Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:41, 27 May 2010

Archives

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Misplaced Pages: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  :-) 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 -- 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)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages: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—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 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 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[REDACTED] 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 . 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)

Misplaced Pages: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 - Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Lar_and.2For_Polargeo. You may comment. Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)