Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:05, 31 March 2010

Polargeo

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (57/1/0); Scheduled to end 10:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Polargeo (talk · contribs) – I primarily started editing as a content contributor and still expand and create articles. Recently I have become more involved with AfD, CSD and new page patrolling. My first RfA failed with 64% support. With over 2500 edits and more than three months past since then I believe I have addressed the major issues on which I failed and humbly put myself up again for interrogation. Polargeo (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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: My main focus would be on AfD and CSD but I am willing to help out in other areas where I feel I have the necessary experience to make the decision. I have a wide range of AfD experience and I have worked on increasing my CSD experience because that was a cause for several opposes to my previous RfA. The opposes were not on the quality but I had tagged less than 20 articles and stupidly said I might do some work in the area. I have now tagged over 150 articles for CSD and have patrolled around 500 new pages.

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

A: I am pleased with my GA contribution of Pine Island Glacier an article I expanded from a stub. Also I have reviewed 3 GAs and found this a rewarding experience. I have increased coverage of Antarctica and Greenland across various articles and have created 44 articles mostly on major glaciers and ice shelves. I have also tried to resolve problems in some of the Balkans articles through editing (adding reliable sources and a neutralPOV) and trying to get parties to reach consensus. I have ended up spending a lot of time on 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: The most stress I had was after several difficult interactions on a talkpage I was taken to wikiquette alerts for a single very minor comment where I told a user to please go away. My reaction to what I considered to be an unreasonable WQA was not acceptable and gave rise to some opposes in my last RfA. I have not had another such difficult incident since and now always look to diffuse such situations.

Optional question from DarkFalls

4. How have you addressed the major issues from your last RfA?

A: The one issue I have not addressed is the self-nom issue. But I see no problem with a self-nom. Another issue for some was my relatively low edit count. I have addressed this by adding another 2700 edits across a range of areas. I was also opposed on limited CSD experience. I have CSD tagged well over 100 articles since my last RfA and have now patrolled around 500 new pages. I don't know the exact percentage but the vast majority of the articles I have CSD tagged have been deleted. I have tried to diffuse situations and not get as personally affected by issues such as the one I describe in my answer to Q3. I think I have managed this although I do often deal with very difficult areas of wikipedia and people who sometimes have quite distasteful agendas. Polargeo (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Optional question from Boing! said Zebedee

5. When patrolling new pages, what things do you look to do and what do you consider before you hit the "Page patrolled" link, or nominate for CSD, or whatever? (I ask partly for my own education, because I've only recently started doing NPP, and a few tips from an admin candidate would be welcome).

A: I am sure you could get better advice from many others but here goes. I consider whether the page looks like a genuine attempt to add to wikipedia by an editor who may improve the article. If it is I will often hold back on CSD tagging (for example a potential A7) until I have had a chance to google and look into improving the article, unless it is a clear CSD and then I may try to give more advice to the article creator. I have tagged a few borderline articles for poor referencing and notability issues marking them as patrolled to give the creators a chance to follow the advice whilst more keen taggers may have CSD tagged. I keep an eye on the articles and go back and Prod tag them if the creator has added nothing to the article. I may not have completely finished with an article when I hit the page patrolled button but I never hit it if I don't think I will sort out the major problem issues one way or another. Sometimes that may be going back and improving it myself a week later or even going back and taking it to AfD. Polargeo (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a very helpful answer - it's good to get the thoughts of someone at your stage of experience. -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Optional question from Hobit

6. Say we have an in-arguably notable porn actress from the 1960s who is still alive today. No known public domain pictures of her are known to exist and she is known to not be interested in having pictures taken of her. A user has posted a (clothed) full-body picture of the actress from a 1960's magazine arguing that even if a picture of her could be taken, it wouldn't represent the "characteristics" for which she is notable. It is taken to IfD where 2 admins argue it is replaceable and 3 other users argue that any picture would be hard to get and the characteristics issue is valid. How do you close it and why?

A:

General comments

• Requests for adminship/Polargeo
• Requests for adminship/Polargeo 2

• 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

Support

1. Support Read some of the balkan comments, very calm in a difficult field. A look at stats and prior RfA makes me confident he's qualified.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Strong support. I opposed first time round based on the false impression he was a POV warrior, but after several hours researching to correct a perceived NPOV violation in a Balkans article i found even sources I expected to favour the "injured" party treated the subject the same way as the candidate. Intelligent and mostly even handed, he seems to have a rare combination of respect for consensus with independence of mind. I regretted opposing the candidate on the first RFA so much i put a reminder to nominate him in June, as a nom from someone with a contrasting outlook might help with the partisanship we sometimes get there (though tactically I would have asked a more moderate and respected colleague as first choice for the nom to maximise chances). Good all round wiki skills. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Support I supported last time, and nothing I've seen since gives me reason to change my mind; I have lots of respect for anyone who can approach the former Yugoslavia whilst maintaining a NPOV. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Support. Liking everything I've seen on a review of recent contribs. I had vague memory of concerns going in, but rapidly realised I was getting Polargeo confused with another user with a slightly similar name! Looks like a mature editor with sensible stuff to contribute. ~ mazca 11:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
5. I wish I saw more experience and coolheadedness, but I appreciate the willingness to take on hard work such as Balkans and new BLP's. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
6. I supported last time, as I remember it your opposers then included some who thought that you had insufficient tenure and and some who thought you had insufficient experience of deletion. You've now been here 14 months which should reassure those who prefer their admins to have over a years experience, and having just trawled through a bunch of your recent deleted contributions I can reassure those without access to deleted stuff that you now have more CSD tagging experience, and are doing good work there. ϢereSpielChequers 11:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
7. This one seems easy, per above. If an editor works for 14 months on difficult issues in climate science and the Balkans and has somehow managed not to generate a huge counter-reaction, then their diplomatic skills are better than mine. - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
8. Definitely. Calm, collected and balances content work with behind-the-scenes maintenance. –Juliancolton |  12:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
9. Emphatic support. I supported last time and have no reason to change my mind now. Knowledgeable and sensible contributor who is dedicated to maintaining quality content, who holds his own in interactions with forces hostile to verifiability and NPOV. --Orlady (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
10. Support. Nsk92 (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
11. I supported last time, and I'm pleased to again. Calm, sensible, unlikely to break anything by accident or design. Pedro :  Chat  13:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
12. Support. I have no problems with this user receiving the mop. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 13:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
13. Support I had no qualms in supporting the first RfA and I am glad to support this one. Warrah (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
14. Support I opposed at the last RfA, but I feel that my concerns have been met, and I can see no problems here -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
15. Support per above. Has learned from and remedied past problems. Courteous user willing to engage in meaningful discussion and grow. Has created a GA that was praised by an opposer in previous RFA. Good experience in CSD. Little likelihood of misuse/abuse of the tools. Dlohcierekim 13:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
16. Support. I opposed the last RfA; candidate has since proven themselves an exemplary editor. Tan | 39 14:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
17. Support. We've had our scuffles, but from the looks of it, you'd be a fine admin. --King Öomie 14:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
18. Finally, a candidate who has a chance of becoming an admin! Aiken ♫ 14:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
19. Support I reviewed candidate last time in some detail, had some minor concerns that didn't seem strong enough to oppose, but left me uncomfortable supporting. I do feel comfortable supporting now.SPhilbrickT 14:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
20. No concerns. Can tell the speedy criteria apart, and I found no problems in recent AfD participation. Jafeluv (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
21. I was neutral last time, but said that I'd support this time if Polargeo learnt to take a breath/step away when being poked, which I believe is a critical response to the inevitable poking. He (she?) appears to have done that, so I'm happy to support this time, as promised. GedUK  14:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

    He or she? I think the beard is a bit of a giveaway ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

    Well, it's not a guarantee but I'd say Boing! is probably on to something... :) Pedro :  Chat  15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

22. Support This is an editor who has clearly listened to the feedback from the first RfA and who has acted on it very constructively. It's also pretty good going to contribute to such contentious topics as the Balkans and Climate Change and remain sane, let alone civil. Experience, track record, temperament, answers above - all good -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
23. Support I really wish you had made it last time. 3 ¢ soap /_{Contributions} 15:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
24. nihil obstat I had supported the first RfA but it was secretly already closed. delirious & lost ☯ 16:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
25. Support Polargeo's made edits every month since he joined Misplaced Pages and he's hasn't been blocked a single time. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
26. Support I can trust this editor with Admin tools based on the track record.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
27. Support It's been a while since I've said that. It feels great! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
28. Support I thought he was ready last time. Ray 17:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
29. Support Insert cliché "I thought he was already an admin" here --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
30. Excellent editor, sufficiently experienced. Meets my criteria. -- BigDom 17:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
31. Strong support - Not only has Polargeo improved since the last RfA (which I opposed, FYI) but I've personally seen a lot of really good contributions all over the project, including non-article space. I think he'll make a great admin. -- Atama頭 17:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
32. Support with admiration for bravery. Schmidt, 18:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
33. Support The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
34. Support. I seem to see you express a lot of strong opinions. I disagree with a few of them. But that's a good thing. Your contributions are always well considered. And you have an excellent record of building this project in the mainspace. I'd be delighted for you to have the tools. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
35. Support per WP:RIGHTNOW!. I supported last time when I was a relative RfA novice and I'm supporting this time. It appears to me that Polargeo has gone out of his way to address the issues raised in the last RfA. I'm certain I've interacted with him at some point in the past but I can't for the life of me remember where. Anyway, wherever it was, he made a good enough impression that I can say without doubt that giving him a few extra buttons to press will be a genuine asset to the project. If RfA weren't so ridiculous these days, this would certainly be the easiest pass of 2010 so far. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
36. Support. Although I opposed Polargeo's previous RfA, I feel that he has sufficiently addressed the issues and concerns raised last time and would make a fine administrator. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
37. Support You far surpass my RfA expectations. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
38. Support neutral last time, but I think that he's a fine candidate now.  fetchcomms☛ 20:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
39. Support Good job constructively addressing the opposes from your first RfA, article content work includes a GA, diplomacy per dank... Give 'im the mop. Jclemens (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
40. Support I supported you last time, and I see no reason not to this time as well ;)--White Shadows 21:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
41. Support - I see absolutely no real reason to not support you. You're a good editor, you can keep cool in a debate, and I see no problems with CSD or AFD. Good luck. —LedgendGamer 21:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
42. Support Welcome back to RfA. ThemFromSpace 22:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
43. At last, someone to take the "junior admin" title from me. Tim Song (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
44. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
45. Support Airplaneman ✈ 23:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
46. Support You look stellar. And, you might be the answer to all the talk about "drought" at WT:RFA. Buggie111 (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
47. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - enough edits including high-quality article work, great Userboxen, Rollback rights, great user page, autoreviewer, etc. Bearian (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
48. Strong Support my rationale remains the same as my support from this users last RfA. I trust this editor. -- RP459 /_{Contributions} 00:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
49. —Dark 00:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
50. Support as someone who opposed (albeit weakly) last time around. I had barely encountered Polargeo before his prior RfA; in the months since, my impression of Polargeo (based on his AfD and DRV work, largely) has been very positive. I fully trust Polargeo to fairly and accurately weigh arguments at AfD when interpreting the consensus in deletion discussions. In my experience, Polargeo is reasonable, thoughtful, and always willing to improve himself. I no longer have any concerns at all about this candidate becoming an admin. I remain impressed with his GA, Pine Island Glacier, and his extensive content work. (I also support Tim's quest to ditch the "juniormost admin" mantle.) Anyway, good luck and keep up the good work! A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
51. He should do just fine. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
52. Support per WHY NOT?Midhart90 (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
53. Support. Why not? -FASTILY_sock 03:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
54. Support. The candidate now has the experience needed for the sysop gig. Majoreditor (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
55. Support - I was another of those !voting against Polargeo in December. I did so with the urging that a return here under the right circumstances would gain my support. Mine was one of the last !votes, and I was quite aware how close Polargeo was. So, it gives me great pleasure to go the other way this time, and to see that I am hardly alone in feeling this way. Well done! Jusdafax 03:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
56. Support - Very good candidate, and will not abuse the tools. December21st2012Freak at 04:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
57. Oppose inappropriate edit summaries -Atmoz (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)