Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Polargeo

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Polargeo

(59/33/15); Closed by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) at 18:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC) SoWhy 19:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Polargeo (talk · contribs) – I have been on wikipedia for around 11 months and have been active for the whole of this period. In this time I have produced a good article (Pine Island Glacier) and I have reviewed three other good article nominations. I have been active in some high profile and difficult areas of wikipedia, particularly Balkans articles such as Rape in the Bosnian War and Karađorđevo agreement, and global warming articles such as Effects of global warming. I have created several new articles, mainly in the area of glaciology and I have patrolled over 100 new pages. I have worked in the general areas of speedy deletion tagging, AfD and reverting vandalism. Polargeo (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would like to get involved in several areas of administration. To start with I would consider areas which I have been involved in as an editor such as AfD, speedy deletion and anti-vandalism.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My GA work for a start. I have also contributed a lot of content across the area of glaciology. I am pleased to have got involved in the extremely tricky area of the Balkans articles. I know that obtaining a neutral POV in these articles that is acceptable to all is an unattainable goal but I believe I have vastly improved articles such as Rape in the Bosnian War and Karađorđevo agreement.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Because of the areas I work in I regularly get into mildly stressful exchanges. I always try to see the other side and I avoid being abusive. Maybe at times I have come close to crossing a line but feel I have always been able to stay the right side of it. I appreciate that most editors are here to improve wikipedia. If I felt that in the role of an admin I was getting stressed in a way that might affect my decision making I would not use my admin tools and I would try to resolve the situation through discussion. If necessary I would request assistance.

Additional optional questions from Beeblebrox

4. Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropocene extinction event, you made about 45 edits to this WP:TLDR AFD, mostly long responses to persons who did not agree with your nomination. I have some questions relating to this since you plan to work in deletion.

• Why do you think so many "merge" votes poured in right after the relist?
• Why did you feel the need to make such long responses to those who questioned your position?
• What's up with this [1] refactor of your own comments?

A: If you look at the merge votes they all appear to be experienced editors who obviously saw the article didn't stand on its own and thought a merge was the best option. I thought a delete was the best option as it is a pretty useless redirect and a neologistic phrase. If you are wondering why I so robustly defended myself please look at Uncle Gs comments. Rather than discussing the merits of the article he trys to instruct me that I have to pick one argument and stick to it. I then felt I had to spend a lot of time confirming my rationale. I can only say that this is now nearly 5 months ago and I have more experience now and would realise this was not the way to approach an AfD discussion. The refactor of my own comment was done extremely quickly after my edit (within 3 minutes) before anyone else had added anything. The reason for it is I saw that I was getting carried away and repeating myself so I thought it best hold back. If Anyone else had had a chance to respond or the comment had been up for more than a few minutes I would have striked it. Polargeo (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from A Stop at Willoughby

5. Just about a month ago, you were taken to WP:WQA by an editor who accused you of abetting "character assassination" in discussions concerning a contentious article. You subsequently called the reporting user a "troll" and implied this excused any alleged incivility on your part. Another user commented at the WQA that your behavior towards the reporting user was "more and more aggressive," and an uninvolved user said you and another editor were "basically ganging up to insult this user as though he was an SPA troll." Do you feel your behavior during this incident was incivil? Do you think you can be expected to remain reasonably calm and civil if you are granted adminship?

A: This is not nearly as straight forward as it seems. The user showed incivility to me and I ignored it. After prodding on the talkpage with all sorts of rubbish he then later took me to WQA for something so minor as to be ridiculous and extremely petty. This was shortly after someone had also accused me of being a sockpuppet for editing on the same talkpage. Another editor pointed out that this user was a troll, he has a terrible block log if you want to have a look. By that stage I could only agree by saying "I think the troll assessment extremely accurate". This is the phrase I used for all to see. I found that those arguing to get rid of this highly controversial article seemed to be trying some heavy wikilawyering tactics. As I stated above I would not use admin tools to deal with this kind of more personal attack on myself. I do however defend myself robustly against nonsense WQA reports. I would also not go running to WQA to report other users for the most marginal of offenses. Polargeo (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm well aware of SA's checkered past, but this question was deliberately about your conduct and not his. Anyway, thanks for your honest answer. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that my conduct was not exemplary. I will always strive to improve and as an admin involved in dealing with difficult users I would be even more careful to not overstep the mark when defending my actions. Polargeo (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from Smithers

6. In your own words, describe CSD criteria G1.

A. Well patent nonsense excludes bad writing so something like "whajsjjh blow y flj23" is not bad writing but gibberish and hence patent nonsense. If there were any history that included stuff which wasn't nonsense then G1 would not be appropriate. There is a more difficult area of judgement where someone might start an article with "the radiator was pink and floated in the breeze" now this can be construed as nonsense and so G1 could also apply. Swearing and abuse would be G3. Polargeo (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

7. (Hopefully Coffee doesn't see that I'm using his question) - If you were to close an AFD on a BLP when there is no blatant consensus, how would you close it?

A. If the argument had been clearly made that the whole page could be in violation of BLP guidelines and particularly if the individual concerned had requested deletion this could override the fact that there was no consensus. I would be inclined to delete based on the fact that wikipedia should avoid harm to an individual. Polargeo (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from The Legendary Sky Attacker

8. I read your repsonse to Q1 that you intend on working in Afd, an area which involves closing discussions per concensus. In your own words, what does this word mean?

A. Consensus at AfD is always a difficult one. First of all if everyone agrees that is easy. If some disagree but their arguments are not valid deletion arguments then their arguments carry little or no weight in a deletion discussion. Ultimately the admin has to weigh up consensus on the deletion criteria. If there is valid and strong opposition on these deletion criteria one way or the other then there is no consensus. A minor valid point by a single editor or two with many more valid points against their arguments and the admin may decide that the level of consensus is great enough that the these points, although valid, are far outweighed. But AfD is not a straight vote. Polargeo (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

9. You are also interested in anti-vandalism work. Consider the following situation: A user edits three pages replacing all content with "F**** Wikipedia". They have no warnings to their name but have already vandalized three different pages. Which level warning would you give this user and why?

A. I think this user's edits have crossed over to a level 4 warning. Maybe if they had done this to a single page I would be more inclined to level 2 or 3. Sounds like it may be a vandalism only account, if so a straight final warning may be appropriate. Polargeo (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

10. Here's another situtation: An editor creates an article about a company that might be suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, but the editor has a username that suggests self-promotion of the company. How will you react and why?

A. To an extent I would judge the article separately on its merits but with far more vigour than I might normally because I would begin with the assumption of the article being promotional and created by a user with a conflict of interest. I would then politely warn the user against creating articles where such a conflict of interest exists. I would also warn or report the user for any possible username violation giving them a chance to rectify this. I have done this more than once before. Polargeo (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Phantomsteve

11. Having read your response to Q8, you said If some disagree but their arguments are not valid deletion arguments then their arguments carry little or no weight in a deletion discussion.:

(a) How would you define deletion arguments that are 'not valid'?

A: First of all if it did not fit in to WP:DEL#REASON then it would be unlikely to be a valid deletion argument as this covers most things. In rare cases where it didn't fit directly into these reasons it would need to be made clear why the article should not exist per policy. If it was just a personal opinion such as "I like this and it should therefore have an article" then that would carry very little weight. Also if the argument was, "this is a poor article because of bad spelling, bad writing etc." this is not a valid reason to delete, it is a reason to improve the article and would carry little or no weight against keep votes based on policy. Any argument that had been clearly shown to be wrong, such as "this article has no reliable sources" when reliable sources had been found would carry no weight. Polargeo (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(b) Are there any other circumstances under which you would ignore votes in an AfD?

A: Yes if the user was found to be a sockpuppet or if it was a new id that had popped up simply to add a vote on the AfD. Polargeo (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Coldplay Expert

12 This goes in conjunction with Smithers7 question, If you were to close a BLP with no real concensus, such as this one how would you close it and why?

A That is a tough one. Obviously there is no consensus and I feel people would disagree with me either way. A lot of the BLP concerns appear to be about what may be added to the article. So it is hard to judge whether there is enough content of a non BLP violation nature to keep without seeing the article. Also if David had requested deletion this would likely be a straight forward 'delete' on BLP grounds but without his request this is tougher. I am inclined to agree that in a case of very marginal notability where the article looks like it is primarily there to attack the individual then a delete on the grounds of 'wikipedia is not here to harm' would be appropriate. I think as a new admin I would not be closing an AfD as complex as this until I had a few under my belt. Polargeo (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Triplestop

13. How would you close these deletion discussions?

1. Mohammed_Sami_Abugoush
2. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremy_Soul
3. Wikipedia:DRV#Google_Watch

A. Mohammed Sami Abugoush would have to be delete. Polargeo (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Hey it has just been deleted after my comment :). Polargeo (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC) I think Jeremy Soul looks like it is no consensus in the version you show. Polargeo (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Now this is one huge "duck the issue" but Google Watch has had at least 4 AfDs and a deletion review. As a non admin I cannot see the deleted content, there is simply no way that I can judge this and I wouldn't try as a passer by without spending a considerable amount of time getting to know the arguments. Polargeo (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

14. Suppose a user moves a page to a nonsense title like "HAGGER???". What warnings should they be given or what action should be taken?

A. That sounds like straight vandalism and a warning for vandalism is appropriate. Also seems fairly blatant so a level 1 or 2 warning would not be sufficient. Possibly a level 3 warning if this was the only questionable action. Polargeo (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Also action should be taken to undo the mess created by the vandalism. Polargeo (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional Optional Questions from Laurinavicius

15. You have stated that you are interested in working in anti-vandalism. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A. A block is a technical imposition by an admin to prevent damage or disruption to wikipedia. A ban is generally imposed by the wikipedia community or Arbcom and removes the privilage of editing certain pages, or even wikipedia as a whole. Violation of a ban may result in a block to enforce the ban. Polargeo (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

16. Another anti-vandalism-related question: should cool-down blocks be used and why or why not?

A. Cool-down blocks should not be used. A block should be used to prevent damage to wikipedia but using it to give an editor time to "cool-down" is likely to be unproductive and have the opposite effect to that desired. Polargeo (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional Optional Questions from User:ScienceApologist

You have stated in this very RfA that I am a troll and also accused me, without providing any evidence, that I was uncivil towards you. You believe that my block log proves it. You also declared that I was inappropriately wikilawyering in our content dispute and accused me of filing a frivolous Wikiquette alert against you after you personally attacked me. You also posted two {{trout}}s on my user talk page during our dispute.

17. Which of these views/actions, if any, do you still stand behind and which, if any, do you regret?

18. Do you believe that users with checkered pasts can be rehabilitated? If so, what evidence would you want to see to show it?

19. Should administrators be held to higher standards of civility, personal attack avoidance, and general friendliness than the normal user? Why or why not?

20. Let's say that an administrator encounters a pesky user with 20 blocks in their block log who pesters said administrator a few too many times. Let's say the administrator blocks for 72 hours with the block summary: "Hopefully, this will give you a helpful clue, but judging from your block log, I'm guessing no." Is there anything wrong with this? What should the community response to the pesky user and the administrator be?

General comments

• Links for Polargeo: Polargeo (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Polargeo can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Polargeo before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit stats posted on talk page.  Frank  |  talk  15:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• About the edit where Polargeo redacted his comment: He changed it 3 minutes after posting it. Anarchangel's reply was after 4 hours 20 minutes. In those 3 minutes no one replied to his post, no one quoted it, and no one referred to the lines Polargeo removed. I don't understand why Polargeo is being punished for removing a possibly disrespectful sentence from his comment. He posted it, decided it was a little bit over the top, and removed it. That certainly did not harm the discussion, and might have stopped a flame war from starting. If more editors did that we'd have much less drama out here. Aditya Ex Machina 15:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's a sad, sad day when a candidate with 4000 almost entirely manual edits is opposed for lack of experience (and indeed been asked to withdraw per NOTNOW). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. I doubt most current admins could pass the present day RFA. The standards far exceed what they were in the past.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support candidate has a nice mix of building the wiki and defending it - edits in two very controversial areas but seems to do so with aplomb. Should make a good admin. ϢereSpielChequers 15:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Hmm. Slightly lowish edit count no doubt for some, but no concern for me. Clearly you work in some difficult areas so the statement on your user page regarding striving for balance is assuring. Deleted contributions and User:Polargeo/Articles I have nominated at AfD inidicate you would use the delete button well, so that meets with Q1. I was also impressed with the responses from you here - calm and collected. Ditto that on ignoring this ill considered request. I'm happy to support I think. Pedro :  Chat  15:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
3. From this - calm and collected per Pedro. Hipocrite (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Strong Support Keepscases (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Yes, it is a relatively low edit count, but Polargeo shows the judgement required to wield the tools (especially the delete button) and a bthrough poke around his editing stats shows a sound content contributor and a genuine positive to the project. HJMitchell You rang? 16:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Yea you deleted a part of your comment (3 minutes after posting) but that was 5 months back, and I don't think this is sufficient reason to deny you the tools. Aditya Ex Machina 20:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Strong Support. I think Polargeo has very strong opinions on several issues with which he has been involved, as evidenced at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass rape in the Bosnian War, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropocene extinction event, and elsewhere. That's going to piss people off, not to put too fine a point on it - and, noting the opposes, it already has. So, the candidate will need to be extremely careful to maintain neutrality as an admin. The candidate must be willing to acknowledge two things: 1) You're going to be wrong at some point, and 2) This isn't the end of the world. In the face of reasonable arguments that one of the candidate's positions is flawed, the candidate must be willing to back down. Tenacity can easily become tendentiousness, if you let it. So, I'm just a wee bit concerned, and I know that there will be multiple admins keeping a close watch on this candidate's administrative actions, at first. But, overall, and this is the important bit, I see a very reasonable editor who has done some very good work on contentious topics, and I believe the candidate will be a net positive to the project as an admin. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Support TNXMan 21:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Support I have reviewed the rape article and the AfD and his interactions on some of the global warming talk pages. I see someone who isn't afraid to have opinions, and to defend them. His arguments that I reviewed that referenced policy and guidelines seem to apply them in a proper manner. Even when expressing strongly held opinions, he shows a proper level of emotional detachment, which is especially important when treading into contentious areas. I think he will be a fine administrator, and would be especially valuable for dispute resolution and for making contentious calls. Gigs (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Polargeo and I have fundamentally agreed on certain issues in the past, but overall I believe he is a responsible and high-quality editor who's genuinely interested in improving the encyclopedia. While it's likely this request will not succeed, I think three months or so should fully resolve any concerns related to experience or editcount. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. I haven't encountered Polargeo before but I see the good credentials here and the potential to become a conscientious and reliable administrator. — Athaenara ✉ 01:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
12. Support per Gigs. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Why not? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
14. Support No big deal. I see nothing to suggest that Polargeo would willfully abuse the tools. He also seems intelligent enough to keep mistakes to a minimum. He would benefit from working on his temperament, but I see nothing to get in a twist over. Net positive. faithless (^speak) 08:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
15. support - sensible chap, and the opposes re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropocene extinction event are wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
16. Support A highly intelligent editor who has given no cause for alarm. Warrah (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
17. Support - per answer to question 7. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 14:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
18. Support. Syjytg (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

    I'm sorry but may I ask why you support?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, I agree. The outcome of this RFA is likely no consensus, and as opposers should justify their rationale so, in general, should supporters. Whilst a support can be taken as "per nom" constructive feedback to the candidate would be welcome. Pedro :  Chat  20:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

19. Support. Gigs effectively expressed most of my views. Much of the opposition appears to be related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropocene extinction event, where the candidate went a bit overboard in articulating and defending his position. The candidate's response to question 4 gives me confidence that he has fully absorbed the lessons of that experience, so it should not be a source of concern for the future. --Orlady (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

    In view of the concerns that some opposers have expressed about edit count and attitudes toward deletion, I reviewed a sample of the user's 176 deleted edits (which bring his total edit count above 4,000). Many are edits to pages that Polargeo nominated for deletion at AfD. There are also a number of appropriate speedy-deletion taggings, most of which were apparently done during new-page patrols. To his credit, I see several instances where Polargeo evaluated an article, removed material that he determined to be copyvio, then nominated the article at AfD, most often for lack of notability (and the removed copyvio material would not have helped to demonstrate notability). This looks like the work of a careful and responsible contributor -- and one who understands the speedy-deletion criteria. --Orlady (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

20. Has views, which is a good thing. Although likely to result in a failed RfA since it's a popularity contest. -Atmoz (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
21. Support - fully meets my standards: over 4,000 edits including good article work, Userboxen, Rollback rights, and auto-editor. Can be temperamental, but can read WP:NAM. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
22. Strongest Possible Support I wish everyone here would stop hammering the edit count and focus on the clear merits here. Let's face it. The areas they want to work in are speedy deletion, Afd and anti-vandalism. Their answers to Q8, Q9 and Q10 were spot on and adress their admin interests and also suggest that they would be very productive in their intended areas. And anyone who is still not convinced by their responses to those three questions can read and learn WP:AGF. They clearly show understanding of the concensus, how do deal with unwarned vandals and they also show promise in their other answers to the other questions. The opposes do not concern me at all as this editor has proven more than once that they are very adaptable to changing their ways if needed to but can still be consistent with their merits. And as far as temper and heavy-handedness...a lot of current admins are far worse than this user could ever be (I won't mention names, you know who you are). Definitley no issues here.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 21:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
23. Support No apparent issues raised to date that concern me, in particular, well-reasoned polite advocacy in an AFD is not, IMO, a legitimate cause for opposing. Ray^Talk 21:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
24. Weak support. The only thing that gives me pause for the moment is a relatively low edit count. Otherwise, the candidate's content contributions are excellent, his comments in AfDs (including the much discussed anthropocene AfD) are well thought-out and well argued, exactly what we need in an admin. The work on Balkan articles is also a big plus in my book: Most of us tend to avoid such articles because of the highly frustrating disputes that inevitably accompany them. Anyone who expands considerable time and effort on actually improving such articles deserves special thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
25. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards as this argument was reasonable and consistent with how the discussion closed, a glance at User:Polargeo#Contributions_to_Wikipedia reveals that the candidate contributed to articles including at least one GA (good job!), the candidate has been editing for nearly a year and has amassed over 4,000 total edits, the candidate has Autoreviewer and Rollback (someone trusts him!), and candidate has never been even accidentally blocked! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
26. Don't see any particular reason to oppose. Some of the folks who are disputing oppose rationales should probably can it, though - that tends to hurt more than it helps. Nathan ^T 02:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
27. Wizardman 03:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

    *Cue person jumping up and down asking for a rational!* teehee --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 03:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

28. Support per answer to Q9. Sluggo | Talk 03:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Changing to Strong support. I'm still supporting per answer to Q9, but now I see a need to offset the error in oppose # 7 6. Are we aware Polargeo isn't running for president of the world? Sluggo | Talk 03:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
29. weak support Although Polargeo has been doing some good work, I find myself on the keep side of many of his AFD's. Also logs reveal problems with fair use policy with File:Willie-soon.jpg, and a lack of evidence of permission with File:Bambervelocity.jpg. However there seems to be a mature attitude and a willingness to learn, as can be seen from an answer about G1 compared with a nom for a foreign language article in the past. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

    Permission for the file has now been sorted out. The original upload was one of my first 50 edits :). Polargeo (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

30. Support, looks fine to me. There's the occasional AfD nom I'm not sure about but overall I get the impression of a sensible user who'd make competent use of the tools. I'm not convinced by most of the oppose rationales, particularly those based on time-on-board and edit count - he's got almost the same number of edits as I had when my RfA passed easily just this summer. I think he's done quite enough to demonstrate he knows what he's doing. ~ mazca ^talk 09:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
31. Support - in my opinion, my objective in this process is to determine if the editor in question can be trusted to safely and effectively use the administrative tools. I've evaluated the candidate, and, in my opinion, I feel that he or she can, in fact, be entrusted with my support. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 15:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
32. Support - I'm pretty sure the Polargeo can be trusted. Not that many mainspace edits, but there's some damn good article work. Net positive, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Switching to support as while still a little concerned about the risk of heavy handed mopping, research has convinced me I misjudged the Balkan situation, and it looks like the candidate will be a net positive per the above, especially the MfD diff from editor A Nobody. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
34. Weak Support (Switch from weak oppose) The candidate can be trusted. And those diffs are several months old. Its all water uinder the bridge now.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 17:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Successfully dealt with touchy Balkan related articles. Has plenty of potential as an admin. ◅ P R O D U C E R _(TALK) 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
36. The AfD brought up doesn't bother me. The candidate was merely trying to help others understand your points. The other main concern about editcount is not very valid in my eyes because I passed RfA with about 3600 edits two years ago and I never broke the wiki. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
37. Support No concerns with this user.  IShadowed  ✰  23:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
38. Support, I see no reason to oppose, but user isn't very active, only a few hundred edits per month. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
39. Support. I've taken a look at the AfD and his behavior does not appear to be that bad. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Anyone who has been to Sarajevo/Belgrade and can still keep a cool head around Bosnian War topics is one of two things- a robot, or a very well-tempered person. At the end of the day, edit count is just a number- and an easily manipulated number at that. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
41. Weak Support: Although he does not meet my criteria, I like the guy. Happy Holidays - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
42. Support I don't have to give a reason, do I? :p BejinhanTalk 06:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
43. Support - No reason to oppose! :p 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 08:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
44. Support Dedicated, knowledgeable, and passionate about the project. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
45. Support You seem like a reasonable person. RMHED (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
46. Support. Seems like a good and thoughtful editor. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
47. Support, noting that issues raised in the opposition are from ages ago (other than the editcountitis) - I think "forgive and forget" for past mistakes is the way to go! Also, per SlimVirgin. Aiken ♫ 03:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
48. Strong Support on a first look I was going to !vote oppose, but after digging deeper I trust this editor. Has he been around a long time? No. but in that time he has participated in a very difficult portion of Wikipedia and in my opinion has done a better job than I would have done. RP459 (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
49. Support No worries here. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
50. Support I see no evidence for 'lack of experience'. Polargeo is coming up on 4000 edits over the course of 12 months, and people are opposing based solely on that? Ridiculous. LittleMountain5 23:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

    Can you please point out the "people" that are opposing solely based on edit count? If you're going to call it ridiculous, we should be clear. Tan | 39 01:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

51. Not convinced by the opposes. Several do raise concerns, but not strong enough to sway me. Tim Song (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
52. Support Arguments in the Anthropocene discussion seem to be motivated by scientific rigour, something WP could do with having more of. --JN466 13:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
53. Weak support as per my comments in the oppose section. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
54. SupportI feel that the edit count, while lower than some, is more than sufficient. The edit quality is good. Should be a competent admin. I hope that the closing 'crat will treat oppose votes on the basis of edit countitis or self-nom opposition with appropriate weighting. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
55. Support Polargeo seems not to be your typical RfA candidate doing his best to appear bland and noncommittal but someone who is willing to actually enforce policy. 4000 edits and a year's experience is plenty, especially for someone who has demonstrated clue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
56. Support, I don't see any significant problems here. Just remember not to get in people's faces too much when you disagree with them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC).
57. Good faith editor with lots of experience. Rettetast (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
58. Support. If longstanding admins were held to the standards that new ones are, we would lose a lot of good ones. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that this user won't be a net positive for the project. WFCforLife (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Seems like a conscientious editor with a good understanding of content policy. In the AfD that has been mentioned, although Polargeo's responses were a bit long, they addressed the synthesis concerns clearly and did not seem emotional; I did not find a problem there. Regarding the WQA that has been mentioned, the candidate responded calmly and sincerely in a stressful situation; a good sign for a prospective admin. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. I remember us both participating in a discussion and finding you judgemental and overly forceful when challenged. Just an opinion and no reason to oppose on it own. Your rape article is. Its unnecessarily inflammatory. In Hipo's link you say youve been to the area, so surely you know the regions suffered from a cycle of of violence for generations? To achieve NPOV, there should be some reference to this, then the article might promote a little understanding rather than suggesting the rapes were a spontaneous expression of serbian evil. Saying both sides committed rape in the first line of the lede seems merely lip service to neutrality, especially as the rest of the article is all about atrocities from the Serbs. While you have toned down the POV a little, in an edit summary youre implying thats just to save the article from deletion. Id hope anyone with any emotional literacy would see why the pic youre insisting on keeping at the top of the article is gratuitous. Admins should ideally have good attention to detail, but on the "Early stage" section you have "| accessdate = 2009-06-30}}</ref>" being displayed. Ok generally you seem to be a good editor and communicator, but given the above that even more makes me not want you as an admin. Get outa here! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the discussion where the candidate was judgemental and overly forceful? Also, for my own reference, may I assume you refer to Rape in the Bosnian War as the candidate's rape article? Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Id rather not risk bringing back possibly unwelcome memories by linking to the discussion, its just my opinion that the candidate was being judgemental, if I recall he was perfectly civil and level headed about it. Yes you assume correctly about the rape article, which is by far my main reason to oppose. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps FeydHuxtable is referring to this discussion. I'm analyzing his contributions further to see if there have been any other interactions. Aditya Ex Machina 19:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, there is this interaction. Aditya Ex Machina 19:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You start by claiming it is "your rape article." It is not 'my' rape article I do not WP:OWN any article and I would like to suggest you look at the state of the article before I started editing it. My edits have made the article far less inflamatory and I have been praised for doing this by User:Juliancolton here and by User:Writegeist here. I have undone edits where editors have tried to say that 95% on the rapes were by Serbs, they have some reliable sources as well and may be correct. It is an extremely difficult article and very inflamatory in nature. We know that there were rapes on all sides but rapes by Serb/Bosnian Serbs far outweighed rapes by the other sides. How can we represent this on wikipedia without appearing partisan? It is very difficult, but that doesn't mean the article shouldn't exist and it doesn't mean it cannot be further improved. Also your picking up on what appears to be our one interaction some 5 months ago is a little harsh for opposing an RfA on. Polargeo (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

long reply on talk page to save clutter. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Regrettably Oppose. Low edit count, but what kills this nomination for me is what seems rather pointy at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropocene extinction event. Pantherskin (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropocene extinction event. Tan | 39 20:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

   I don't understand. It looks like a good faith nomination to me. Even further, it was indeed eventually merged and redirected to the Holocene article, so apparently there was consensus to merge. What was the problem here? Gigs (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

   I believe that Tan is referring to the 20 or so comments that Polargeo made to argue with people in the AfD. No policies or guidelines were broken, that I could see on a quick glance at any rate, but it can be seen as aggressive for an editor to act that way in an AfD (see WP:BLUDGEON, which was also brought up in that AfD). -- Atama頭 22:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

   Looks to me as just a robust discussion over proper terminology, which was crucial to the AfD debate. I don't see it as overly aggressive, just repeating the same points in different places to different people who have different outlooks, not all of them necessarily scientific - which is good, that lengthy debate should happen. Franamax (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

   Very Week Oppose per Tanthalas39 and Pantherskin. You also have a low editcount but I'm not very concerned about that. Feel free to sway me though as you did meet my standards.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 20:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC) (switching to Weak Support)

3. Weak Oppose - I was tempted to go with a weak support, because I don't see any real red flags about the editor, and content contributions seem solid (a GA article and enough edits over nearly a year to show experience). I have concerns about temperament from some diffs mentioned before, but my biggest concern is that there seem to be only about a dozen successful speedy deletion nominations in his (deleted) edit history, yet CSD is one of the areas he wants to begin as an administrator. I don't have confidence that he's going to be safe with the tools, maybe with more experience in the areas he wants to use the tools I'd be tempted to support. -- Atama頭 22:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

   I would like to suggest that only a dozen or so speedy deletion nominations suggests that I don't start at the top of the list waiting to pounce. I do tend towards either proposed deletion or even AfD if there is any doubt (You will find many more than a dozen in total). You will see I have twice been caught up in the experiment WP:NEWT where admins pretend to be new users in order to assess the treatment of those who create poor articles. Both times I did not request speedy deletion and have received good comments for this. It would be easy to spend a day or two at the top of the new page list fighting with other editors to rack up my speedy deletion nominations but this is not what I am here for. Polargeo (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

   True, and what I didn't find were declined or other inappropriate speedy deletions. I don't think you're bad with speedy deletions, I just don't think you've done enough that we can judge how good you are. Much as an editor with 500 edits isn't a bad editor, but should have more experience before being an admin, I would like to see more experience with CSDs before feeling confident you're ready to speedily delete articles. I think in the future, if you have more experience in that area (maybe also getting involved in policy discussion at WT:CSD?) and putting those troublesome encounters you've had further in the past, I'd be inclined to support you. I really do mean this as a "weak" oppose. -- Atama頭 18:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

4. Weakly. I'm sorry, but the above concerns, along with your (seemingly) defensive temperament, convince me that you're not ready for the tools yet. I reviewed your GA - it was well written and engaging - and I think that you have potential to be a good admin, but you need to take to heart the things here and you should improve in no time. ceranthor 23:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Weak Oppose Solid editor in general, but the points raised by Tan and Aditya are areas for improvement; Atama and Ceranthor sum the points up quite nicely. All in all, I'd like to see a bit more activity in CSD, where you intend to work, as well as improving on the aforementioned areas. Airplaneman ^talk 00:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Strongest possible oppose Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

   Moved extremely long discussion to the talk page. Aditya Ex Machina 21:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose Low Edit Count Houstonbuildings (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Struck vote, as user has voted in the neutral section below --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 11:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

   discussion on talk page HJMitchell You rang? 15:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose due to too low of an edit count, a temperamental, aggressive, and emotional personality, incivility at times, limited editing focus, and too few successful Speedy Deletion Nominations for someone who intends to work in the CSD field. Laurinavicius (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Fairly opposed. This is just my gut feeling, but editors working in problematic areas, and who take credit for an article that reads quite POV to me, seem a little too much risk to promote, even in the claimed drought of admins. (E.g. the section about the Serbs has {{cherrypicked}}, vaguely attributed claims like "It has been claimed that 'For the Serbs, the desire to degrade, humiliate, and impregnate Bosnian Muslim women with “little chetniks” was paramount.' ", whereas the section about atrocities committed by non-Serbs has no such stuff. Badger me and I will detail additional POV problems there, although others have explained some of the issues in opposes above). The 'Anthropocene extinction' AfD snafu doesn't concern me as much, as most of the "badgering" there was a reasonable discussion with User:Uncle G about sources, although the exchanges with User:Archangel got a little too personal on both sides. Pcap ping 09:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Concerns about temperament. Cirt (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose: Concerns about temperament. Ret.Prof (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

10. oppose users contributions do not provide proof of the maturity, judgment and range of experienece required to be placed in a position of responsibility over content.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

    Could you please provide some examples? Airplaneman ^talk 01:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

    Let me see if i understand: You're asking me for examples of the absence of sufficient evidence of judgement, maturity and sufficient range of experience? If that's the request, it's an absurd one and unfullfillable. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry if it came out as absurd; I was asking if you had any examples of immaturity and judgement. Airplaneman ^talk 21:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose - The link to the AFD discussion that Tan provides is very illuminating. Sorry. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose as candidate does not yet possesses enough experience in the areas indicated they would work in. ArcAngel (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

    Luckily, their answers to questions 8, 9 and 10 should be able to cancel out your concerns.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 00:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

    I beg to differ. I don't see much participation in UAA, AIV, or AfD, and just over 100under 200 deleted edits. Nay, they are nowhere near experienced enough in my book. ArcAngel (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

13. Oppose. Lack of experience. Sorry! ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 00:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

    Luckily, amount of experience or lack thereof does not appear to be a forseeable issue here.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 00:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

14. Oppose Not enough experience. Too few edits, not enough time on Wikipedia. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

    Mmmmm. The beautiful mix of editcountitis with a little length-of-timeitis sprinkled on top.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 08:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

    Please stop harassing people because they haven't voted the way you want them to. Do you intend to write a snide little comment after every oppose that follows? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 10:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, edit count and length of time on the site are two ways to measure one's familiarity with Wikipedia, among others. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

15. Weak oppose Mostly a gut feeling, combined with the fact that I don't believe that the candidate has sufficient experience in the areas he wishes to work in. NW (Talk) 12:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose Too many valid qusetions have been raised.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Per above. Candidate is inexperienced and does not appear understand policy very well. You're on the right track but I don't think now is the best time. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose Per Pantherskin and Tan. Actions show an editor who isn't interested in others opinions. I could be wrong but that's my immediate impression from it.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose WP:NOTNOW, he doesn't like the others opinions and he don't have too much editions (I have 6000 and I was rejected in a RfA). --MisterWiki talk contribs 23:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

    With all due respect, this strikes a bit as "revenge" for your unsuccessful RfA. Is that the intention? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

    I agree, Julian. This vote seems rather pointy to me. For sure, this RfA is definitely not a NOTNOW case. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

    No, I'm not talking about my failure on RfA, and it's obviously a NOTNOW, he can't be a admin, unless he admits when is he wrong. --MisterWiki talk contribs 03:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

    On the contrary, MisterWiki, it's obviously not a NOTNOW case. WP:NOTNOW is applied when closing RfAs early because they have no chance of succeeding and opposers are likely to pile on. Polargeo currently has 66% support, meaning this RfA is probably headed towards "no consensus," but it definitely doesn't fall under "no chance of succeeding." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

20. Oppose. Due to Q.14. I've seem some explicit vandalism in my time (most know my automated edit count...), but I've never dived in with a 3rd level warming from cold. If they are going to be dedicated vandal then the required next four bad edits will some soon enough.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

    If I had any doubt I would assume good faith and default to the lower level warning every time but my answer does follow the guidance in Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings, it would save wasting editors time if people applied higher level warnings for very blatant cases a bit more often. I think you are right a determined vandalism only account will often quickly rack up the warnings, see my level 1 a few days ago on User talk:Gameboii, but I don't think this is always the way to do it and the user in the question has moved a page so hasn't just appeared with straight vandalism edits. Polargeo (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we usually block "HAGGER" page move vandals on sight? If anything, I think Polargeo's answer was too forgiving, not too harsh (though I certainly wouldn't oppose over it). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

21. Oppose I am concerned about deletion policy (apparently he has well over a 90% "delete" !vote record) , and about interaction with others on deletion pages [2] With only about 2K edits on articles, 40% are on only ten articles, and with about 600 edits in article talkspace, 2/3 are on ten articles. More varied experience in editing would help, to be sure. 500 edits in WP space, with over 40% on ten pages. Collect (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

    How is a numerical breakdown of the candidate's contributions going to determine whether or not they're sufficiently trustworthy to be given the mop? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

    I consider a total of about 2K article edits not to be a large number, hence my appended comment that more experience would help. I am, as I noted above, more concerned with his attitude on deletions than anything else, and his perceived lack of civility on pages related to deletion discussions. I make no comment on "trustworthiness" - but that is not the sole criterion applicable. Collect (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

    But again, edit count is an extremely bad indicator of experience. It's easy to get 50,000 article edits in three months with Huggle or Twinkle, but this editor makes actual meaningful content contributions; including the creation of around around 50 new articles. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

    Did you miss my statement concerning the deletion philosophy and interactions with others? I trust you understand that the aside concerning experience was not the governing reason for my position at all. Collect (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

22. Oppose - also concerned about deletion. West one girl (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose on the basis of that discussion at WQA, which was only 4 weeks ago. I don;t want to get into the underlying issues or personalities, but the way you responded in that discussion was initially very poor and out of line for what I would expect from any editor, let alone an admin. You did apologize for it, but I think we should to see at least a few months without a similar discussion before we consider you sufficiently responsible. I would not have said this if it had been in November 2008, because I'm sure you will t=learn to do better. You should first show you're doing consistently better, and only then make another try here. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

    I am tempted to get into the underlying issues but suffice it to say I would do things differently if this situation came up again. Polargeo (talk) 06:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose I'm not particularly bothered about the level of experience but after looking into some of the concerns about temperament they do concern me. I am also concerned about the answers to questions 7 and 12 which do not give me confidence that Polargeo will follow the deletion policy and close all no consensus AFDs as keep (apart from when the subject has requested deletion). The combination of these two things make me have to oppose. Davewild (talk) 10:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

    I did not say I would close all no consensus BLP AfDs as keep except when the subject requests deletion. I certainly would not. Please re-check my answers to questions 7 and 12. In fact in question 12 I said I would be inclined to delete even though the individual had not requested it. Polargeo (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

    I know, that is a major part of why I am opposing (you must have misunderstood my above comment). Policy (and a recent discussion on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy endorsed this) is that no consensus BLP AFD discussions should not be closed as delete except where the subject requests deletion. I will not support any candidate who will not abide by that policy, which you seem to have just confirmed you will not. Davewild (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

    As an admin I would abide by policy as decided by the community. I don't pretend to be aware of every twist and turn in the policy though. The debate you highlight with a semi protect does seem like a reasonable attempt to resolve this issue. Polargeo (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

    So are you saying that so long as a new community consensus does not change the policy as written in deletion policy, you will abide by the third paragraph of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion? Davewild (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

    Yes I would abide by the deletion policy. I personally don't like the idea of keeping a page that is 'soley' there to harm a "relatively unknown non-public figure", but with the option of semi-protection and attention to the presentation of the most neutral POV possible then this may work. I don't like the potential for wikipedia to be used to mirror tabloid journalism and where a few trashy newspapers can come up with rubbish we should avoid repeating this without the possibility of balance. As I mentioned in my answer to Q12, as a new admin I would avoid closing AfDs like that. I generally know where to step back and let someone with more experience deal with something. Polargeo (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

    I have struck my opposition as you have addressed my concern over AFD closures. Your measured response to my oppose also impressed me so am moving to a weak support. Davewild (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

24. Weak oppose, moved from neutral. I've seen Polargeo at AfD and MfD before, and my general impression is that he's intelligent, articulate, and reasonable. His content work is truly excellent; he has improved Wikipedia's coverage of glaciology and Antarctica considerably. I'm impressed with his GA, Pine Island Glacier, which is well-written and informative, and I look forward to even more great contributions from Polargeo. My survey of his work at AfD also makes me confident that he has a pretty good grasp of policy and the ability to articulate well-reasoned arguments. Like Gigs, I see Polargeo as someone who has strong opinions and isn't afraid to express them and argue for them – not a negative in an admin at all. But in spite of all of the above, there are things that make me hesitate to support this RfA. First, the relatively small breadth of Polargeo's CSD-tagging experience makes me wonder whether he's ready to be an admin working speedy-deletion. I trust his judgement, but I'd like some evidence to back that up. Second, Polargeo has a tendency to get involved in debates over heated subjects – including Balkans-related deletion discussions such as 1 2 3 4. He argues very passionately, which is not necessarily a negative in an admin. But would he misuse the tools in a dispute in such a contentious area? I trust that he wouldn't, but I would rather see him stay cooler and more collected than he did at WP:Articles for deletion/Mass rape in the Bosnian War. Finally, Polargeo was reported one month ago to WP:WQA for behavior that an uninvolved user described as "basically ganging up to insult [a] user as though he was an SPA troll." Because of Polargeo's clean block log, I probably wouldn't care if the WQA was 3+ months ago – but it was just one month ago. For those reasons, and because I'm not entirely satisfied with the answers to the questions, I've decided to oppose. Polargeo will make a fine administrator one day, but not just yet. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

    As I have highlighted before this is the edit I was WQA reported for. No other edits. That is what was construed as "basically ganging up to insult [a] user as though he was an SPA troll." nothing else just that one edit, please judge for yourself. I had been trying to deal with the various diversions of this user on the talkpage of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global_warming, I had also undone his edit on the article. The WQA report was in my opinion a clear case of an attempt to throw me off. The trouble seems to be that if you are reported on WQA the assumption is that it is you that has done something wrong not that the report may be a red herring. Polargeo (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

    I did read the discussion there and at WQA, and I did draw my own conclusions. My vote stands. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

25. Oppose Per Pantherskin and Tan. Also concerned about deletion.--3leopard (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose: some more experience would be desirable first. Jonathunder (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose Low edit count and the other issues mentioned here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose Per numerous reasonable concerns expressed in this section. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose due to the concerns presented above. Tavix |  Talk  22:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
30. Weak oppose – due to concerns about civility and temperament presented above. Global warming is one of the hottest hotspots on the wiki currently, and we don't need an admin with a demonstrated lack of cool in that area. Additionally, I have concerns with how well the candidate would be able to function in CSD, given apparent lack of experience there and somewhat polemic participation in AfD. — æk^Talk 01:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose. Per unexperience of the candidate. 11 months is a lot compared to a newcomer, but here he'll deal with much experienced users (that are here years longer than him) that have been through things he wasn't. It's reasonable to expect that he won't understand all their actions and that he'll get into unnecessary misunderstandings, possibly even clashes - but not because of bad intentions. Simply, unexperience. He has learned a lot, but still doesn't know enough. And that's not neglectable fact. Kubura (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose Not enough experience. Would reconsider in another year or so. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC) inadvertently voted twice.... striking vote

    You already opposed on line 14, so if it's OK I'm going to indent this !vote. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

32. Oppose per Ronhjones, Kubura and Cirt, among others. This is tough because the !vote is 66% with less than a day to go, but you fall just a bit short to get my vote. However, please try again in mid-2010, because this project needs good admins, and you are well on the way to learning from your mistakes. My sincere thanks to you for being willing to subject yourself to this process, and for your good work. My best wishes to you over the holidays. Jusdafax 08:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. the struck vote above messes up the numbering. Could a better hand at coding than I put it right? Thanks.

    Fixed. GedUK  08:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

33. Oppose for this most recent edit [3] Getting involved in such a controversial cesspool shows poor judgment. And I view RFAs as prima facie evidence of epic fail. Chutznik (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    I agree my 137 edits on that "cesspool" of a talkpage show that my judgement is awful :) nominating myself for an RfA is a close second ;-) Polargeo (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    IMHO, Polargeo deserves some sort of a medal (a barnstar would do) for managing to contribute productively to that problematic article and its talk page -- and displaying good humor while he does so (as indicated by that tongue-in-cheek comment). That tells me that he'll do well as an administrator. --Orlady (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

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)

Further discussion moved to the talk page. Aditya Ex Machina 20:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. I remain neutral on this one. The candidate does show knowledge of policies and dispute resolution. On the other hand, deleting his own comments is not the proper way to follow a discussion, usually strikethrough is used... I don't precisely support it but I wouldn't oppose, so, neutral. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 20:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

   Please see my reply to question 4. Polargeo (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

   I'm still not fully convinced. Your contributions are on very specific topics, and I believe you lack a little experience with scripts and tools like WP:TW and WP:HG. As I said, I am not precisely supportive of it, but I don't believe you would do a bad job or abuse the tools. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 23:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

2. I'm of two minds here. My own work with Polargeo tells me they have the rationality to do admin work and they have good knowledge of the wiki-ways. Conversely, I'm a little concerned with limited edit count/limited focus and also the length of discussions in fora such as AFD where the risk of sterile back-and-forth gets higher. I'm not particularly fussed about the Anthropocene extinction thing, because I see the fine distinction and scientifically it is important. Needs more thinking. Franamax (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral - I haven't dug deep, but I don't see anything especially worrisome. A 100 patrol count out of this many edits comes out to just shy of 3%, which is on the low end, particularly for a user with an expressed interest of CSD work. Doing CSD patrol requires knowledge of both the type 1 and type 2 errors, and page patrols is the only way to see the type 2 errors (or at least have an appreciation for them). That, and a low edit count. Note that the edit count doesn't have a lot of HG or TW edits but it is mostly gnome style edits that are not substantive contributions. I started here the same month, so I understand the timeframe, and I am not compelled that this edit history requires or necessitates adminship yet. Shadowjams (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry, could you explain what "A 100 patrol count out of this many edits comes out to just shy of 3%" means? I don't get it. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

   I think it means that he has marked about 100 pages as patrolled, compared with his total Live edit count of 3,800+ (i.e. his page patrol actions total to around 3% of his total edits). Gonzonoir (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

   That's not really an accurate way of looking at it, though. One doesn't necessarily edit every page one patrols, and marking a page as patrolled does not increase one's edit count. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

   Gonzonoir is accurate in describing what I meant. As for Willoughby, that's fine if you disagree, but you're wrong to say it's not accurate. Page patrols are important for someone doing CSD work. I don't want people to start patrolling things indiscriminately to artificial boost their count, so that's a concern, but assuming that's not an issue, a good page patrol count is important for someone to know the range of what's to be expected at CSD. Shadowjams (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

   Oh, I see what you're saying. I misunderstood; my mistake. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC) (moved to weak oppose)

   Neutral pending responses to questions 8, 9 and 10.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 08:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

   Indented duplicate vote; user has changed his vote to support. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

4. Answer to 7 was very promising but temperament means I can't really support here. I do agree with what Kurt's doing - it seems that he thinks self-nommed candidates should be able to deal with agression. Or something.  GARDEN  14:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

   Huh? Are you sure? Seems to be standard Kurt-like behavior. I don't see any subtle Zen-like character tests going on here (especially since Kurt never withdraws his vote, even after testing for aggression, or whatever). Aditya Ex Machina 21:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

5. Neutral Although the AfD referred to by Tan was 3 months ago, I think that combined with the WQA is enough to prevent me from supporting the candidate, but not strongly enough to oppose. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
6. A lot of good points in favor of this candidate but overall they strike me as being a little heavyhanded. Sorry. Shereth 20:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral - The CSD topic still scares me a little bit. I am not pleased with your minimal activity in CSD, yet you still mention that you want to work in that area. If any area needs more caution then another, it is without a doubt speedy deletion. Tan's link also scares me somewhat, but not nearly as much as what I said. Good luck nonetheless... smithers - talk - sign! 00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral - Having only 3,800 edits isn't enough for me to support. Please request again in like 3 months and I might support. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 00:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

   Editcountitus much?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

9. Neutral Good work so far, but I would like to see more variety and experience in this user, and I'm not sure about the concerns already raised above. I think a few more months, at least.  fetchcomms☛ 22:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Concerned about possible lack of experience. Triplestop x3 17:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
11. Neutral Sufficient Edits, but time on wikipedia short. Will support in another few months. Houstonbuildings (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
12. Neutral You have enough experience and you are trying to make Wikipedia better, but there are several problems mentioned above. Try to fix those problems. Zigthel (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
13. Neutral I think Polargeo is a great editor who has their heart in the right spot and wish to help the project. I also think that 4000 edits are plenty for adminship and that their editing itself is solid. What stops me from supporting is that there is not enough activity by the candidate in the areas they wish to work in as well as temperament issues cited by those opposing. While I don't think those problems warrant opposition, they are hard to ignore. I'd advise the candidate to work a few more months, especially in the areas they want to work as an admin in and then return to RFA after the concerns mentioned have been rectified or are well in the past. Regards SoWhy 14:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
14. Neutral - I was going to support, but this incivility was enough to cost my vote. He has a firm grasp on content policy, but adminship means dealing with troublesome editors too. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

    Is there something I'm missing at all? I can see no incivility there whatsoever. –Juliancolton | ^Talk

    General tone, "leave the proper editing and improvement of wikipedia to those of us who know what we are doing", "I have found your arguments mildly annoying", "we can read, but thankyou for repeating it", and worst of all "I am sorry if I offended you". --Explodicle (T/C) 19:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

    I think the "sorry if I offended you" was said by Anarchangel. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

    Oops, you're right. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

    This is related to the difficult Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropocene extinction event over 4 months ago. A lot of opposes are based on this so I feel I should make a comment. I was a little annoyed with Anarchangel at the time. Not because I felt he came in late on the AfD and misinterpreted the arguments, I would always politely respond to this. What had annoyed me was that he tried to cast doubt on my integrity by highlighting my extremely quickly refactored comment (see my answer to Q4) as part of this edit [4] and then later posted my talkpage comments to him on the article talkpage in another attempt to cast me in a poor light. Explodicle intelligently saw this was unnecessary and hid them, thanks. Now I am more experienced I would deal with this situation much better but my very slightly off tone was as bad as I got even then. Polargeo (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

15. I've been on the verge of supporting - lots of good article work and clear evidence of policy understanding, but as an admin, you will get poked with a stick, probably repeatedly. When you get annoyed, the thing to do is step away from the keyboard rather than fire a reply back. Demonstrate more restraint when being poked, and you'll have my support next time. GedUK  08:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.