't care what you think (anyway, I was found unrelated). But I can see that you wrote evident forgeries in the page, trying to alter the consenus.--78.13.165.121 (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even understand what you are saying. Polargeo (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you are a sock per WP:DUCK Polargeo (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's User:Giovanni Giove - AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am not as versed in the socking traditions in this area as I should be. Polargeo (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an economist by traning. If someone told me that the normal range for burger consumption by a person in a month was 0-5, I would not assume that the normal range for burger consumption in a year for a person was 0-60. I also would not assume that if the normal range for burger consumption in a year for a person was 0-5 that the normal consumption in a decade is 0-50, for two reasons.

1. People that eat more burgers are richer and graduate to steak. Thus, a 5 burger eater tends to eat less burgers as they get older and realize the existance of steak. 2. People don't eat burgers in the winter. Burgers are for grilling. People eat 5 burgers each month in the summer, and 0 burgers at other times.

I don't know if this holds true for sea level rise. Is each year independent from the prior year, or is the sea level rise of last year an indicator that sea level rise will bedifferent in the follow year? Hipocrite (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a glaciologist and you've completely baffled me with the burger thing. I eat a burger when I fancy it. Some years I may eat 50-100 burgers and some years I eat maybe only 10-20. But the critical thing is that I am not an American therefore burgers are not as traditional in the UK and are slightly more expensive. That doesn't tell the entire story because I probably consume over 500 sausages in any given year. However, I imagine this number would be greater if I lived in Germany. Polargeo (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Hard to take your complaints serious, when you don't tag every "insult" in that discussion. But then that may be intentional. Lars T. (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside WP:DTTR, uw-npov isn't a valid warning template for contributions to a talkpage. --King Öomie 17:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a reply for Lars T. Polargeo (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do be a prat. Lars T. (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I don't really need you to tell me to do this. Anyway FG and Hipocrite have been at each other for a while. It strikes me that FG's comment was about annoyance with Hipocrites comment. On the other hand you actually questioned FGs intelligence when he had in no way attacked yours. I believe you crossed to boundary and attacked the editor. I have a lot of tollerance to slight incivilities in statements of annoyance during heated debates but not to out and out attacks on an editor's intelligence. Polargeo (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he attacked not just his own intelligence but that of everyone in the thread by his comments, and that one in particular. Ohh, and he didn't notice any attacks on his intelligence. Which should tell us something. Lars T. (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not the way I see the issue. You can defend your actions any way you wish to but I repeat the message please refrain for pesonal attacks. Polargeo (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the bio tag back on John de Byron. So far as I am aware, the 'Lord' is not a peerage title, but merely the lordship of the manor of Rochdale - a transferable or saleable thing. When you find English 'titles' for sale, this is what they are. Nowadays, they are just a paper exercise. See Viscount Rochdale for the modern peerage Rochdale title. No dates are given, making the article somewhat problematical in terms of usefulness. A Sir John whose title was "Baron Byron of Rochdale" was the ancestor the later infamous Lord Byron, This Sir John Byron was created Baron Byron of Rochdale and did not inherit his title - and was not de Byron. Peridon (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All issues that should be sorted out and maybe the article should be deleted. However, I am trying hard to strictly apply A7 because it is too often used when an editor just sort of thinks something isn't notable and that is not what A7 is for. Polargeo (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it me who put the bio tag on though? I'm confused. Polargeo (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the simplest solution is that the article could be turned into a stub on whoever the most notable John de Byron was. Just a sentence or two and a couple of reliable sources. Otherwise you could consider PROD tagging it with detailled reasons as to why he isn't notable and if this is rejected with a plausible reason then take it to AfD. Polargeo (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there is a whole host of articles added by this individual. This may be best dealt with as a group. Polargeo (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was Minor4th who tagged it bio. You later tagged it notability after declining my replacement bio. Yeah, it looks like someone has been digging into dusty tomes. Most of the notability of this bunch of characters depends entirely on their eventual descendant THE Lord B. Insanity can be inherited from one's kids, but can notability over so many generations? The Lords Byron were a fairly notable bunch (including one known as 'Mad Jack'...) The John article is taken from the Yorkshire Arch. text cited - but the Google version is scanned badly. I have traced John to the mid 1300s - with no great show of anything other than existence. I'm going back to bed - off ill with stinking cold - will see if your notability tag produces anything. Couldn't face setting up AfD at the moment. (I usually wait for others to do them as I get lost in the Kafkaesque procedure.) Peridon (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Sorry I know the best solution is to speedy and maybe when I become an older wiser admin I will just speedy everything but I'm sure it will all work out. Polargeo (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I want to inform you that I have deleted the call of arm on Italian Wikipedia. BTW: Ilario is certainly not Luigi and the notice wasn't so biased, but we have strict rules about notifying AfD and, most importantly, it didn't make much sense to notify an English Wikipedia AfD on Italian Wikipedia village pump. Bye! --Jaqen (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message and thanks for your response. Polargeo (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo: I would like to work with you to understand why you apparently feel that I am "an admin with a personal grudge and a history of goading an editor". Introspection is always hard but I don't see myself holding any grudges here, and I try hard never to goad anyone, regardless of provocation. I invite you to discuss this further with me at my talk. (this was placed at the talk page but the section it was in got collapsed while I was posting so you may not have seen it). ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your replies thus far have been so evident of denial that I cannot see how this can be resolved through more discussion with you. I note you start to try to negotiate when the issue of an RfC has been tabled. A clever tactic, deny everything then pretend you are willing to negotiate. Polargeo (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking first to understand. It is possible that I am incorrect in my self perception. If you think that's a pretense you have misjudged me. I cannot understand the basis for your hostility, or for the aspersions you cast. ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I first of all perceive many of your comments to be extremely biased. In situations which do not in any way merit your extreme comments you turn out and continue to astonish me with what I consider to be outlandish disproportionality. In the case of WMC I think you have crossed the line to actual victimisation. I also have seen what I consider to be a certain amount of mild goading of the same editor from you. Previously I was astonished by your overreaction to Stephan Schulz placing a comment in what was considered to be the wrong place. I think that your continued involvement in CC probation is disruptive. Polargeo (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're talking straight here, you've been the most disruptive and biased admin on that page over the last week, by far. I think you need to take a step back. ATren (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My dear ATren. Sorry but you have it wrong I am not acting as an admin in this case or in any other enforcement case for that matter. Just treat me as another awkward editor like yourself :) Polargeo (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, I don't see Polargeo commenting in the admin only sections. Polargeo, a question, what do you think of Dave Souza and Stephan Schulz commenting in the admin only sections? Do you feel that they are uninvolved admins? If so, why? This is an important question. Cla68 (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Stephan Schulz is playing by the letter of Lar's criteria. I don't know about Dave Souza because I have rarely been involved with sanctions. Polargeo (talk) 05:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar has never edited an AGW article, but that's almost all that Stephan does. So, how do you come by that? WMC and a few others have continually baited Lar for an emotional response on his talk page (see all the long threads there). I've experienced the same tactics by groups of editors before. In my case it went to arbitration and one of the ringleaders of it was desysopped (my interpretation, of course). So, I know what's going on here. Please don't support those kind of tactics by these guys or anyone else. Cla68 (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rather crazy criteria of having to have never edited an AGW article is a load of crap. Editors may be around for years before these sanctions were introduced have edited all sorts of articles. If we impose the criteria that they have never edited an AGW article as some sort of proof that they have no agenda that is bollocks. Someone may have edited AGW articles and have the simple agenda of making wikipedia as good as it can be and have no agenda regarding AGW per se. Whilst someone may not have edited these articles and have an extreme agenda. I see justified annoyance with Lar, which I happen to share. Polargeo (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...that's almost all that Stephan does - that's nonsense. I spend a lot more time on talk than on articles, and I have fairly significant contributions outside GW - I have e.g. more edits to the Science refdesk than to any GW article, and more to the Humanities refdesk than to all but one GW articles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e.c.) Polargeo, you seem to claim here that you consider yourself uninvolved ("I am probably perceived (wrongly) as an involved administrator...", emphasis mine), and you also added recent comments in the uninvolved section of WMC's latest RFE. I interpreted those actions as you considering yourself as uninvolved. If I misinterpreted, then I apologize. ATren (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at my edit. It was simply a protest against lars extremism and I requested it be moved along with Lar's edit which it was by KillerC Polargeo (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My view was Lar shouldn't be allowed to go off the rails as he had and this view was shared by an uninvolved admin who moved the comments. Slap on the wrist for me not doing this on the talkpage but my edit explicitly acknowledges I have put it in the wrong place. Polargeo (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I misinterpreted your actions. ATren (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you put Souza's and Schultz' names into the edit counters and see which articles come up in their top 10s? Even if no AGW articles come up in Souza's top 10, I wouldn't have much trouble finding a few diffs. Those two are definitely involved. Lar is being criticized because he's calling it as he sees it and a few heavyweights, who are used to getting away with flouting some of the rules and policies (yes I can back that up), aren't happy about it. That's not the same as being compromised or "involved". Cla68 (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo, are you arguing that Schulz is uninvolved in this topic area but Lar is? ATren (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Stephan Schulz is involved in editing climate change articles and Lar is not. That is NOT what being an uninvolved admin means, that is what I am saying. Polargeo (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should Stephan be commenting in the "admin only" section? Cla68 (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that in the strict spirit of the rules he should not be on this one particular case involving WMC. But I support his contributions in the sense that he is playing by Lar's rules for non-involvement. Polargeo (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy for both Stephan and Lar to be banned from acting as uninvolved in cases where they have had contact with the editor in question which can be considered to be outside of the usual run of the mill dealings and admin work. I think Lar's goading WMC is clearly not just the action of an admin dealing with a problem editor and is totally unnacceptable. I am sure Stephan's past contact with WMC would also rule him out. But as I said he is playing by Lar's rules here and I would be the first to advise him to cease when this situation is over. Polargeo (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. The pointless back-and-forth "no, you put up or shut up" posturing is one of the reasons I am taking a break from that area. I also think that it is unhealthy for such a probation to come to rely too heavily on the input of the same too few uninvolved admins, as it can very easily lead to us drifting away from the norms of the larger community. You are currently not certifying the basis for the dispute - was this intentional?

As a side note, you raise a valid point about the process of setting up the sanctions, but I think the voices of the community and ArbCom were clear. A month or two back there was a suggestion that we ask the community to review the progress so far and re-evaluate whether we want to keep them open. I am not really sure where would be the best place, but I think it might not be a bad idea. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 12:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never put together an RfC before so any mistakes are those of an inexperienced user and not an experienced admin. Any suggestions welcome. Polargeo (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words if you have a good summary basis then I will be pleased to consider it Polargeo (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither, honestly, and I have only even participated in one RfC/U that I can recall, other than the occasional endorsement. I have disagreed with Lar a fair bit on that page, and I have heard rumour that he and WMC do not see eye to eye (possibly related to Wikipedia Review, but the only time I have actually visited there was back at the beginning of the year when a little birdie told me that I was being discussed there), but I have generally found him to be acting well within the bounds of reasonable discourse. I think the biggest difference of opinion we have is that Lar seems to prefer a lot of discussion meandering to the final point, wereas I prefer to offer a full analysis and move on. I might work up an outside view based on "leveling the playing field", KDP's 1RR restriction discussion, and his comment about "socially inept nerds" (or whatever that was), or something along those lines. I am not sure at this point, but I definitely like the idea of actually getting something resolved. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved yes. I think ultimately I would like to see a rotation of admins in the area rather than a cadre. We don't need a few super sheriffs imposing their view on a large area of wikipedia. That is not what we are about. Polargeo (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the rotation of admins would solve most of the problem that views are entrenched. I know you have stayed away from this area but some of Lar's recent pushes for year long topic bans for WMC when he has just made a legitimate revert on a BLP cross the border into crazy land. Polargeo (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]