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

Polargeo[edit]

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page)

Final vote tally (125/3/0), closed by Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC) SuccessfulReply[reply]


Nomination[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: 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 Wikipedia, 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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: You have chosen an area I have spent very little time in. I would certainly ask for advice and not attempt FfD closes until I had done more work in that area. Anyway as this is a test here goes. The guidance which I think applies is WP:NFC#UUI part 12. In particular the italicized statement about images of retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance being acceptable. So the arguments appear valid on both sides but the odds against obtaining a free image in this case and the fact that it would be unrepresentative anyway creates a policy based argument which is backed up by a greater number of !votes. There is certainly not a consensus to delete so I suppose a keep close would be in order, but I am saying this with little practical experience in FfD debates. Polargeo (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional optional questions from Lambanog
7. How many articles have you created from scratch? How many pages for articles, templates, redirects, etc. that you've significantly worked on have been nominated for deletion? Could you link to a couple?
A: I have created 44 articles. Many articles I have edited have been deleted but nothing I have ever significantly expanded has been taken to AfD. No redirect I have created has gone to RfD either that I am aware of. I tidied up an article (Alina Puscau) which had been incorrectly CSD tagged and that was then prod tagged but the prod tag was removed again by the person who tagged it. I have never personally deleted any addition to my talkpage so if there were any notices you would find them there or in the archives. I may have tried unsuccessfully to rescue an article I found at AfD but I don't remember a specific example. Polargeo (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
8. Please evaluate this RfD discussion and close: T:cite_news
A: I am not convinced there is a clear consensus here and would have considered relisting. However, at the time I may have !voted delete and so would not be against the close. Obviously my voting inclination would not affect my evaluation of consensus, hence the difference. Polargeo (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional optional questions from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
9. In editing the Alina Puscau article you mentioned in your answer to question 7, you added a reference to Look Back Fashion, which appears to be a self-published blog. Why did you believe this site to be an appropriate, reliable source for a BLP?
A: You will see that this inline source citation is doubled up with another citation but the other more reliable source is in Romanian. When searching for the sources there are several in Romanian but I considered it good to have an English source alongside (accepted it is of a lower standard) that simply repeats the claims in many Romanian sources. Polargeo (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
10. The specific Look Back Fashion post uou used as a reference incorrectly reports that Puscau is married to director Brett Ratner. Did you take this into account in deciding whether the page was a reliable source for a BLP? Should you have?
A: Yes I did, I never considered it a cast iron source that the verification of the information in the article relied upon (hence doubling it up with a Romanian source). I realized the married thing was due to an incorrect translation of a Romanian source but still felt it better to have the English source in as it contained a lot of easily readable and correct information as well. Maybe this was a bad decision and there were another couple of Romanian sources I should have added insteadas extra. To get this right it really needs a native speaker though. Polargeo (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
11. In the same article, you added content regarding unverified press reports, which the article subject denied, of a prior "relationship" with a convicted sex offender. Why did you believe such content was acceptable under WP:BLP?
A:Some of her notability (though clearly not all) comes from her relationships so including this information is useful and I think justified in her case. On searches some sources incorrectly list her as having had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I actually feel that a sourced denial of a relationship which has been incorrectly reported in the press shows wikipedia is actually trying to put the facts in correctlyright, rather than repeating incorrect information. If you think it is best for wikipedia not to mention this at all then okay I am happy for it to be removed but someone could easily add the incorrect information at a later date and source it, I think it is better to start off with the correct sourced information. Polargeo (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
12. More generally, when a person's dating/relationship history has no bearing on the matters for which they are notable and shows no indications of significant impact on their life and career, what encyclopedic value do you believe there is in including such material?
A:I personally believe that in general there is little value but understand others may have a different opinion. Polargeo (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional optional questions from NuclearWarfare
13. Do you think that you would find any of the scripts in User:NuclearWarfare/monobook.js helpful? If so, please feel free to add them to your own monobook/vector.js, and suggest some for me. NW (Talk) 03:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Thanks. I am sure I will find some of those scripts very useful. I have neglected this area a bit and only have a couple of items in my own monobook so there is nothing I can recommend to you at present. Polargeo (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  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)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  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 talk 11:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  8. Definitely. Calm, collected and balances content work with behind-the-scenes maintenance. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  10. Support. Nsk92 (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  12. Support. I have no problems with this user receiving the mop. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 13:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  16. Support. I opposed the last RfA; candidate has since proven themselves an exemplary editor. Tan | 39 14:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  18. Finally, a candidate who has a chance of becoming an admin! Aiken ♫ 14:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
    He or she? I think the beard is a bit of a giveaway ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, it's not a guarantee but I'd say Boing! is probably on to something... :) Pedro :  Chat  15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  23. Support I really wish you had made it last time. 3 ¢ soap Talk/Contributions 15:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. nihil obstat I had supported the first RfA but it was secretly already closed. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 16:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support Polargeo's made edits every month since he joined Wikipedia and he's hasn't been blocked a single time. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support I can trust this editor with Admin tools based on the track record.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support It's been a while since I've said that. It feels great! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support I thought he was ready last time. RayTalk 17:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support Insert cliché "I thought he was already an admin" here --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Excellent editor, sufficiently experienced. Meets my criteria. -- BigDom 17:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  32. Support with admiration for bravery. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  37. Support You far surpass my RfA expectations. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support neutral last time, but I think that he's a fine candidate now.  fetchcomms☛ 20:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  40. Support I supported you last time, and I see no reason not to this time as well ;)--White Shadows you're breaking up 21:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  42. Support Welcome back to RfA. ThemFromSpace 22:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. At last, someone to take the "junior admin" title from me. Tim Song (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support Airplaneman ✈ 23:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  48. Strong Support my rationale remains the same as my support from this users last RfA. I trust this editor. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 00:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. —Dark 00:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  51. He should do just fine. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support per WHY NOT?Midhart90 (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support. Why not? -FASTILYsock(TALK) 03:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support. The candidate now has the experience needed for the sysop gig. Majoreditor (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  56. Support - Very good candidate, and will not abuse the tools. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at 04:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support Looks good. BejinhanTalk 11:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support inappropriate edit summaries -Atmoz (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One bad summary, and you oppose? Seriously? CTJF83 chat 06:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's a valid opposition. —Dark 09:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Apparently not valid. —Dark 09:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was not intended as such, it was originally placed up here, so I've moved it back up. Amalthea 09:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    OMG. Is this a joke oppose/support? Is RFA back?! Dlohcierekim 13:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Moved back down here by closing bureaucrat. I like a joke as much the next bloke, but please try to make it easy for folks who have to run the ship. Things are getting complicated enough as it is. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Moved back up here and change to support 'vote'. I think I know if I meant support or oppose. Bureaucrat have no right to change votes. Don't edit my comment again. -Atmoz (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support good article work YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support. Good candidate. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Support Substantial improvement (not that it needed a lot) and trustworthy. Shadowjams (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support - No major issues with candidate, overall a good contributor. Forentitalk 11:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support Seems fine. Hobit (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Sure, why not. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support. Go for it. I see nothing wrong here. —  Cargoking  talk  14:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support Back for more so soon? I supported last time and I see nothing since then to change that. Gigs (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support. Meets my criteria. Lambanog (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support Definitely. He's a very good contributor.-- Barkjon  16:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Support. A good contributor who will make a good admin. I appreciate how he has responded to the concerns raised in the last RfA. Rje (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Support Without reservation. Hipocrite (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Support I think he would be a good choice for being an administrator. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support Shows clue. AniMate 17:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support I remember supporting your last RfA, and I was very disappointed when it did not succeed. Good luck with this one. Aditya Ex Machina 17:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support - will be a good admin. Rami R 18:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support per the crowd. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support: A bit soon after the last attempt for a self-nom, but I've looked into recent contribs and agree the he appears to be ready. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. Support From what I can see, he has successfully managed to overcome the objections raised in his last RFA, so there is no reason for me not to support this request. Regards SoWhy 20:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support. Definitely. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. Support I thought he was one. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Add me to the list of supporters. Candidate looks qualified. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. No reason not to - definitely has a clue.  7  00:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support. Answers to questions show clue. Contributions are beneficial. Displays a positive attitude. All in all a fine candidate. -- Ϫ 01:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support: The time has come. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support Not insane. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Per Boris. Guettarda (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support: Polargeo is fair-minded and articulate, and ready for the tools. Awickert (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support, an excellent candidate. --Taelus (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support: keeps a cool head while working in hot-potato areas. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support Polargeo always helped well in the disputed areas of wiki. He will be good expansion to wikipedia administrators. Only support from me. --Tadijataking 09:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support - Hardworking editor - has my support. -- Marek.69 talk 17:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support Thoughtful. Clueful. Interestedintheencyclopediaful. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support One of the most insightful Wikipedians I've encountered. When this guy gets to work on something, you can be sure he'll take the time to understand the situation and that his position will not be formed on a whim. This kind of thoroughness and dedication to the encyclopedia is exactly what admins need most, in my experience. This is in addition to all the above, of course, but is what I found to be the fellow's most admirable (and most necessary) characteristic. Admin material without a shadow of a doubt. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support Hopefully will do a good job...Modernist (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. Support-Definitely well qualified.--SKATER Speak. 01:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Support has shown fortitude and character after unsuccessful (albeit close) nomination; hung in there and improved--Hokeman (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support Appears to be qualified for the job, not that this !vote is necessary. The 888th Avatar (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Strong support effectively dealt with Balkan related disputes (not an easy thing to do). ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 06:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Support- I have seen Polargeo around here and there, and I am confident that this user has epic amounts of clue. Reyk YO! 07:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. Support This user has made many good contributions. I think he deserves this position. Thank you, --Patriot8790 (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Congrats! -- Mentifisto 08:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support — Aaroncrick TALK 10:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Support. Well-rounded, with a proven record of being able to edit constructively in areas where there is controversy. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support - why not? Connormah (talk | contribs) 18:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Support. See no reason for concern. Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. I remember passing Pine Island Glacier and thinking you had a clueful approach. There's no reason to oppose, as far as I'm concerned. ceranthor 21:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Sure. nary a concern. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. SupportA worthy candidate...Smallman12q (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. Support - Supported the last one, no reason not to support this one, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support Another case of EnWP RFA standards on the rise to insanity. Previously, the answer was come back in three months and try again. Now it is "Only a three and a half month wait? Not long enough!" Come on people. You are asking to much. He wants to be an admin, not god.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 13:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Support. Polargeo seems to have the ample experience needed. He'll make a good admin. --Kanonkas :  Talk  17:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Support --JN466 18:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support Good nom, I like! — JoJo • Talk • 18:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support, I don't see any reason why not. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  116. Support neither do I. Valley2city‽ 02:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. Support Trustworthy editor. Will make a fine admin. Calmer Waters 04:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  118. Support It's all been said. Graham Colm (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  119. Support, not that one more support matters at this point. Impressed by that Polargeo does not shy away from controversial topic areas, as most prospective Admins do. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  120. Support Highly qualified, in my opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  121. Support I would see a good candidate for the mop from the evidence, after a fairly interesting interaction in relation to an issue that we (poleargo and I) had an interaction over - the outcome - after many words, was positive to the wiki project concerned - and on that basis I would support, but hope the negotation skills improve in relation to the volume of words SatuSuro 02:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. Support – what they said. Pepper∙piggle 11:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Support clearly worth a trial with the tools, more than likely a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. I see Polargeo's name around often, and he always comes across as reasonable and sensible to me. Acalamari 16:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  125. Support --~TPW 06:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - I don't see a susbtantial improvement in the last three months. This new self-nom is premature I think. Crafty (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Crafty, is it possible for you to provide a couple of diffs to show continuing problems? I might have missed them, and would be grateful to look at some examples of where the candidate has shown that they haven't improved since the last RfA -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would have to agree with Phantomsteve, I see no problems with this candidate. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Diffs? Why would I provide diffs? I am under no obligation to provide diffs. I have offered my considered opinion on this candidate and I see no reason to alter it. Crafty (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I believe you were asked for diffs not to justify your opinion, but to help other editors form their own. If you chose to provide them, it will provide those other editors with more specific evidence for them to weigh as they form their own opinions. It wasn't a request intended to put you on the spot; rather, PhantomSteve was asking for your help.--~TPW 17:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose I can't believe how many people are supporting this, there is one obvious and glaring reason why I have to encourage everybody to reconsider their !votes!!!---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This was admittedly an unfortunate time for RfA :/  fetchcomms☛ 23:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Baloonman, I'm sure you'll strike it tomorrow, right? :) Airplaneman ✈ 01:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please do; this nomination is hanging by a thread. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Striking !vote as reason no longer stands ;-)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, Polargeo did an admirable job of rectifying the concern, by travelling through time no less! ~ mazca talk 19:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose I was concerned enough to oppose at the last RFA. Although I don't have any diffs of problematic edits between now and then, philosophically I think 3 months is too short of time to revisit my oppose.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose Doesn't meet my minimum criteria for admins both in tenure (a little over a year) and edit count. I'm pleased to see that you're getting more involved here and I do see improvement, but your last RfA was only 3 1/2 months ago. It seems too soon to reconsider. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]

# Neutral Insufficient edits to Book talk namespace Gurch (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Darn, that gets admin candidates every single time! You'd think they'd learn by now how essential work in that area is to being a good admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, has he used ((book-prod)) yet? We can't possibly sysop someone who's never prodded a book yet!  fetchcomms☛ 23:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've stricken this !vote as frivolous. Although a neutral would theoretically have no effect on the outcome anyway, and I understand the point that Gurch is making, posting sardonic comments of this nature as counted !votes is disruptive to the RfA process. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps !striking the !vote was more disruptive. Since you acknowledged that neutrals have no effect. Just a thought. Killiondude (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I'd written "Oppose Insufficient edits to Book talk namespace ~~~~" in the support section, it would stand, and affect the outcome (in fact, someone has done pretty much that). Interesting that support votes with nonsensical or joke rationales (or no rationale at all) are accepted, and neutrals that don't affect the outcome are stricken. Gurch (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although I can see, and am inclined to agree with, Newyorkbrad's point, I think striking a neutral may be a little OTT and RfA is seriously in need of a little comic relief. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I shall go back to casting most of my support !votes in rhymed couplets. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Category