User talk:Polargeo/Archive 5

'''Thankyou to everyone who supported me in my RfA. I left a message at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Polargeo 2 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)

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



Since when is citing the individuals own work slander?

Stirling Newberry 16:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

Your RFA
Best of luck. I'm pleased to offer my support a second time. Pedro : Chat  13:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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! --  At am a  頭 17:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Is it ever. Near the end of mine I began to fear my watchlist. -- King Öomie  18:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * When you made them, so did I. No hard feelings. -- King Öomie  18:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * It seemed my brain wasn't working properly when I posted my comment. Sorry about that. &mdash;Dark 09:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Kudos, Polar -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Belated congrats. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. – xeno talk 19:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Alina Puscau
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Admin
Hi! Just wanted to say Good luck! Glad to help you! :) All best! -- Tadijataking 10:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

Orphan tags on glacier articles
Ok, thanks for pointing that out. -- Kimon talk 01:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Minima c  (talk ) 20:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Present mops, atten-hut!
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


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




 * Bloody T-shirt, always a size too small :), have you kept the receipt? Polargeo (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As it happens, yes I have!  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to hell. Tan  &#124;  39  16:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Congrats from me to! Good job! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And yet more congratulations William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

← Late congrats ;)  fetch  comms  ☛ 22:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * dito.--White Shadows you're breaking up 02:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to say CONGRATS! :) :) -- Tadijataking 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)
 * I will reply on your talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)
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)

Answer
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)

Industrial dynamics filtec
Yes, I did; why? Nyttend (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Silviu Ionescu
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Iffa and Offa East
Why was the talk page deleted? Was it vandalised? How do i get it undeleted? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

Tiofoto
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)

Good Samaritan Hospital (San Jose)
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Thank you, kind person. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi polargeo
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)

Personal Attacks
This 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * As an elaboration: FellGleaming's many contentious edits have been the subject of numerous administrative blocks and actions for aggressive posturing, misuse of citations, edit warring, etc..., for example this one found here and shown below. I imagine such notices are the reason why that person regularly deletes his/her own user talk page contents.
 * Most people make constructive and helpful contributions to Wikipedia in whatever way they can, while others, little more than middle-school vandals, enjoy messing up its works. I've worked with on AVP for several months and believe I can recognize people's intents. Most people can easily identify which group FellGleeming belongs to. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal Blogs of Scientists
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Italian name?
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)
 * I don't see you bothering to support your claim. Polargeo (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I think you are a sock. Polargeo (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I don't even understand what you are saying. Polargeo (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think you are a sock per WP:DUCK Polargeo (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's User:Giovanni Giove - AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * You're welcome :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Annual rate to multi-anual rate.
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)


 * 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)

April 2010
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)


 * 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)
 * I have left a reply for Lars T. Polargeo (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do be a prat. Lars T. (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Titoism and Totalitarianism
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)
 * Thanks for the message and thanks for your response. Polargeo (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

An invitation
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * ...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)


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


 * Polargeo, are you arguing that Schulz is uninvolved in this topic area but Lar is? ATren (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Should Stephan be commenting in the "admin only" section? Cla68 (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Thank you
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 WMC has just made a legitimate revert on a BLP, cross the border into crazy land. Polargeo (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * RfC is pointless. It'll get hammered by the regulars with no outside input. Same as everything else. Actually, I shouldn't say that. It's only pointless if you don't plan on escalating this to Arbcom. -Atmoz (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I plan on taking this to arbcom if necessary but having had no previous experience of either I thought I would make a fumbling attempt at an RfC first. Have you seen Judith Curry? Polargeo (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have. :-( Beware the WP:WIKIPOLITICS (how is that red?), for they will consume you; your main-space contributions will vanish and your time will be wasted in project-space. -Atmoz (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

<3
I wish I knew a broknucks, or like a high five template or something. I was way to into those pages for a while, and lost myself. I don't believe you are to that point, but you are the damn man. Arkon (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't resist a last reply but I have left it from now. I'm shutting off my computer and getting on with life. Polargeo (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

damn I needed that. Polargeo (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My perspective
I'm not here to try to give you a hard time, but to give you my opinion on what the situation is surrounding the climate change articles. Since you seem to have come into the topic area recently, you may not be aware of its history. This dispute that you've gotten involved in is not primarily a battle between climate scientists and sceptics. I believe most climate scientists, who on the whole I'm sure are very ethical people, would cringe upon observing the behavior of several of the editors here who purport to be representing climate science in Wikipedia. I think many sceptical scientists would also be uncomfortable with the behavior of many of the editors who try to promote a more sceptical side in the climate change articles.

What this dispute really concerns is editor behavior. Editors should not be baiting and attacking other editors, especially newcomers, who suggest changes to the climate change articles. Editors should not be trying to use Wikipedia to defame and discredit the various people involved with the climate change debate (this goes both ways). Editors should not doing so much wikilawyering to try to keep out information they don't like from the various articles, i.e. spin the content (this also goes both ways). If the regulars at the climate change articles weren't engaged in so much bullying (such as they recently did to Lar), baiting, and refusing to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise in the climate change articles, I wouldn't be involved. I would still be busy building World War II articles and nominating them for FA. Until the behavior in question is corrected, it needs to be addressed. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You speak some good sense here but I think your view on those diffs is completely wrong. I was editing articles like Effects of global warming and Willie Soon a year ago. I also have over 220 edits to Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. The reason you may not have seen me is I tend to stay away from the main articles like global warming because I feel another editor fighting over them is not constructive. I may not have joined in the conversations but I have watched them for a long time and I have been more and more horrified by Lar's extreme approach. Polargeo (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you. If you were watching the global warming articles for a year or so, however, it really didn't bother you, or at least enough to take action, to see editors suggest changes to a global warming article and get treated like this?  That editor was a newcomer, assuming he wasn't an alternate account, he had only been editing for three months. Cla68 (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a silly statement. I wonder why the newbie brought it to WQA now though? Also you are saying that you are not editing WWII articles specifically to stop the menace that is WMC? That strikes me as a little disruptive. Polargeo (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Polargeo, I have seen that kind of thing several times, where WMC intimidates a new editor into either leaving or responding badly. It's not an isolated incident. I am working on collecting evidence of similar incidents, but it takes time to put that kind of case together. In the meantime, take a look at the case of Marknutley, a relatively new editor who was mocked relentlessly by WMC, and responded badly. Or you might want to look at Alex Harvey, who was quite active for a while but was repeatedly hounded by WMC. Cla and I have experienced it too -- in one of my first interactions with WMC, he hounded me for about a week because I didn't mark my edit a revert, even though I immediately apologized. The atmosphere here is toxic, and the source of most of that toxicity is WMC and a few editors who support him. That's my observation based on years of watching this topic area, and that's what I intend to prove. ATren (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the atmosphere is toxic. But I don't think hounding WMC out of the area is the best way to deal with it. There seems to be a small group of editors who he has upset over a long period of time and are out to get him for it. What is more toxic than that? I don't condone everything WMC does. Not at all. I agree WMC needs to be more civil sometimes. I am well aware of Alex Harvey, like Mark Nutley it is not a good case for you to make. For example Mark seems to have little understanding of POV, sourcing, copyvio, BLP etc. etc. and this is even after over 4000 edits and being repeatedly told what he is doing wrong, maybe it would be better to discourage him from editing these articles. As for you and Cla. I have no problem I know of with you editing CC articles but trying to make a case for a WMC cabal and supporting Lar as an "uninvolved" admin in an attempt to get WMC banned is total battleground mentality and very very disruptive. Polargeo (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And again
I would have voted very differently at your RFA if I thought we would end up with a RFC like that :( - btw stay sane. (I still havent worked out what a Five High Sugar image should be, maybe... will find something one day) SatuSuro 00:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think maybe I should slap you with a trout for your comment "high five" too. It was a stupid viewpoint to support and very childish. I don't think you have any idea how over the line Lar has been getting whilst acting as an "uninvolved" admin. Polargeo (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue that I responded like that is your tendency to stay on some issues much longer than is necessary was evident before you became admin and you are still doing it - the amount of itme and labour over issues is counter to the general intent of the machinations of this place. I am not even talking about whether lar did this or that, your evaluation of whether the gang who were crowding and harrassing lar is and has been open to question.

You yourself are fair game for the time you spend on stuff - if anyone had ever given you advice on online behaviour - in some cases walking away from some issues and comments rather than having to always go in and answering them is something you have never practiced - it may well save you well - similar to not taking the wrong crevasse :0 - have fun - dont expect me to accept a trout back - you chose to get involved and evaluate the issue the way you did - if you had been on training wheels your mentor could well have told you to pull your head in :) or have a wider view on the issue SatuSuro 09:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right. I got way too involved in that discussion. I often do step back but sometimes I forget good practice. I'm just planning my field weights at the moment for flying the kit out. Hope I don't forget good practice with the safety rope, at least I will get a long wikibreak in 4-5 months time. Polargeo (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well take it easy, take care and get an intuitive sense of where it is safer to pull back - rather than jump :| SatuSuro 10:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
ScottyBerg (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
ScottyBerg (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, Hipocrite gave me a script I can use, which I've implemented, to make future misclicks impossible! I'm sorry I made such a mess. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)