Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:18, 24 October 2010

Archives (Index)

2010/October 2010/November 2010/December

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

A good start

Hooray talkpage access (ungagged)

I will be making a full statement here to try to explain my actions. I have been a little foolish recently but certainly I made no attempt to maliciously sock or deliberately disguise any alternate account to further my case. I am more than happy with arbcom requiring me to undergo an RfA if I ever wanted the tools back. I had already clearly stated this myself here However, I may never ask for them or even edit much, I don't know at present.

I wish to make it clear that the following accounts have nothing whatsoever to do with me

• Telziath
• Scottie Mccall
• Wivaronth
• Seenock
• Nallith
• Althea Faulkner

I tried to make a representation by email to User:Hersfold but understandably I suppose Hersfold is not inclined to believe me. These accounts were all created between 12:30 and 12:50 on 29 September 2010 before I had handed in the bit. As I do not know what IP these were created under I cannot work out why Hersfold thought it was me. I can confirm I was editing at the time from my desktop PC using my regular IP 194.66.0.122 and actually logged in as Polargeo. I am also baffled as to why Coren unblocked my IP and replaced it with a range block hence probably blocking around 150 people. Any answers welcome. Polargeo 2 (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeking "answers" is less likely to help than simple assurances that you will abide by the CC restrictions placed on you, and that you will be a model citizen afterwards. I think you will now agree that looking at "ranges" to "prove" that a person is Scibaby does, indeed, have a substantial "false positive" net result. Collect (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have never done any Scibaby chasing and I am frankly not interested in ever doing so. I don't even know why this legendary Scibaby was blocked. I feel a little sorry for him. As an admin I only ever blocked spam only/vandal only or genuine nasties. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but you did warn one user for socking with your admin account and then open an SPI against them a few hours later using one of your own undisclosed alternate accounts,  Roger Davies 13:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made it clear to you my reasons for doing that. That user was a seasoned multiple account Balkan POV pusher who had made socks to pretend to be other (rival) users. I made the SPI report under an alias because I didn't want the user hounding me. Also at that time I was not an admin and had been editing for only 7 months, I wouldn't have done it like that now. Polargeo 2 (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's the irony of it, more than anything else.  Roger Davies 15:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. I thought that using a sock to report a sock was ironic at the time but I have stated my reasons and those reasons were serious issues of fear of being hounded. Would you like to hold every editor accountable to every edit they made when they had only been editing for 7 months though (even though those edits occurred over a year ago)? Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be the closest diff to "absue", and that itself is trivia. Really this entire episode looks like paranoia William M. Connolley (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd ignore Collect's trouble-making if I were you William M. Connolley (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The IP edits in the blocked range are consistent with the standard setup at research institutions (such as the British Antarctic Survey): Many IP addresses belong to the same person over a long period of time, although occasionally people switch desks or computers. Some IP addresses belong to computers that are offered to short-term visitors, and there is usually a DHCP sub-range for portable computers. A range block on such an IP range is, or at least should be, very unusual.

It is important to keep in mind that in such an IP range editing similarities that are otherwise a good indication of socking can be expected to occur between unrelated editors, due to factors such as similar educational background, similar research interests, and occasional swapping of desks to make place for visitors. Hans Adler 10:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, thanks for that. I certainly don't want to get sacked though for stopping my entire organisation from editing wikipedia. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Surely, you would get a big bonus for increasing productivity at work for that? Count Iblis (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It is fairly clear at this point that checkuser has been used as magic pixie dust, which it isn't. All CU has confirmed is that those accounts were created from BAS IPs, and that you used a BAS IP. Since BAS has ~400 employees, that doesn't tell you very much. All this vast fuss could have been avoided if (a) Hersfold had told you what you were actually blocked for and (b) hadn't mistakenly cut off your talk page access and then failed to properly check up on that when asked about it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand why I was blocked by Hersfold. I did do some unrelated new page patrolling from an alternate account User:Jack Vine but only whilst waiting for Polargeo 2 to be set up. As soon as I realised that Polargeo 2 was set up I stopped. This was very naughty of me and I shouldn't have done it. I would have been able to do this editing from Jbtscott but I abandoned that account and scrambled the password in annoyance with Coren's blocks and editing of the Polargeo userpage. Polargeo 2 (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked this account, stick to it. — Coren  11:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou, I do invite you to double check those accounts because they are not mine and I do object to having false checkuser results which make it look like I have created a secret sock farm. What I have done looks poor enough as it is without being accused of stuff I didn't do. Polargeo 2 (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Though to put this into some sort of perspective, there's no dispute about ownership of at least the following accounts. User:Olap the Ogre Created 28 Sep; last edit 5 Oct • User:EnglishAristocraticFool Last edit 7 Oct • User:Yugosithlord Last edit 14 Oct • User:LilyNiviaq Created 7 Oct; last edit 14 Oct • User:Polargeo Last edit 1 Oct • User:Polargeo 2 • User:PolargeoSock Created 2 Oct; last edit 6 Oct • User:PolargeoShutdown Created 8 Oct - They were all used or created during the past three weeks.  Roger Davies 13:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Plus: here's one I overlooked yesterday, added for the record: User:Jack Vine Created 8 Oct 2010 Last edit 13 Oct 2010.  Roger Davies 17:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

...but of course, while not optimal, I don't think any of them has been used in a misleading fashion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Creating accounts on a proxy server is not misleading?  Roger Davies 15:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

They are all me I have never tried to hide that, as you know from my emails to yourself and arbcom. Polargeo 2 (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look, Polargeo, though I am at work right now so it'll have to wait until this evening. — Coren  13:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Coren. Polargeo 2 (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Already unblocked by Coren. Request handled by: T. Canens (talk) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Moving unblock request to the bottom and commenting as an admin patrolling CAT:RFU: According to the blocking arbitrator, "these blocks are based on checkuser evidence, and were made on the advice of a member of the Arbitration Committee" (). Because the evidence for this block is not public, it is not amenable to review through a talk page unblock request. Any unblock requests would therefore need to be addressed by e-mail to the Arbitration Committee, or to an administrator with checkuser permissions.  Sandstein  11:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

Now that you have been unblocked, hopefully you can return to "good standing" fairly quickly. I would suggest that, if you want to relieve some frustration, you should work on something completely unrelated to Climate Change. Try doing articles about landmarks or events in your town. Not only do you get to travel around taking pictures of things and expanding your local knowledge, but I find that the frequent trips to your local library to dig out newspaper articles and records can be very therapeutic. Just find something non-controversial, like a local historical landmark, and bury yourself in it. You'll feel much better, I promise. The Wordsmith 17:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's real fun to dig deep into something that hardly anybody cares about and turn it into a highly readable article. I have done this twice so far, and it was worth it. Quickies like this are even more rewarding because you don't have to spend much time on them and still bring them to a state when they are essentially finished. Hans Adler 18:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me echo the above. I hadn't planned on bringing Nikita Zotov to anywhere beyond the bare minimum for DYK; I was just reading a book on Peter the Great and figured I would write up the article. Before I knew it, I was ordering books through interlibrary loan from nearly a dozen libraries and bringing the article up to FA status. Writing that article was probably the most fun I ever had on Misplaced Pages, even though I know no more than a few hundred people look at the article every month. Writing something just for the fun of it might not be terribly productive in the long run, but once you sit down and start doing it, it can be fascinating work. NW (Talk) 02:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to interject that, as a respite from climate change (a subject about which I really know little), I retreated to Manhattan history, a subject about which I know quite a bit, and rescued Doyers Street (Manhattan) from an abysmal fate that included having the wrong name. One of the immediate contrasts that I noticed from the CC articles is that one does not have to argued every..... little..... thing.... over..... and...... over......again..... interminably! ScottyBerg (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thankyou for all of the advice it is very good advice. One thing that irritates me is why everyone seems to think I was ever a big contributor to climate change articles. I don't know how many times I have to say my problem was always with the CC probation and admin bias. I was a big contributor to glaciology but not stuff related to climate change. My biggest contributions to wikipedia have been on Balkans articles (for which I bought and read books to add references), followed by improving and creating glacier stubs and lists of glaciers and a GA on Pine Island Glacier (a glacier that has a surface temperature below freezing, average -25 degrees, and has experienced negligable surface warming). The arbcase found no evidence of a single problematic article or article talkpage edit in the CC area and still topic banned me for promoting a battleground mentality mainly because of fairly minor incivility during the arbcase and the RfC/U I started. As an admin and even before I have focused on CSD, AfD and new page patrolling etc. In fact this is probably my main contribution to wikipedia and has nothing to do with climate change. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think part of it might be that some of us might have fallen into the kind of mistakes made by some of the more abrasive editors in the CC area, who tended to view other editors entirely on the basis of a sometimes distorted view of their CC editing. Personally my interest is only tangential but I kind of was swept into it. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesus. You're telling me that. Spot on!! Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You may want to clear the air on those multiple accounts, if you want and if you feel it's necessary. Personally I don't care, but there's been some drama concerning it. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course I will but it is very complex. In the interim please feel free to ask any questions and they will be answered. Polargeo 2 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't care, as I said, but it does seems like a lot of accounts. When you're in the mood, you may want to deal with it in a subpage, and then in the future you can just refer people to that and everyone can move on. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. That is my idea. I already started a few days ago in an email to Roger Davies, which was copied to arbcom, which Roger Davies seems to have totally ignored in his comments here recently, comments which seem to be designed to discredit me and reinforce his actions without acknowledging any of my email explanations. Polargeo 2 (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just adding to the chorus of those who are welcoming you back. In spite of our historical spats, I have nothing but respect for you as an editor and think all of your article contributions have been great. Misplaced Pages needs more scientists contributing. And, to be clear, I categorically disagree with how you got thrown under the bus during the climate change arbcom. Let me know if there is anything I can ever do to help. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of applies to your recent travails. I think you'll know which bits William M. Connolley (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Hey. I'm editing those articles and making them meet Misplaced Pages's standards. The editing process would approximately finish by 4 hours. Please be patient and remove those deletion proposals. Thankyou! (Watercolor121 (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

They are not speedy deletion notices therefore you have several days to get them to standard. It would be better to start the articles in your userspace. Please read Misplaced Pages:Your first article for information. thanks Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"This appears to be an advert poorly disguised by sticking a copy of a research paper in the middle of it."

Not only that, it's a widespread copyvio too.... Peridon (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is. Thanks. I suppose that at the moment I couldn't justify possibly wasting time looking for where the copyvio came from when I thought it should just be deleted as an advert. Polargeo 2 (talk)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FClimate_change

This is formal notification because you are one of the affected parties. --TS 00:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)