User talk:Polargeo 2/Archives/2010/October

Unblocking?
Should you decide to file for this, I'd be pleased to support your application. Although we have differing opinions on CC, you were always courteous me in our few interactions, and I don't recall seeing anything you did that would justify a ban.

I hope you decide to return to the project. Your colleague, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * After a lot of bad noise at the ArbCom noticeboard, I have re-instated talk page editing for this account. You can also appeal by emailing ArbCom at  if you prefer. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I will also be willing to push for your unblocking, should you agree to restrict yourself to one account and discontinue the nonsense that has been going on. If you don't want to discuss it onwiki, you may always email me. The Wordsmith Communicate 05:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hooray talkpage access (ungagged)
I will be making a full statement here to try to explain my actions. I have been a little foolish recently but certainly I made no attempt to maliciously sock or deliberately disguise any alternate account to further my case. I am more than happy with arbcom requiring me to undergo an RfA if I ever wanted the tools back. I had already clearly stated this myself here However, I may never ask for them or even edit much, I don't know at present.
 * I wish to make it clear that the following accounts have nothing whatsoever to do with me


 * Telziath
 * Scottie Mccall
 * Wivaronth
 * Seenock
 * Nallith
 * Althea Faulkner
 * I tried to make a representation by email to User:Hersfold but understandably I suppose Hersfold is not inclined to believe me. These accounts were all created between 12:30 and 12:50 on 29 September 2010 before I had handed in the bit. As I do not know what IP these were created under I cannot work out why Hersfold thought it was me. I can confirm I was editing at the time from my desktop PC using my regular IP 194.66.0.122 and actually logged in as Polargeo. I am also baffled as to why Coren unblocked my IP and replaced it with a range block hence probably blocking around 150 people. Any answers welcome. Polargeo 2 (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeking "answers" is less likely to help than simple assurances that you will abide by the CC restrictions placed on you, and that you will be a model citizen afterwards. I think  you will now agree that looking at "ranges" to "prove" that a person is Scibaby does, indeed, have a substantial "false positive" net result.  Collect (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never done any Scibaby chasing and I am frankly not interested in ever doing so. I don't even know why this legendary Scibaby was blocked. I feel a little sorry for him. As an admin I only ever blocked spam only/vandal only or genuine nasties. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but you did warn one user for socking with your admin account and then open an SPI against them a few hours later using one of your own undisclosed alternate accounts,  Roger Davies  talk 13:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made it clear to you my reasons for doing that. That user was a seasoned multiple account Balkan POV pusher who had made socks to pretend to be other (rival) users. I made the SPI report under an alias because I didn't want the user hounding me. Also at that time I was not an admin and had been editing for only 7 months, I wouldn't have done it like that now. Polargeo 2 (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the irony of it, more than anything else.  Roger Davies  talk 15:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. I thought that using a sock to report a sock was ironic at the time but I have stated my reasons and those reasons were serious issues of fear of being hounded. Would you like to hold every editor accountable to every edit they made when they had only been editing for 7 months though (even though those edits occurred over a year ago)? Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the closest diff to "absue", and that itself is trivia. Really this entire episode looks like paranoia William M. Connolley (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd ignore Collect's trouble-making if I were you William M. Connolley (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The IP edits in the blocked range are consistent with the standard setup at research institutions (such as the British Antarctic Survey): Many IP addresses belong to the same person over a long period of time, although occasionally people switch desks or computers. Some IP addresses belong to computers that are offered to short-term visitors, and there is usually a DHCP sub-range for portable computers. A range block on such an IP range is, or at least should be, very unusual.

It is important to keep in mind that in such an IP range editing similarities that are otherwise a good indication of socking can be expected to occur between unrelated editors, due to factors such as similar educational background, similar research interests, and occasional swapping of desks to make place for visitors. Hans Adler 10:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks for that. I certainly don't want to get sacked though for stopping my entire organisation from editing wikipedia. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely, you would get a big bonus for increasing productivity at work for that? Count Iblis (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It is fairly clear at this point that checkuser has been used as magic pixie dust, which it isn't. All CU has confirmed is that those accounts were created from BAS IPs, and that you used a BAS IP. Since BAS has ~400 employees, that doesn't tell you very much. All this vast fuss could have been avoided if (a) Hersfold had told you what you were actually blocked for and (b) hadn't mistakenly cut off your talk page access and then failed to properly check up on that when asked about it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand why I was blocked by Hersfold. I did do some unrelated new page patrolling from an alternate account User:Jack Vine but only whilst waiting for Polargeo 2 to be set up. As soon as I realised that Polargeo 2 was set up I stopped. This was very naughty of me and I shouldn't have done it. I would have been able to do this editing from Jbtscott but I abandoned that account and scrambled the password in annoyance with Coren's blocks and editing of the Polargeo userpage. Polargeo 2 (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The IP range was softblocked because you were the only one editing from it, and it was not clear that you could not trivially hop from one IP to another within the range alloted to your institution. This is SOP to prevent creation of further socks at least until such time as it has been made clear that the anonymous block avoidance and sock creation stops when collateral damage is known to be low or nil. I was not involved in Heresfold's examination of the other accounts and I have to comment to offer as to the accuracy of the determination, although I have no reason to believe it was not correct &mdash; WMC's drive by commentary notwithstanding. I've unblocked this account, stick to it. &mdash; Coren (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, I do invite you to double check those accounts because they are not mine and I do object to having false checkuser results which make it look like I have created a secret sock farm. What I have done looks poor enough as it is without being accused of stuff I didn't do. Polargeo 2 (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Though to put this into some sort of perspective, there's no dispute about ownership of at least the following accounts. User:Olap the Ogre Created 28 Sep; last edit 5 Oct &bull; User:EnglishAristocraticFool Last edit 7 Oct &bull; User:Yugosithlord Last edit 14 Oct &bull; User:LilyNiviaq Created 7 Oct; last edit 14 Oct &bull; User:Polargeo Last edit 1 Oct &bull; User:Polargeo 2 &bull; User:PolargeoSock Created 2 Oct; last edit 6 Oct &bull; User:PolargeoShutdown Created 8 Oct - They were all used or created during the past three weeks.  Roger Davies  talk 13:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus: here's one I overlooked yesterday, added for the record: User:Jack Vine Created 8 Oct 2010 Last edit 13 Oct 2010.  Roger Davies  talk 17:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...but of course, while not optimal, I don't think any of them has been used in a misleading fashion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Creating accounts on a proxy server is not misleading?  Roger Davies  talk 15:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They are all me I have never tried to hide that, as you know from my emails to yourself and arbcom. Polargeo 2 (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look, Polargeo, though I am at work right now so it'll have to wait until this evening. &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Coren. Polargeo 2 (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving unblock request to the bottom and commenting as an admin patrolling CAT:RFU: According to the blocking arbitrator, "these blocks are based on checkuser evidence, and were made on the advice of a member of the Arbitration Committee". Because the evidence for this block is not public, it is not amenable to review through a talk page unblock request. Any unblock requests would therefore need to be addressed by e-mail to the Arbitration Committee, or to an administrator with checkuser permissions.  Sandstein  11:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A good start
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back
Now that you have been unblocked, hopefully you can return to "good standing" fairly quickly. I would suggest that, if you want to relieve some frustration, you should work on something completely unrelated to Climate Change. Try doing articles about landmarks or events in your town. Not only do you get to travel around taking pictures of things and expanding your local knowledge, but I find that the frequent trips to your local library to dig out newspaper articles and records can be very therapeutic. Just find something non-controversial, like a local historical landmark, and bury yourself in it. You'll feel much better, I promise. The Wordsmith Communicate 17:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's real fun to dig deep into something that hardly anybody cares about and turn it into a highly readable article. I have done this twice so far, and it was worth it. Quickies like this are even more rewarding because you don't have to spend much time on them and still bring them to a state when they are essentially finished. Hans Adler 18:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me echo the above. I hadn't planned on bringing Nikita Zotov to anywhere beyond the bare minimum for DYK; I was just reading a book on Peter the Great and figured I would write up the article. Before I knew it, I was ordering books through interlibrary loan from nearly a dozen libraries and bringing the article up to FA status. Writing that article was probably the most fun I ever had on Wikipedia, even though I know no more than a few hundred people look at the article every month. Writing something just for the fun of it might not be terribly productive in the long run, but once you sit down and start doing it, it can be fascinating work. NW ( Talk ) 02:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to interject that, as a respite from climate change (a subject about which I really know little), I retreated to Manhattan history, a subject about which I know quite a bit, and rescued Doyers Street (Manhattan) from an abysmal fate that included having the wrong name. One of the immediate contrasts that I noticed from the CC articles is that one does not have to argued every..... little..... thing.... over..... and...... over......again..... interminably! ScottyBerg (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for all of the advice it is very good advice. One thing that irritates me is why everyone seems to think I was ever a big contributor to climate change articles. I don't know how many times I have to say my problem was always with the CC probation and admin bias. I was a big contributor to glaciology but not stuff related to climate change. My biggest contributions to wikipedia have been on Balkans articles (for which I bought and read books to add references), followed by improving and creating glacier stubs and lists of glaciers and a GA on Pine Island Glacier (a glacier that has a surface temperature below freezing, average -25 degrees, and has experienced negligable surface warming). The arbcase found no evidence of a single problematic article or article talkpage edit in the CC area and still topic banned me for promoting a battleground mentality mainly because of fairly minor incivility during the arbcase and the RfC/U I started. As an admin and even before I have focused on CSD, AfD and new page patrolling etc. In fact this is probably my main contribution to wikipedia and has nothing to do with climate change. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think part of it might be that some of us might have fallen into the kind of mistakes made by some of the more abrasive editors in the CC area, who tended to view other editors entirely on the basis of a sometimes distorted view of their CC editing. Personally my interest is only tangential but I kind of was swept into it. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Jesus. You're telling me that. Spot on!! Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You may want to clear the air on those multiple accounts, if you want and if you feel it's necessary. Personally I don't care, but there's been some drama concerning it. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I will but it is very complex. In the interim please feel free to ask any questions and they will be answered. Polargeo 2 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't care, as I said, but it does seems like a lot of accounts. When you're in the mood, you may want to deal with it in a subpage, and then in the future you can just refer people to that and everyone can move on. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. That is my idea. I already started a few days ago in an email to Roger Davies, which was copied to arbcom, which Roger Davies seems to have totally ignored in his comments here recently, comments which seem to be designed to discredit me and reinforce his actions without acknowledging any of my email explanations. Polargeo 2 (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just adding to the chorus of those who are welcoming you back. In spite of our historical spats, I have nothing but respect for you as an editor and think all of your article contributions have been great. Wikipedia needs more scientists contributing. And, to be clear, I categorically disagree with how you got thrown under the bus during the climate change arbcom. Let me know if there is anything I can ever do to help. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of applies to your recent travails. I think you'll know which bits William M. Connolley (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
Hey. I'm editing those articles and making them meet Wikipedia's standards. The editing process would approximately finish by 4 hours. Please be patient and remove those deletion proposals. Thankyou! (Watercolor121 (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC))
 * They are not speedy deletion notices therefore you have several days to get them to standard. It would be better to start the articles in your userspace. Please read Your first article for information. thanks Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"This appears to be an advert poorly disguised by sticking a copy of a research paper in the middle of it."
Not only that, it's a widespread copyvio too.... Peridon (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. Thanks. I suppose that at the moment I couldn't justify possibly wasting time looking for where the copyvio came from when I thought it should just be deleted as an advert. Polargeo 2 (talk)

Arbitration/Requests/Clarification
This is formal notification because you are one of the affected parties. --TS 00:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

About Shopping in Lahore
Send to WP:AfD?--Shirt58 (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose it should be classified as a list and that would be fine. I would push for it to remain a list rather than an encyclopedic article because that is what it is. Polargeo 2 (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like that is what has happenend anyway :) Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Need controversy?
Whether you agree or disagree with me on any issue is wondrously unimportant - but I try to edit where I can see some good arising (mainly on BLPs where I tend to follow Jimbo's philosophy)- and (luckily) that has not generally had any relationship to Climate Change. Look at my edits, and see if any articles interest you - then jump in. Just do not ever mention "WMC" in any edits. :)  Collect (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which particular comment of mine are you responding to here? Polargeo 2 (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only think you are commenting on my response to a thread which had named me specifically. A comment of mine which made every attempt to pull editors together and be positive. I hope you will join with me to pull editors together too. This would be a good start. Polargeo 2 (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt you will find me other than helpful to "cool down" animus between editors. I was not, however, referring to a specific comment of yours at all. Collect (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

WRT partisanship - I edit on Alex Sink and a large bunch of non-Republicans (I do not think she is a Republican) to be accurate. Indeed, I am not involved in any campaigns at all, nor have I been involved for well over a dozen years (I was a J.P.). Collect (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. I am making the mistake of just seeing a couple of articles and not looking at the whole picture then. However, I have been very concerned with some of the edits you have supported with respect to FellGleaming who is certainly a POV pusher. I am afraid I put 2 and 2 together. As many people, including you, have done previously regarding myself. Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the big problems is admins and editors not looking at the larger picture. I think you missed my support for FG being restricted on eone of the noticeboards?  Collect (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right. On another note, when I was an admin I was still an editor. Polargeo 2 (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Hi, I just want to say I'm glad you decided to stay and be an editor. That's all I want to say. :) Take care and I hope to see you around.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I couldn't just go and leave the crazies to run the place. Polargeo 2 (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with us crazies? --14:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop dribbling all over my talkpage you crazy person. That is my job. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So if you ran for admin again (not that I expect you to, at least not any time soon), what would the title of the page be? "Polargeo 2 2" ?     Anyway, good to see you have decided to stay, I was worried for a while.   —  Soap  —  13:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no chance of me running for admin any time soon I'm afraid though. What annoys me most of all at present is that I cannot see deleted contributions, this is really important for doing simple things properly like patrolling new pages. I'm not at all bothered about blocking users and protecting pages, there are plenty of people who love doing those things. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

coincidence
I was working on the Cambridge American Cemetery and Memorial article, posted a note tot he talk page, realized Carcharoth had suggested some other wikilinks, and decided to address them later today. Then I decided, why not do it now, opened the article again, and there are the wikilinks. Not quite an edit conflict, but not the type of article where you would expect this to happen. Thanks for taking care of it. And good to see you editing. (I was going to suggest that you add a picture of the reflecting pool, but then I realized it is in the article already. However, it isn't a great resolution, so if you were ever in the area, it might be nice to have a better photo of that pool. --  SPhilbrick  T  11:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I might be able to do it over the weekend. Feel free to change anything I do without asking. Polargeo 2 (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)