Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Polargeo

Username: Polargeo User groups: autoreviewer, rollbacker First edit: Jan 20, 2009 12:54:47 Unique articles edited: 837 Average edits per page: 4.83 Total edits (including deleted): 4,043 Deleted edits: 176 Live edits: 3,867 Namespace totals Article	1937	50.09% Talk	620	16.03% User	338	8.74% User talk	435	11.25% Wikipedia	479	12.39% Wikipedia talk	41	1.06% File	15	0.39% Template	2	0.05% Graph Month counts 2009/01	138	2009/02	303	2009/03	28	2009/04	93	2009/05	367	2009/06	464	2009/07	403	2009/08	583	2009/09	41	2009/10	281	2009/11	797	2009/12	369	Logs Pages patrolled: 117 Files uploaded: 8 Top edited articles Article

* 193 - Rape_in_the_Bosnian_War * 159 - Karađorđevo_agreement * 119 - List_of_glaciers_in_the_Antarctic * 115 - Pine_Island_Glacier * 60 - Antarctica * 43 - Ice_stream * 40 - Effects_of_global_warming * 37 - Willie_Soon * 35 - Jakobshavn_Isbræ * 30 - Anthropocene_extinction_event

Talk

* 135 - List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti... * 78 - Karađorđevo_agreement * 33 - Effects_of_global_warming * 29 - Antarctica * 25 - Rape_in_the_Bosnian_War * 20 - Anthropocene_extinction_event * 17 - Jakobshavn_Isbræ * 15 - Holocene_extinction * 14 - Peak_District/GA1 * 14 - Touchet_Formation/GA1

User

* 96 - Polargeo * 93 - Polargeo/Sandbox2 * 82 - Polargeo/Sandbox * 20 - Polargeo/Antarctic_mass_balance * 12 - Polargeo/Positive_feedback_effects * 11 - Polargeo/Articles_I_have_nominated_at_AfD * 11 - Polargeo/Glacier_articles_created * 7 - Polargeo/Ice_shelf_articles_created * 5 - Polargeo/monobook.js   * 1 - Polargeo/huggle.css

User talk

* 80 - Polargeo * 25 - HerCipri * 18 - Aradic-es * 18 - Ronz * 13 - Ceha * 10 - DIREKTOR * 8 - DiverDave * 8 - Anarchangel * 7 - William_M._Connolley * 7 - 83.254.136.93

Wikipedia

* 46 - Articles_for_deletion/Anthropocene_extinction_even... * 35 - Articles_for_deletion/Mass_rape_in_the_Bosnian_War * 28 - Wikiquette_alerts * 21 - Articles_for_deletion/Greenfinger_(3rd_nomination) * 15 - Requests_for_bureaucratship/Juliancolton * 12 - Articles_for_deletion/Lynne_Latham * 12 - Possibly_unfree_files/2009_November_4 * 11 - Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_22 * 10 - Articles_for_deletion/John_Wick_(whistleblower)_(2...   * 10 - WikiProject_Antarctica/to_do

Wikipedia talk

* 13 - WikiProject_Antarctica * 6 - WikiProject_Glaciers * 5 - WikiProject_Geography * 3 - WikiProject_Arctic * 2 - WikiProject_Antarctica/British_Antarctic_Territory... * 2 - WikiProject_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina * 2 - Articles_for_deletion * 2 - WikiProject_Discrimination * 1 - WikiProject_Romania * 1 - Requests_for_comment/DrKiernan

File

* 5 - Amundsen_Sea_Icebergs.jpg * 4 - FRicestreams.jpg * 2 - Bambervelocity.jpg * 1 - Antarctic_Ice_Melting.jpg * 1 - Glacio_greenland.jpg * 1 - Sikorsky_Greenland.jpg * 1 - PineIslandBay.jpg

Template

* 1 - Campaignbox_Bosnian_War * 1 - Demi_Lovato

Coldplay's neutral !vote
#:This is only a placeholder until I am able to further review the candidate.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 17:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never understood the reasoning behind this type of posting. If you have reviewed the candidate but can't decide, then I get going neutral, but what does adding a "placeholder" until you make your decision accomplish? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One more edit to the project space. Nothing else. Pedro : Chat  18:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ouch! A public accusation of Editcountitis! Jus  da  fax  19:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no beef wit Coldplay Expert. But I agree with Beeblebrox that comments like this are, well, pointless in the extreme and do nothing but up one's edit count - for all the good that does. Pedro : Chat  19:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No its nothing about editcount but I want the candidate to know that Ill be !voteing on this RFA. Thats it. Seriously guys WP:AGF. I have struck the comment out. OK? (PS I put that there because I didn't review the candidate. Otherwise I would have !voted already)-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 19:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jusdafax's misled comment skewed this whole thread. Pedro's comment implied that your neutral !vote had no use whatsoever except to perhaps up your edit count - he was not implying that your purpose for it was to up your edit count. I happen to agree with Pedro; unless you have a vested interest in being the first neutral vote, there is zero benefit to a placeholder comment (or even notifying the candidate that you intend to vote). Tan   &#124;   39  20:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Tan on this, but I'm not singling Coldplay Expert out. I see no reason to make a "placeholder" !vote. Either you've analysed whatever it is that matters to you (edit count, edit summaries, namespace totals etc etc etc) and !voted accordingly or you haven't analysed the candidate and, IMHO, shouldn't !vote (unless you're opposing because we have "too many administrators currently" which is as pointless as a placeholder!). Editcountitis is irrelevant. HJMitchell    You rang?   21:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Look im sorry ok? Can you guys stop critisizing me? Im only human after all! Ill be sure to actuall review any future candiates before I make a !vote.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 21:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's no big deal. You weren't the first to do it and you won't be the last. Gigs (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, my comment was not meant to be read as a criticism of you personally, Coldplay Expert, I was trying to make a general point about "placeholder votes". As Gigs observes, you're not the first and I hope but doubt you'll be the last. HJMitchell    You rang?   23:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Its ok. I didnt really know that doing so was frowned upon. Now when an editor intentionally puts in a "placeholder" for the editcount then we would have a real reason to get all up in arms about it.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to note, I've watched and participated in a number of RfAs this year and CE has consistently given thoughtful and helpful input. I don't think anyone here has suggested otherwise, despite objections to the "placeholder" neutral. --  At am a  頭 00:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Geez, I go out for a few hours and come back to find this. I was really only hoping I would just get a simple explanation from CE... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I have seen here, "simple" explanations are extremely lacking. 64.216.33.14 (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave you guys a simple explanation didnt I? This was the first (and last time) that I have done this. Sorry. I didn't know that it was frowned upon as I just wanted the candidate to know that I would be !voteing. Oh and thanks Atama for the compliment!-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 17:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is pathetic. CE's apologized. We've all moved on. Let's drop this now. Aditya Ex Machina  18:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There should have been no need for an apology in the first place, although I agree with the above sentiments.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. Maybe now this will end...-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian article
Just thought Id say how my concern about this article could be addressed, as the candidates work on other articles like Pine Island Glacier looks really good and we do badly need more admins. The best way to bring the article to NPOV would be to have a reconciliation section (there are stacks of sources if you google "reconciliation Bosnians Serbs"). As well as discussing the bridge building work going on, there should be some reference to the centuries long cycle of violence in the region,  including specific  recent instances where the Serbs were the victims. Alternatively if  instances of prior aggression and sexual violence against Serbs arent added,  the most inflammatory instances and reference to Serb behaviour could be removed. If NPOV isnt achieved the article could have real world consequences. Not by escalating violence locally as resident Bosnian muslims tend to be moderate and understand there are two sides to the story, but as young passionate  foreigners with sympathy for the Bosnians who read the article could be encourage to travel out there and join radical Islamist groups to carry out more revenge attacks and perpetuate the cycle. There was a lot of this going on up until about 2005 and it could easily kick off again. If I see this addressed before the RFA closes I'll strike my oppose, otherwise I'll probably try and make the changes myself. At least now I understand what a deletionist feels like when they see an article they really don't like! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * reply to Polargeo's reply on main page >Ok I was wrong to call it "your" rape article. Youve certainlty made the article more encyclopaedic, but for me that can add to its inflammatory effect – when it was more blatantly POV & amateur essay like folk would be more likely to dismiss it as such.  The best way to represent the topic would probably include only using good secondary sources for the more inflammatory claims – 3rd hand extracts from UN interim reports written in 1992 (e.g. cite no 12) are effectively primary sources. Youre right its a very difficult topic,  and while I still feel its not neautral its looks like I was a little judgemental myself to take the article as evidence you might be a POV warrior. According to Niall Ferguson  the reference I made to the historical cycle of violence was used by British diplomats after the war broke out to delay western intervention and even arming of the Bosniats so they could defend themselves  . Im striking my oppose.    As for our interaction, Id forgot you took part in the DaveMeister RfA and  was thinking of another discussion.  Theres already enough links to suggest youre not the most emollient when dealing with folk who have opposing views .  And for that reason I wont be supporting for this RfA, though in a way ill be happy if you pass as your determination and strong arguments together with admin status is no bad thing when dealing with climate sceptics! FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. The trouble with these articles on the war is that few people edit them from a NPOV. My goal was to keep the lede as balanced as possible. I also added the section on effects of the rape because I thought there should be more focus on the victims. A lot of the other content is not mine but stuff I tidied up. I think more balance using secondary sources is the way to go but I was reluctant to just remove a lot of good sources and quotes even though many do not like them. Polargeo (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

To those !voting oppose because of low edit count
I'm just wondering if there's a "magic number"? He could go out and rack up 200 edits per day just by slapping a few maintenance templates on articles or using rollback (which, I believe, isn't an automated edit counted by Soxred) and hey, if he doesn't bother to warn the vandals, he racks up hundreds of edits per day to the mainspace but any idiot can copy and paste a template or push a button- it says nothing about the quality of an editor's contributions and I'd rather have good admins than prolific admins. HJMitchell   You rang?   15:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While I certainly agree with you, this is far, far from an original argument - I've seen hundreds of threads like this. See WP:ITIS. It's something that will always be around. Tan   &#124;   39  15:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tan beat me to it with the link. Whilst I prefer quality over quantity you've got to have some quantity to demonstrate consistent quality if you get my drift. And what that quantity is, well, there is no "magic number" - and likely never will be. Pedro : Chat  15:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I always do my best and if you cannot judge me now you are unlikely to be able to judge if I had 6000 edits. Still I would be more cautious myself with editors who have lower edit counts so I do not mind opposition on this. Polargeo (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know Polargeo, I wasn't opposing because of you editcount. You seem to have enough edits to know how to do stuff. Rather, I was opposing because of the convincing arguments that Tan put forward.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 17:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a bit of a "magic number", of sorts, I guess. If someone has less than 3,000 edits, there has to be some real quality stuff in there. Let's say that an editor has 2,000 edits over 6 months of editing, but those edits include a couple of GAs, one FA, a few DYKs, some vandalism work, very helpful comments at ANI, and a few examples of excellent dispute resolution along with no blocks or other bad behavior. Let's also say that the editor has been extremely helpful with NPP and has a nearly spotless CSD record with a hundred articles correctly tagged and deleted, and wants the mop to help make speedy deletions even more speedy. I might be inclined to support despite such a low edit count. But in the case of an editor with, say, 200 edits, I can't imagine supporting no matter what they've done. There is a point where you have to say a person just doesn't have enough experience. --  At am a  頭 18:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 3,000 might be a decent meter stick for failure at RfA, but it doesn't adequately address success. Point in case, this RfA and others like it.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, Polargeo is right in the middle of me supporting and opposing. He has demonstrated that he can make good edits but the AFD is what scared me into a weak oppose. I think that it is what the candidate has done with their 3,000 edits is whats important. However anything lower than that ill be inclined to oppose due to the fact that you dont seem to have too much experience.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 19:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, you should look at the edits, not the edit count, unless the amount of edits is REALLY low. 3,000 is not a small number.  smithers  - talk  -  sign!  02:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Kurt's oppose
Strongest possible oppose Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 01:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you care to elaborate on that a little? HJMitchell    You rang?   02:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a self-nom. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 03:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is a weak reason in a way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's an excellent reason. A self-nomination is prima facie evidence of power hunger.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 04:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * People are still giving Kurt grief over his opposes? Geez, come on guys! I often disagree with him myself, but he's been at this for years now, and doesn't seem to be stopping any time soon. Arguing with him is never going to bear fruit. faithless   (speak)  08:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nor should Kurt be stopping anytime soon. Although I often disagree with him, he does raise important issues and sparks debate. I totally agree with him on this issue. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The only debate Kurt sparks is if an RfC is appropriate, or whether an outright block for disruption would be a better option. His oppose (particularly this one) makes absolutely no sense at all, and I certainly hope the crats don't count it. Aditya Ex Machina  15:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. I certainly hope the crats do count it and consider it. As to how much weight they give it . . . Well that is up to them. We can disagree with Kurt with out being disagreeable. HappyHolidays - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I understand where Kurt is coming from. I don't agree with him, I think that a number of fine admins were self-noms. But at the same time, I think an editor who is nominated does have a slight advantage in that the editor already shows some support from the very beginning. And I've seen RfA criteria lists from editors that explicitly say that they give less weight to self-noms than other nominations. I still think Kurt is wrong to oppose because of it, but I don't agree that the oppose is complete nonsense. --  At am a  頭 18:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kurt's oppose rationale is that self noms indicate power hunger. To oppose because of that (when WP:GRFA explicitly allows self-noms, and does not even attempt to discourage them) is nothing short of ridiculous. Aditya Ex Machina  18:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Its not even a good enough reason to regular oppose, mush less "Strongest possible oppose". Polargeo, this oppose in nothing to worry about. You cant fix you nomination. Just focus on the other neutrals and opposes.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 19:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're correct that self-noms are allowed, as they should be. But just because you're allowed to do something doesn't mean I have to like it, or that it's a good idea.  There are plenty of people in my classes who don't shower--they're allowed to not shower, and I think they should continue to be allowed to not shower.  But that doesn't mean they shouldn't shower, or that I have to like the fact that they don't shower.  Or, perhaps, more relevantly: Collectivists are allowed to run for public office, as they should be.  That doesn't mean I have to like it when they run, or that I can't use the fact that they're collectivists to oppose them.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 19:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but your not Assuming Good Faith when you made your "Strongest possible oppose" !vote. Is there any evidence at all that Polargeo would view adminship as a trophy? No so why jump to conclusions?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 19:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the potential for harm if someone who shouldn't be made a community servant is, it seems more reasonable here that the standard should be "presume he's not suitable until it's conclusively demonstrated that he is." Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 21:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF is a fundamental guideline which editors are expected to follow. If you're not comfortable supporting you may remain neutral. But opposing a nomination based on just your opinion (and not of the candidate, but of the process) is unfair for the candidate. Two (1,2) of our more "dangerous" ex-admins weren't self-nommed. There is absolutely no relation. The community is clearly (very) irritated by your consistent (perhaps unintentionally) disruptive !votes. Please reconsider. Aditya Ex Machina 21:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Kurt's take regarding burden of proof is a violation of AGF.  It is obvious that the burden of proof is already on the candidate or we'd be accepting people with 100 edits as administrators and then desysopping them when they mess up. Gigs (talk)
 * To address the simplest point first: that doing X irritates people is no reason to stop doing X, if there is no reasonable basis for those people becoming irritated--perhaps those who find themselves irritated need to take a moment and reflect on why they're letting a perfectly legitimate action bother them. You have your standards regarding being a community servant and vote according to them, and I don't bother you over it even they conflict with mine; why is it so hard for you to do the same with regards to me and my standards? And "Assume Good Faith" doesn't mean "Assume Good Faith, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding." In my view, the fact of self-nominating oneself has been, with one or two exceptions, sufficient evidence of bad faith, at least as regards this one particular area of Wikipedia. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 22:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently some of our newer users are missing a critical piece of information: Kurt has been doing this at every self nom he sees for years. These long threads on his opposes probably number in the hundreds by now. Kurt is obviously never going to back down from this position and debating this or any of his other iconoclastic positions is a waste of energy. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec, replying to Gigs) Has the candidate done/said anything to indicate that he'll misuse the tools? If he has, then oppose, and show the relevant diffs. If he hasn't, then either refrain from !voting, or settle down in the neutral section (since you don't have any evidence to !vote either way). And if you feel you can trust the candidate with the tools, then you support. That's how it works. Aditya Ex Machina  22:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox: I'm aware of Kurt's history. Aditya Ex Machina  22:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do have evidence: the fact that he self-nominated. That you don't think that constitutes sufficient evidence only means that your standards are different from mine. You vote based on your standards, I'll vote based on mine. I respect yours, even though I think they're wrong; why can't you respect mine? Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 22:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aditya... that's not how it works. People oppose because someone doesn't have enough edits.  People oppose because the candidate doesn't have the right namespace percentages. People oppose for a lot of silly reasons other than evidence that might indicate misuse.  We don't ask those people to "go neutral or don't vote".  What you have asserted here in terms of what is and isn't a valid oppose is way more extreme than Kurt's position.  Gigs (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kurt, I respect your standards, and understand your take on this, even though I disagree with it. However, I must admit that I think 'Strongest possible oppose' is possibly a 'bit' strong... a simple 'oppose' would be enough! Regulars know why you are opposing, and how you feel on the subject - and I think most of us respect it even if we don't agree with it - while those who are new to RfA will be most likely to challenge your statement. To those I say: as Kurt quite rightly points out, we all vote based on our standards - there is no fixed criteria for receiving adminship, everyone has to decide what they are looking for in an admin for themselves. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kurt: Touché. Aditya Ex Machina  22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Gigs: Opposing solely on the basis of number of edits or namespace percentages is discouraged. Check out the section above this one. Happens in most RfAs. Aditya Ex Machina  22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PhantomSteve: I'm not new to RfA, but I still view Kurt's oppose as being extremely unfair to the candidate. Aditya Ex Machina  22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aditya, you're correct. Opposing for those reasons is discouraged. Kurt's opposition on this basis is certainly discouraged, I'm quite familiar with the controversy regarding his stance which goes back a very long time. But he's still allowed to oppose on this basis, just as both you and I are allowed to object to his opposition (and I do object to it). I also know Kurt won't change his mind, or his opposition on this basis. Have faith that the bureaucrat closing this won't be dumb enough to see a "strongest possible oppose" and let that wording sway the outcome, regardless of the actual reason for the opposition. --  At am a  頭 22:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Even though im still opposeing his RFA, polargeo still deserves a fair chance.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually debates like this tend to generate sympathy for the candidate. Note his support has grown to 64%. Ret.Prof (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This is what I don't get. I simply asked for a rationale to "strongest possible oppose", which seems a little excessive, but as long as people like this oppose every RfA or every self nom and editors start huge talk page threads about it, RfA will remain the dramafest it is. People are forgetting the question RfA is supposed to answer: Can the candidate be trusted to wield the tools effectively? Everybody has their own answer for their own reason and that healthy disagreement and discussion is one of the few good things about RfA. HJMitchell   You rang?   05:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ret.Prof, yes you're right. The support % was around 55 before Kurt posted his oppose. Awesome. =) Aditya Ex Machina  16:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Means nothing. Post hoc does not mean propter hoc.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! : 13-0) 17:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is eram tantum theoricus. Either way, the support % went up. Sympathy seems to be a very plausible reason. I feel a 'thank you' is in order. Aditya Ex Machina  19:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am switching to weak support. I also see that the candidate is wise enough to avoid this "circle" debate - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

SoxBot's faulty count
I've noticed that SoxBot is reporting the Supports and Opposes correctly at Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report, but the Neutrals shows as 0.

I think it's because Coldpay Expert's struck out !vote is confusing the poor thing, so I have indented it, so hopefully the next update by SoxBot will be correct! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, SoxBot always reports 0 neutrals, because they don't affect the percentage total. At least, as of a coding change that X! made in September.  He's said that he's going to change it back, though, when he gets a chance, because people have brought it up on his talk page. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 11:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, he could just remove the "N" column altogether: it either needs to show the figure, or not be there at all! I'll drop a note on his talk page about it. Thanks for letting me know! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for your support in my RfA
For all of those who supported my RfA thanks for trusting me. For all of those who opposed I appreciate many of your reasons and if I didn't know myself better I may have been persuaded to oppose by them. Anyway it is clear that a lot of editors feel that I need to demonstrate that I can stay polite for more than 1 month. Also I agree, a little more experience in areas such as csd may have tipped the balance. I am taking a Christmas break now so may not be online for a week or two. This is nothing to do with my RfA and everything to do with my wife, baby daughter and a house that is in need of some major work.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

Polargeo (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)