User talk:Polargeo/Archive 6

Ramblings by me

Do you think you might cool it a bit with Lar, especially on his talk page? When people see mud flying back and forth they tend not to look at who started it or the issues behind it. They just see the mud flying and both parties getting dirty. As well, there is no realistic prospect of having a meaningful exchange -- all you'll get is the usual dodge-and-weave from Lar. So I'd suggest you try to pull back as far as possible. If you find it absolutely necessary to comment, do so in the most dispassionate terms as possible. This is just one guy's inflation-adjusted two cents, so you can consider or ignore as you see fit. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are right. Trouble is by telling me this you have racked up another diff on view by Cla :| Polargeo (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Do you have any advice on how to do deal with the mass vandalism that banned user Aradic-es commits on a daily basis? Would seeking rollback rights or a range block be effective or possible solutions? ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 11:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Aradic-es is not banned but indefinitely blocked. Very obvious sock edits can be reverted but you are usually safer undoing them so that you can note the reason why in your edit summary, this will save you from getting into trouble from editors who are not as familiar with the IP/POV and don't recognise the sock as easily as you do. If you can I would strongly recommend using WP:TWINKLE, That gives you a rollback function but one you can add an edit summary to. Also it gives you a tab to make requesting page protection easier. It is also easier to report users. Trouble is it won't work in internet explorer so you would need to use another web broser such as firefox, which is free and easy to install. If you can do this I would recommend it rather than using rollback. What do you think? Polargeo (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have little knowledge of rangeblocking and IPs so you are best to go to AN or SPI for this. Polargeo (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright I'll give WP:TWINKLE a try and see how it works out. ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 15:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's working better than expected and makes patrolling less tedious. Aradic has stopped reverting - for now anyway. ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 14:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Manual talkback

Feel free to delete this section once you've seen it. Thanks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ban from editing Bishop Hill (blog) article

You are not permitted to edit the above article while the RfC is still running. You may participate on the talkpage, and suggest edits to the mainpage there. I shall be noting my actions at both the CC Probation enforcement talkpage, and ANI. You may wish to comment there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like bullshit to me. You have no authority to do this William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard, you have absolutely no authority to do this. Polargeo (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• The protection was a re-instatement of the previous protection, to stop edit warring, and not against you personally - since I have banned you from the article page temporarily. However, I will of course not wheel war over interpretation of my motives no matter how incorrect. I shall trust that you will re-instate protection if necessary or upon reasonable request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • As you have noted that you would not redirect the article again, I have no reason to ban you from the article page; the ban is therefore lifted. In the hope that people will permit the RfC to run to a conclusion before determining where there is consensus, I have also unprotected the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wheel warring and also using your tools in a debate in which you are clearly involved

It's probably best to drop it, now. Hipocrite (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Polargeo, why did you remove protection on that article? You have freely admitted you are acting as an editor in this debate, so not only was your action wheel-warring, you used your tools in a debate in which you are clearly involved. I intend to take this to arbcom, but I'd appreciate an explanation first. ATren (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Hello ATren. You are considerably behind the times. I only removed protection because I thought it was acted against me alone and I stated there was no need for that indeed it was a mistake (of course there was no need I am very reasonable and would never edit war). LessHeard requested I reinstated protection and so I did following his request before you even added this comment to my talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Polargeo, you used your tools in a dispute in which you are involved, and you wheel warred. These are basically 1 and 1a of What Not To Do As An Admin. You were right to reverse your actions, but you still wheel warred on an article in which you are CLEARLY involved (in fact, you directly admitted your involvement a few weeks ago, when you committed to acting only as an editor in this debate.) I believe this is actionable and I am fairly sure I will be taking this to arbcom, but I will consult others first. ATren (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC) There's a huge difference in Admin who won't rectify mistakes and Admin who do. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Of course you'll take it to arbcom. Of course, given that he said he was unprotecting it because he assumed that the protection was to prevent him from editing, and he was not going to edit the article, and that he reprotected when he was informed he was wrong is going to clear him from any reproach by arbcom. However, I'll take your filing as an oppourtunity to broaden the scope and examine the outrageously poor sourcing behavior of your compatriots, so please, make my day. Hipocrite (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Please Hipocrite, baiting isn't helpful. This is about the articles, okay? Because LHVU intervened and did his job as an admin, WP's content dispute resolution process can continue to operate as designed with the Bishop Hill article. Thus, all of us are winners on this one. Cla68 (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I'm going to insist you retract your statement that I am "baiting" anyone. If you fail to do so, I will escalate your incivility. Hipocrite (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Polargeo, you're not allowed to use your tools in a dispute you're involved in, and it's even worse to unprotect an article that was protected in part because of your editing. No one should be defending this, regardless of which side of the debate they're on. SlimVirgin talk contribs 13:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC) LessHeard told me that it was not against me specifically and I reprotected the page per his request. @ATren if you will stop acting so hostile you will find I am your best friend on wikipeida. Polargeo (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC) @Slim I have no intention of undoing LessHeard's revert of my edits. I was just unprotecting the protection he had made of his own edits. Polargeo (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I don't see how Less Heard should be allowed to revert non-vandalism which follows consensus and then protect his own edits. Polargeo (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Indeed. SV's hypocrisy in this is stunning. And pointless, too William M. Connolley (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC) LessHeard reverted non-vandalism and then protected his own version against consensus. A disgusting use of admin tools. Polargeo (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, why is it "best to drop it" ??? I see in this diff that Polargeo unprotected an article that he claims was protected to prevent him from editing it. ("Full protection was acted against me") Is that actually acceptable in anyone's mind? All the back and forth seems to obscure that point. I think Polargeo needs to straight up say "I goofed, that was wrong" with no excuses, and that might sort this. But denying wrongdoing ... and then casting aspersions on others? That's not good. ++Lar: t/c 21:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo assumed the article was protected to prevent him from editing it. He pledged not to edit it, and removed the protection. When he was informed he misunderstood the protection, he undid his action. You appear to be doing little more than demanding an apology - see also Wikipedia:Apology, which is good advice. While I agree that everyone who is using their tools and editing articles should stop edging the line (revert and protect, block and revert, and the like), this dosen't appear to be anything more than a misunderstanding, but honestly, the admins admining this area have really lost the how-to-admin thread, because aside from a very very limited number of individuals, it's transparent on which side each admin has lined up. Hipocrite (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've commended Wikipedia:Apology as useful reading to many folk, but thanks just the same. It doesn't apply in this case as it's not an "I'm sorry" that's needed, it's an "I goofed"... I don't care if he's sorry or not. I do care that it won't happen again, and recognition that one goofed is a key part of that sort of fix. ++Lar: t/c 21:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How interesting. So you're not looking for him to say he's sorry, you're looking for him to say he fucked up? Or, rather, are you looking for him to say he's not going to un-full-protect an article he was editing? Just trying to figure out what you mean - we need to be impeccably clear. Hipocrite (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay I goofed, fucked up, etc. I will never even contemplate it ever again. I still maintain LessHeard fucked up much worse by some way as I never tried to edit war my version in to play and then protect it. But that does not seem to matter a whole can of beans in Lar world. Hey ho. Polargeo (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, evaluation time.

• I think Polargeo needs to straight up say "I goofed, that was wrong" Check.
• ... with no excuses, Er... not quite checkable just yet. See, "He did it too" didn't work when my kids tried it on me, and it doesn't work here either.

But... close enough, under the law of diminishing returns. Done. Thanks, Polargeo. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I goofed, that was wrong. Polargeo (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Posting in the "uninvolved admin" section

Could you explain why you feel you are sufficiently uninvolved to post in the admin section of the current WMC enforcement request? Cla68 (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect he uses the same approach I do: Letter of the law, and the assumption that any involvement less than one Lar is obviously ok with Lar (who seems to have declared himself The Truth, The Light, and The Judge by self-acclamation). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I could not have put this better. As long as Lar feels he is justified in commenting on requests involving WMC then I am equally justified in commenting per letter of the law. Polargeo (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well SlimVirgin is an admin, so I take it that from this point forward she may act as uninvolved as well, as long as she doesn't bring the request herself. By the letter, of course. ATren (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You can take it what ever way you wish but I hardly think that the person who brings an enforcement request can then comment as an uninvolved admin. I am fairly certain even Lar would agree with this. Polargeo (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Also on principle I would not comment as uninvolved but I am only doing so on protest in that I consider myself no more involved than Lar. Polargeo (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I explicitly excluded the Singer request ("as long as she doesn't bring the request herself") but obviously she's uninvolved for future requests. By the letter. ATren (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You post this as if you are expecting that I give a monkey's arse. I would exclude myself every time involving WMC except if Lar or Slim or wordsmith post their biased coments in the admin section. The best outcome as far as I am concerned is if we all go away and enforcement goes away. Polargeo (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, it sounds like you're saying, "I am involved but am willing to rationalize breaking the code of ethics for WP administrators to suit my own purposes?" Do I have this right? Cla68 (talk)

No you have this wrong. I truly believe that on Lar's basis I am uninvolved. Polargeo (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Lar.2C_NuclearWarfare.2C_The_Wordsmith.2C_Polargeo

I have noted in the above enforcement request that the admin-only results section is for results, not for threaded discussion. If you wish to enage in threaded discussion, you are directed to do so where the plebians are able to respond to you. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not deem you worthy of a reply. :) Polargeo (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool it

I'm probably not the best person to be offering advise, but there are more important things than a blog. If people want to write a puff piece on blogs, let them. Whether it's RealClimate or Bishop Hill or Dot Earth or whatever. Stick to the important articles, the ones people actually read. And take a week away from this place — it does wonders for your sanity. No cheating by checking watchlists, reading noticeboards, or even reading articles. -Atmoz (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Break?

Wikibreak, schmickybreak [1] :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, at RFAR

I've mentioned your behavior in my comments at the Arbcom requests page, here [2] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

suggestion for List of glaciers in the Antarctic article

Hello, Polargeo. It's been awhile since we communicated. Please see my recent comments at Talk:List of glaciers in the Antarctic when you get around to it, and let me know what you think. Regards, DiverDave (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Unanswered cite request

You have an unanswered cite request on my talk page. I suggest you answer it as soon as possible. ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Or you could unwatch Lar's talk page. Just a thought. Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

An excellent idea, actually, as much as I like having lots of WP:TPWs. However the cite request is for a rather dismaying allegation, and it need to either be substantiated, or withdrawn. Post haste. ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite found it for you. It was something I now regret saying as it was unkind and unnecessary. ++Lar: t/c 19:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes it did strike me as being unkind and unnecessary and I am pleased you recognise this. Hipocrite actually found the diff (see the RfC talkpage). I had already found another diff of yours in the same thread which I thought was fairly poor in its own right. My thought is that we cannot exchange incivilities and even personal attacks with an editor and then act as uninvolved. Polargeo (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

We are calling it climate change at the moment :) Polargeo (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Karađorđevo agreement

Do you think the article would pass a GA review? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 14:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it would take a lot of work. It would likely bring up the arguments about the article's name. Last time I really was involved there was so much edit warring that article improvement was very difficult but with Aradic-es now blocked maybe this can be done now. Polargeo (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement board

You shouldn't be posting in the "results" section of the enforcement board [3] because you are involved as an editor with the climate change articles. If you'd like to comment you should post in the "comments by others" section above that. Thanks. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Please point to the wikipedia policy that states this. I will seek to obtain clarification on this matter from the RfC and ultimately from Arbcom if necessary. I will follow any stated policy or seek to change it if necessary. I personally am not primarily an editor of CC articles and I am certainly no POV pusher. I was recently granted adminship after some major scrutiny over two RfAs and if I had been found to be a POV pusher I am sure my first or second RfA would have failled spectacularly. Polargeo (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

MN and BLP

Seeking to influence you: the point (IMO) about MN's existing sources probation is that he has shown himself unable to evaluate the quality of sources. That lack of evaluation extends, logically, to BLP too. After his first edit, several editors suggested to him on his talk page that he should take advice before removing sources others considered valid; MN's response was complete obduracy (User_talk:Marknutley#Sources:_advice). On that particular source, Lar commented [4]. If you read that, you'll see Lar rasies no BLP issues. Lar's comment preceedes MN's second (1RR-breaking) removal. So whilst MN might have BLP grounds for the first removal, he really can't say the same for the second. And it is the second that is the problem; no-one will begrudge him the first; it is the failure to listen to advice from *anyone* for the second that is the problem William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement revert

First - stop it.

Second, your revert removed "*Marknutley has gotten a large number of admonishments, warnings, and handholding. I'm convinced of his earnest intent and his desire to comply. I agree that in this case there may be a technical 1RR violation here but I don't think a block for it is warranted, this time. I still think a restriction on removing sources ought to be put in place to parallel the restriction on introducing sources. Mark recently asked me to review all the sources in a new article he was drafting and by and large they were satisfactory so I have hope that with practice Mark will improve to the point where this restriction won't be required, but for now, yes. ++Lar: t/c 13:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC) " from the page. You should probably return it to the page somewhere. I choose not to involve myself in the uninvolved admin wars, so I will not readd it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar's edit was so mixed up in moving of my own comments that I should not be held accountable for undoing this. If Lar wishes to construct a proper edit that adds his own comments without removing mine then that is a different matter and we can discuss the separate edits on their own merits. Polargeo (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll deal with it for you, then. Hipocrite (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou. I would have dealt with it myself but this is getting a little over the top and seems to be moving very quickly. Polargeo (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't escalate further with Lar by returing your comments to the section. Please. Hipocrite (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I will not Polargeo (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for deescalating. Hopefully deescalating will be rewarded as opposed to the default reward of rescalation. Hipocrite (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. Polargeo (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have filed an enforcement request to get this resolved once and for all - Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Lar_and.2For_Polargeo. You may comment. Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This matter should be dealt with at the RfC and ultimately by arbcom. I will simply comment to this effect. Polargeo (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope that if other uninvolved admins disagree and choose to cowboy up and make a decision, you will heed their statement unless overturned at the RFC or ArbCom. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Other uninvolved admins such as Lar? Anyway of course I would never go against consensus even if it was on something as poorly concieved as CC enforcement. Polargeo (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, like the uninvolved Lar. Your campaign to try to imply otherwise is disruptive and needs to stop. Lar is uninvolved. You are involved by your own admission. Accept it and move on. ATren (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You know...

I actually think you have a good heart and think you believe you are doing the right thing, but confirmation bias is so universal among us humans, difficult to recognize and destructive to the truth. It is a cognitive error that we all struggle with and so I doubt you will hear me words.

Please, just relax and take a nice walk. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your approach to Lar, & others

Hey Julian. I've been reviewing your recent contributions a bit. I figure I should suggest that you cool down some of the more inflammatory accusations/assertions. I expect they aren't intended to be problematic in any way, but from an outsider's perspective some of them come across as in conflict with WP:BAIT and WP:HOUND. And while you may think LHvU and Lar have given up rights to WP:AGF, I'm not sure most people would follow you on that. If all goes well there will be an Arbcom over CC soon, so I figure I should let you know how some of your comments are coming across.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not just the right thing to do, it's also to your benefit. When others are (in your view) misbehaving let their misbehavior stand in stark contrast to your own restraint and reasonableness. Better not to respond at all than to join in the slagging no matter who starts it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent advice we all should take to heart. Arkon (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Administration and Climate Change

I know that you had asked somewhere why you were being asked to recuse yourself on Climate Change administration. It appears that one of your most edited articles include significant contributions to Effects of global warming. It is not because you are not neutral in the subject area, but because Wikipedia custom with regards to administrators as arbitrators/mediators generally requires someone to act as either an administrator or an editor in a particular topic area, not just on a particular article, even if the area is very large. This is no indication of anyone's perception of your neutrality, but a measure employed in all cases to ensure that the admin bit is not used for allowing someone to push their own POV. NW (Talk) 17:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not that it really matters but I will explain my involvement in Effects of global warming. I am a glaciologist and my first ever edit on 6 May 2009 was to try to sort out some technical confusion [5]. There is no such thing as Thwaites glacier cliff!! My second edit was to add an important caveat becease the flow increases of the glaciers I had been working as a scientist had not been directly linked to global warming [6]. I just wished to state this. Then I spent some time trying to trim the article down because it was too long and was tagged as such. My last edit to the article was on 18 February where I removed an external link [7] my article edit before that was on 18 August 2009 where I moved a paragraph from one place to another [8]. So generally fairly technical involvement and article trimming only apart from an external link edit this ended 9 months ago. If you are going to argue that I should not be acting as uninvolved based on my contributions to Effects of global warming then this is rather stretching it. Polargeo (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you made substantial edits to any other global warming topic? NW (Talk) 11:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that is a leading question. Is a BLP a "global warming topic"? If so maybe Willie Soon. Although my initial involvement over a year ago was attempting to return information to the article that that been previously removed. Information about the one thing he was most famous for [9], in fact so famous for that someone else has since set up a separate article for it Soon and Baliunas controversy. I had to get involved again recently when Fellgleeming tried to come in and whitewash stuff which spilt over into the J. Scott Armstrong self promotion BLP. I didn't feel I should deal with this as an admin and so I didn't but does that make me involved for all CC articles? I don't think it should but there you go.

Also nobody has pointed to the policy statement that bans any admin who has ever edited a CC article (broadly construed) from acting as uninvolved. I await this policy statement. Lar just kept insisting that I read arbcom rulings, but the best he could come up with was a statement from an individual arbiter who had actually recused but had said that Stephan Schulz should not be acting as uninvolved. I am getting a little sick of policy made up on the fly by a small group of admins who personally benefit from that policy. CC sanctions should be abandoned on this alone if nothing else. Polargeo (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, I had thought you edited CC articles a lot more than you actually have. Let me think on this further. NW (Talk) 16:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair I have had a general interest in the accuracy and the compliance with wikipedia rules on CC articles and dropped in to certain peripheral articles from time to time (indeed that is why I am interested in the enforcement issues now) but I think it would be wrong based on my edits to accuse me of a clear pro or anti anthropogenic global warming point of view. CC articles have never been my primary editing area or even my secondary editing area those are respectively glaciology (non CC) and the Bosnian War. Polargeo (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Notice of sanction

As a result of the recent Climate Change enforcement request, I hereby inform you of the following conclusion:

• Lar (talk · contribs) and Polargeo (talk · contribs) are cautioned to maintain proper decorum while editing the English Wikipedia.
• Lar (talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to recuse himself as an uninvolved administrator from enforcement requests where sanctions are requested against or involving Polargeo (talk · contribs) as a party, for the next 3 months.
• Polargeo (talk · contribs) is required to recuse himself as an uninvolved administrator at the Climate Change general sanctions for the next 3 months.

This sanction may be appealed to myself, the appropriate noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee. Thank you, The Wordsmith^Communicate 01:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fairish, thankyou. I do have one problem which I will outline

• Really serious conflicts between editors (not as the result of standard admin dealings) clearly come under the general wikipedia definition of WP:INVOLVED. These are situations where administrators such as Lar really should not act as admins, not ever (not ever ever ever) with that particular user by basic wikipedia policy that should not be overturned by a few admins on the sanctions page. Therefore Lar should never act as uninvolved with WMC or with respect to me and nor me with him by basic policy (not three months). However, in this upsidedown world of CC sanctions this is considered a lower priority than the basic editing of any of the 1000s of CC articles even in a neutral unbiased manner. This is much more than just a bit strange and wrong. Polargeo (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Chump (moved from top of page)

CHUMP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikypunker (talk • contribs) 13:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Spunkypinker :) Polargeo (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad you agree, we both know that wikis policy on website notabilty is completely ambiguous. What is the policy exactly? I'd like you to explain please, what do you need? An Alexa rank above 10,000? A GPR above 6?? What??

Some references/sources to establish notability would be a start. See Wikipedia:Notability (web) and WP:V Polargeo (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to rename a user account?

Hi Polargeo,

I just saw you deleting something, so I assume you have got administrative rights. This ist the EN-account of DE-account Okmijnuhb ([10]). My user-name is blocked on English WP by an older account that's blocked for vandalism user:Okmijnuhb. Is it possible to rename that old account (for example in Ex-okmijnuhb), allowing me to use my name also here? That would be great as I fear it's not possible to join accounts with different names.

Thanx a lot De-okmijnuhb (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC) (Okmijnuhb (de))

I think as there are no significant edits just a couple of vandalisms in 2007 that were reverted it may be possible in the future for you to do this but this will not be considered until you have been editing here for some time. In other words it will not be considered for a new user on En-wikipedia. It can also only be done by a bureaucrat (not just an admin such as myself). see Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. I hope this helps Polargeo (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you.De-okmijnuhb (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

CC RFC talk

• I'm happy to agree that Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC is not the place to debate the politics of the IPCC, in any detail.
• Did you miss that ZP was stepping all over my project page post, and I was trying to move the discussion off that page?
• Do you think your snippy remark improved the discussion?

--SPhilbrickT 15:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ZP's stepping all over your project page post was what alerted me to the situation. Feel free to let off some steam here. My talkpage is always open. Polargeo (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

HI there

Just wanted to drop a note and say hi. I read the intro to your page and I must admit that I am extremely jealous that you've been able to spend time on glaciers in Greenland! Awesome stuff. Would love to read about it sometime. Anyway, I hope to see you around. Take care.Torontokid2006 (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You and Lar

Please can I suggest you stop going out of your way to interact with Lar and stick to places where you both need to be? It doesn't make like nicer for everyone else otherwise and I think we have got the message... --BozMo talk 10:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The first thing that got me absolutely livid about Lar was his comments about Stephan Schulz. The fact that he is turning up with his claque on Stephan Schulz's talkpage deserves a comment. If he feels he is right to turn up there then so am I. Polargeo (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I try to be neutral, I do not really see a credible attempt from Lar to be neutral. Polargeo (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And of course Lar can now point to the abuse he has got from Stephan Schulz and even SBHB but abuse from those two does not come lightly and is the result of some shockingly, stunningly biased comments from Lar. Polargeo (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Please leave keeping Lar on the straight and narrow to other people and leave him alone. Stephan can take care of himself. --BozMo talk 11:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I know Stephan can take care of himself. I am very worried that people like yourself have been sucked in by the Lar circus though and so I take your advice very lightly at present. Polargeo (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it, if only lightly. Being Lar's satellite I add to other acolades like being Connolley's hatchet man [11] to give me a feeling of vicarious notoriety at least. --BozMo talk 14:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You know that I have my own mind on all of these things. I know that you have tried to reason with Lar. I see all of this. Polargeo (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of SchoolRooms

Could you PLEASE tell me why SchoolRooms was deleted other than "Multiple reasons"? I didn't even log back into Wikipedia in time to protest the speedy deletion and I don't have a clue how to improve the article if I REDO an hour or so of work and citations! That is why I put it as a stub of a computer software product. May I suggest reading the following: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers!!!!! Could you move it to my User space so I can improve it? GreenwoodKL (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware of the don't bite the newcomers guidelines but your referencing of it is not a good way to get anyone to give you assistance. I will have a look at the multiple reasons but I can confirm that if I deleted an article due to multiple reasons you should spend some time looking through policy on how to create a good article rather than on policy of how to have a go at the deleting admin. Polargeo (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your job

You told me not to file reports about people without putting arbitrary time in. I decided that I'm not willing to put arbitrary time in. Thus, edits by obvious Scibaby sock Rush's Algore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are your responsibility. Deal with it. Hipocrite (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you slacking off from your job? Your sock is running wild. Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sub-issue question

I have removed the latter part of your submission there since it was evidence. The Committee asked for concise questions, and you are free to provide evidence related to your question on the relevant page. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted you

Here You are not meant to edit in another`s section mark nutley (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I know I was just undoing it but you beat me to it. Edit conflict. Polargeo (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ice streams

The definition I was using was "is listed on List of Antarctic ice streams as being an ice stream". So if some of them were recategorized incorrectly, then the problem lies with whoever added the problematic entries there in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

All of the ice streams listed on the list of Antarctic ice streams are definitely ice streams. But I should make you aware that many of those that are not listed are also ice streams. This list is not complete. So a recategorisation may be a point of confusion. All of the ice streams listed on list of Antarctic ice streams are also on list of glaciers. I do not think the recategorisation is helpful however when we have two incomplete lists. It is better to have them all categorised as glaciers. Polargeo (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You're certainly free to merge it if you so choose; the only reason I started it was that somebody else had already put the category on a couple of articles as a redlink — I'm working from the uncategorized articles project right now, and the whole point of that project is to clean up articles that have no categories (or only non-existing categories) on them. So sometimes if we see a category that doesn't exist but already has a number of articles being filed in it anyway, we have to make a judgement call whether to create and populate the "desired" category or to recategorize everything somewhere else. Admittedly, that judgement call doesn't always turn out to be the right one — but we do have to make a decision one way or the other nonetheless. So if the category isn't useful from your perspective, then go right ahead and merge it — my job (and level of interest) was simply to get a bunch of articles about ice streams off the uncategorized articles list. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand and you are doing a good job. My main concern was you removing a category and replacing it with another on several articles. In these cases you should have left the original category for several reasons too boring to go into at length. Polargeo (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Levenshtein distance

Re [12]: I think there is a much simpler grammar fix... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

works/work. Maybe :) Polargeo (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Q100

Hi :) I'm fairly new here, an Australian, interested in the effects of global warming on this fair land, but I couldn't work out what "Q100 storm height" means in the section about the Gold Coast. Could you please enlighten me? I've searched for this info w/o success. (I'm an English teacher, not a climatologist.) Melba1 (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have been on a break for a few days. I don't know off the top of my head as I am also not a climatologist so can only suggest googling (which is what I would do as a kick off). Anyway if you have already done that maybe User:Atmoz would be someone to ask. Polargeo (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed: Q100 William M. Connolley (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Good thing you didn't ask me; I'd have said I had no idea. I associate Q100 with the Dash-8. The new Q100 stub seems to overlap with Return period and 100-year flood. -Atmoz (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted. As for Q100 - it meant nothing to me. I only guessed from context William M. Connolley (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Workshop page proposals about you

I've written up a number of my Workshop proposals (roughly here) involving you. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sad to see you go on such a harsh personal attack against me. I have not been acting as an admin on CC articles, the only thing I do as an admin is deal with speedy deletion backlogs. I haven't edited a CC article for weeks and was never primarily a CC editor anyway. You are falling head long into extreme battleground mentality and vindictiveness. However, I will not rise to the bait. I will leave it for others to sort it out. Polargeo (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Excision requested

This[13] was meant as a joke to help dissipate some of the tension over there. Please don't spoil it.[14] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate myself now. Polargeo (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Now, now, it's not all that bad. "Tomorrow is another day, with sunshine and bluebirds on the way." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

How cute

File:PolargeoandDaughter.JPG is wonderful! How old is she? NW (Talk) 15:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Very sweet. No wonder you've been quiet William M. Connolley (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it is not my daughter that is causing me to be quiet. She is 15 months old now but I like that picture just a few days after she was born. It is the fact that my wife is 7 months pregnant with our second child and needs me to do much more babysitting to take the pressure off her. Polargeo (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollback Rights

I wondered what they were doing there :) Could you remove them please, I'm a bit of a novice.. ProcEnforce (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Polargeo. You have new messages at GregJackP's talk page.
Message added 16:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Changed my mind

For the record, your continued disruption has swayed my opinion, and I now believe you should be banned or desysopped. I only point this out because you asked my opinion earlier and at the time I thought differently -- but now I plan to try to introduce recent evidence ([15]) of pointy disruption, if the arbs allow it, and I don't want you to think I was contradicting my earlier statements on my talk. ATren (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but you know we will always disagree on the Lar situation. This has nothing to do with content and I hope that we will see eye to eye in many future debates. Polargeo (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

PG, there are some things you shouldn't do even if you're right. No, make that especially if you're right. Stuff like this only serves to make your own actions part of the issue rather than keeping the focus on Lar's misconduct. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Polargeo (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Seriously - ignore the page for a while. Couple hours at least. Guettarda (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right but Jesus. How the fuck you are still a sysop is beyond me :) Polargeo (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's Encylopedia Dramatica which uses "bureaucratic fuck" as a synonym for Wikipedia admin. So take it to heart. And try not to be one. Or more constructively, just keep the mantra "admin tools are editing tools" in mind. Admins are people we trust to not fuck with the tools we give them - most notably, page move and delete/undelete tools. "Admin only" sections are anathema; they should not exist. Don't make them a big deal. Don't give them undeserved credibility. Guettarda (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You speak as though from my own heart. Polargeo (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This....

[16], is foolish. There is no reason to escalate this further, all you are doing is to raise to the bait (from earlier - not the close), and you shouldn't. Consider reverting yourself, and let it slide :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC) [nb. a very good case can be made for the statement that closing enforcement request doesn't require consensus - it is (iirc) actually one of the reasons for enforcement boards, to make quick decisions. If you want to challenge the close (which imho would be unwise), then other fora should be considered. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)]

WHAT KIM SAID. Step away. Hipocrite (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the same (but without shouting). I don't see any reason to suspect CIreland of any evil (personally I don't), and if there was, you should talk to him about it. Which I see you have. I may not be the best person to say this, but you should be less combative there. This may well be blue wall of silence stuff but that is nothing new William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, just stay away from Wikipedia for a week or two. Really. Unplug your computer or whatever it takes. It's clear this stuff is getting to you a lot more than it should, and that you need a rest. If you keep down the path you've been on the past few days things will end badly. (Obviously this is just unsolicited advice which you are free to adopt or ignore as you see fit.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)