Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Idleguy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Response to Bhadani 2 Do things differently 3 Something more 4 Comment moved from RfA

[edit] Response to Bhadani

Bhadani, my concerns with Idleguy are twofold: first, his rudeness, and secondly, what I see as his POV pushing. You asked for more recent examples. I don't have time to go through his contribs carefully, but here is an example from January this year that I find characteristic and unacceptable.

One of my concerns about Idleguy is that he has a tendency to object to anything he is personally unfamiliar with or does not like. He deleted this edit from Veganism [1] because it was based on an article written by a PhD student, and then deleted the source, an article in a peer-reviewed journal, saying it was "silly" it had been allowed to remain on the page for so long, because the author was a graduate student at the time. [2] (Note: the edit was not particularly well-written and I would have rewritten it, but there was no reason to delete it, particularly as it was a rebuttal to criticism.)

Articles in peer-reviewed journals are regarded as good sources for Wikipedia, no matter who has written them, and correctly sourced and relevant material may not be removed just because one person thinks it is "silly." In addition, the particular source Idleguy chose to delete was J. Gaverick Matheny, now of Duke University, a respected scholar, well known in this field, as even a simple Google search would have told Idleguy, and who has been published in books edited by Peter Singer and Tom Regan, both backbones of the animal-rights movement. But Idleguy dislikes animal rights, so he simply deleted the source.

When two editors remonstrated with him on the talk page, explaining who Matheny is, he replied that Matheny had "dubious credentials," and that he was just an undergrad" [3] (even though the edit made clear he was a postgrad, and undergrads are rarely, if ever, found in peer-reviewed journals).

The editors continued to argue with him, so he changed tack to claim that including the paper was a "close call" (though it wasn't at all close), and that we needed to find a source "that will be seen as more credible for a reader from Asia," because in Asia, unlike in the West (so he said), papers by PhD students are not respected. [4]

To respond to his points: (1) So far as I know it isn't true that papers from PhD students aren't respected in Asia. (2) Regardless of what's acceptable in Asia, Wikipedia policy is that papers in peer-reviewed journals are good sources. (3) The exchange indicates Idleguy has little knowledge of Wikipedia policy, which his small number of edits (152) to project pages also suggests. (4) To insist that only material known and respected in Asia is acceptable in Wikipedia is absurd and almost offensive. His atttitude to Matheny reminds me of when he accused me to trying to promote "obscure" people by adding their images to pages, giving Monica Ali and Bassam Abu Sharif as examples. (5) Even the briefest of searches on Google would have told Idleguy who Matheny was. (6) Had the paper been anti-animal rights, I'm sure Idleguy would have found it acceptable.

The above is typical of my experience of him, and the result is that I stay away from pages he is editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So, are these examples of me being rude? In which line did I abuse anyone as per your recent data on my discussions? The line stated "graduate student" and is hardly a convincing source if that had stayed. Since no one bothered to do the cleaning or add his full credentials, including SlimVirgin, until I deleted them there is no reason to accuse me of POV pushing on such a minor point. After all I conceeded this issue in the talk page and nowhere was I uncivil during that discussion. I don't think PhD papers from a few Indian colleges are received with the same regard and a ground level reality check would prove that in a significant minority of the cases, this is indeed true.

I clearly remember in the kind of POV and limited geographic scope those articles on Veganism etc. were, until I entered the scene and gave it some inputs from an Asian perspective. I think you should also talk about the protestors photos and a few other non free images used as fair use instead of restricting your talk to the few mugshots that were included in that deletion drive.

I think there was some communication gap in that Matheny's credentials. In India a graduate is often an undergraduate and vice versa. A postgraduate is clearly called as such and NEVER called a graduate. This was truly a slip and Graduate would explain that it just means some university degree and not necesarily a PG. A case of British American and Indian English dialects producing some confusion. Idleguy 03:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A graduate student is someone who has a degree and is studying i.e. a postgraduate. This applies in India as as well as elsewhere. You still don't seem to get what was wrong with deleting that source and then continuing to argue about it. It was in a peer-reviewed journal, and that's all we needed to know because our policy is that articles in peer-reviewed journals are good sources, but your editing indicates a lack of familiarity with policy, which is one of the reasons I oppose your nomination. And what protesters' photographs are you talking about? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As for as the issue of the "graduate student", please dont assume that it is the same inference everywhere. Technically, your definition is correct, but what I meant to convey was that his credentials weren't clearly presented when I made that edit first, so it was a bit confusing. If anything, after accusing me of POV, and being argumentative, you yourself still back your own viewpoint on such a trivial matter which I let go of months back! I find that instead of accomodating other views or even admitting that the same phrase might have different meanings implied elsewhere, you have to be so unyielding on minor issues of the past. Not all that you read in the books holds true and not all the people in the world speak one language/dialect. If anything, this has NOTHING to do with my rudeness. It's like making a mountain of a molehill. Idleguy 06:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You still don't get it. If Wikipedia policy is that articles in peer-reviewed journals are good sources — not just acceptable sources, but the best, the preferred — it is not for you to decide otherwise just because you personally don't like the qualifications or viewpoint of the author. And this was not months ago. It was at the end of January. I also know that if I had more time, I could find other similar examples. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What do I have against any qualifications? Please don't take things out of context. Like I said I understood that policy long ago and have let go of it after the inital communication gap. But you just don't let it go, do you? How long will we keep arguing back and forth over this. I don't like flogging dead horse. I think if you've had enough time to cull such an unimportant statement over a conceded issue, you should also find other similar examples from the recent past. And I'm being serious not being sarcastic or negative in any way. Idleguy 07:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Slim, as Saravask mentioned: is the raking up of 5 month old issues still relavent? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Raking this up is useful in that brings out that Idleguy is still ignorant of Wikipedia policy, and still determined to insist that he was right, and that any misunderstanding was someone else's fault. Neither is a good attribute for a would-be admin. Moreover, I've asked Indian colleagues about his claim: "In India a graduate is often an undergraduate and vice versa"; their reponse was disbelieving laughter. In other words, he's making it up. He removed a citation because it didn't fit his personal standards, although it fitted Wikipedia's perfectly, and then he refused to accept that he was wrong. Despite his claim: "Like I said I understood that policy long ago and have let go of it after the inital communication gap", I can't se anywhere where he did say that he now understood the policy. (Note, incidentally, that Saul Kripke published his first paper in a peer-reviewd acadmic journal while he was still at school; it would be a perfectly acceptable source on Wikipedia.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Mel, the term undergraduate is not a commonly used term in India. After 12 years of education, a student begins his "graduate" studies (varies between: 3-4 years). After completion of the additional 3/4 years, he is known as a "graduate". =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that it must depend upon which part of India you're talking about, because "undergraduate" is a term frequently encountered in Indian novels and short stories. Besides, as you point out, one isn't a graduate until one has graduated; being a graduate cannot be confused with not having graduated. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you calling me a liar? Your statement "In other words, he's making it up." is very disparaging and I have seen Anonymous editor make a similar statement (" it is very likely that he made it up.") talking on an article's source here. Yes, an undergraduate student is sometimes mistakenly referred to as an graduate student, atleast in India. If your interactions of Indian colleagues are limited to expatriates then you wouldn't get the whole picture. The ground reality is a bit different.

No, they're visiting academics and people who have taken jobs in Oxford after initial studeied in India.--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The original reason for removing that edit was that the para wrongly mentioned "graduate student" which still meant that the source came from a student and NOT from a well known author. Nobody bothered to correct that he was no longer a grad student and was rectified only after I found that out. It is the onus of the editor who first made that additions to properly see that his credentials were updated and any lay reader would have justifiably wondered if a graduate student's work should find mention in Wikipedia at first glance. Everything by SV has been overly magnified. For instance, she started this talk with the statement "his rudeness, and secondly, what I see as his POV pushing." and gives this example on a minor communication gap related to a policy issue. Hardly had anything to reflect my rudeness or POV pushing as promised by SV. And I find that unacceptable and well..... Idleguy 07:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This confirms that you're still denying (or are ignorant of) Wikipedia policy. Your views as to what constitutes a reliable source is irrelevant, the "credentials" of the author are irrelevant; the reference was to a peer-reviewed journal, and that is all we care about. If the author had had no degrees at all, the reference would still have been perfectly acceptable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Idleguy, please do not make personal attacks on other editors. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Idleguy continues to miss the point. The article was written by a graduate student, which in Europe as in India refers to someone who is a graduate and who is continuing to study i.e. a postgraduate student. But regardless of whether written by a student, a professor, or my local garbage-disposal man, it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. That makes it a good source (in fact, an excellent source) for Wikipedia, because experts in the field have reviewed it and deemed it informed enough to publish. In deleting (not even asking a question about it, but simply deleting it), Idleguy showed that he knows nothing about our content policies, nothing about the peer review process, and nothing about academia. As for your rudeness to me, I'm amazed that you still call it a "minor communications gap." You might also want to bear in mind your various e-mails to me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I want to make the point that if Idleguy is as rude as to respond to criticism with "are you calling me a liar?" in his RfA, those who voted for him might want to consider what he'll be like if he's promoted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Mel Etitis. And I liked what SlimVirgin said on the Rfa page. If he didn't improve and stayed uncivil in the 12 first months that he was here, what can we expect in the last 3 or 4 months. Most of his edits were in the first 12. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

fyi, I had made just one edit in the first 6 months (even that was a co-edit with another person). So it's not the "12 first months" as you - and few others mistakenly call it. IMO I feel it's a bit of double standards when you yourself had accusations of being rude and POV pushing in your first RFA. Many editors were generally lenient just 2 months later in your second RFA. So, if one person is absolved of any misdoings within 2 months I wonder why people still have a grudge against me after 4 months. Idleguy 07:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. You started editing regularly in May 2005, and had made lots of edits by October 2005, so there is no sense in which you were a newbie. I've also put up other examples, and could put up more recent ones too, which show you have very little familiarity with our content policies. However, most noticeable is the complete failure to apologize here to the people you were rude to, but instead an attempt to dismiss your behavior as something that happened months ago. Your defense of yourself overlooks the fact that most editors manage, for example, to avoid reporting admins as vandals, no matter how new they are to Wikipedia. I hold no grudge against you whatsoever, only concerns about your ability to use admin tools appropriately, which your response to the criticism is serving to confirm. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You missed out on the fact that you went ahead and reverted the reporting of the images as probable copyvios. Isn't that a blatant violation of policy since everything that's touch and go should have achieved a consensus. As an admin that is a bigger lapse than a mere editor. And I've apologized to anonymous editor in a talk page of another user here. I have nothing against you or any Wikipedian and if the tone during those discussions were a bit gruff, I'm sorry. But, nothing was done with malicious intent. My position on any matter has nothing to with my editing and IMO, I don't bring in the compromising "tilt" that is evident in your edits on certain hotly contested areas. Idleguy 12:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No you haven't and that just brings up another problem. You asked for mediation from an editor completely without telling me, which you are supposed to when you ask to mediate. It's good that I found out so that I could settle the dispute with you. This is another reason why you aren't ready yet. IMO 7 months of not having learned wikipedia policy is still bad. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, but "No you haven't" to what? btw, we are not judging this RFA on the events of October 2005 when I didnt' follow the mediation process correctly. I believe it's based on the present and not the past. And I don't know what's bad about any editor who might not be fully versed in the details of all wikipedia policies; especially since I didn't stand for adminship during that time when I was still learning the policies. I don't suppose if you had followed some of the policies yourself, we wouldn't have ended up in that edit war. Most notably having read the sources and acknowledging that they could be true, before dismissing them summarily, just because you didn't like them. Idleguy 16:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do things differently

There is an adage that successful people do things differently. I am not very successful person, but I have collected certain gems which I saw somewhere in the World Wide Web. They are part of collection by a lady named Laura Bergells. Few of them are presented below:

• Entrance & Exits: My final exit shall be my greatest entrance.
• Mouth & Ears: My ears aren’t made to shut, but my mouth is.
• Mouth & Ears: The tongue is only a few inches from the brain, but to hear some people talk, you’d think the two were miles apart.
• Press Conferences: Silence is often misinterpreted, but never misquoted.
• Infinite possibilities: I can accept finite disappointment, but I won’t lose infinite hope.
• Speed of light: What light? I’m still looking for the tunnel!!
• New ideas: Our ideas are like children – no matter how much you admire somebody else’s, you still love your own the best.
• New ideas: An optimist takes the cold water thrown on new ideas, heats it with enthusiasm and uses the steam to push them ahead.
• Truth: The truth does not depend on a consensus of opinion.
• Ship: Noah didn’t wait for his ship to come in. . . . He built it!
• Ships: ship in the harbor is safe, but that’s not what ships are for.
• Ships: All the water in the world could not sink a ship unless it got inside. In the same way, all the evil in the world could never sink your soul unless you let it in.
• Job well done: The reward for a job well done is the opportunity to do more work.
• Karma: The rain falls on the just and the unjust. But mostly on the just, because the unjust have stolen their umbrellas.
• Karma: You feel right when you do right.
• Mind games: My mind not only wanders, sometimes it leaves me completely.
• Troubles: Troubles come to pass, but the do not come to stay.
• Troubles: Live through the tough times: the only way to the other side is through it.
• Worries: Anxiety does not empty tomorrow of sorrow; it empties today of strength.
• Yesterday: I love you more than yesterday. Yesterday, you got on my nerves.
• Rock Bottom: When the going gets tough. . . Get tougher!
• Rock Bottom: The end is not near. Learn to cope.
• Rock Bottom: When things are bad, I can take comfort in the thought that they can always get worse. And when things get worse, I find hope in the idea that things are so bad they have to get better.
• Thankfulness: Something to be thankful for is that you’re here to be thankful.
• Destiny: Choice, not chance, determines destiny.
• Destiny: Don’t worry about the world ending today. It’s already tomorrow in China.
• Grace: Tact is not only saying the right thing at the right time, but also to leave unsaid the wrong thing a tempting moment.
• Complaining: It’s not the mountain that wears me out – it’s the grain of sand in my shoe.
• Shouting: Shouting and screaming to get people to perform is like using the horn to steer your car.

I have done this in an RfA as we the wikipedians decided long back to be original!!! And, a number of above sayings stand proved by the process of Idleguy's RfA!!! --Bhadani 10:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something more

Sir Winston Churchill was not aware that a class of people collectively called Wikipedians shall emerge and they shall collectively be building an encyclopedia that will represent the sum total of human knowledge. He was also not aware that while involved in this process, the volunteers shall also be doing several other things to manage the show, including providing to some of them with certain administrative tools to function more effectively to protect the credibility of the Project. We, who are part of the Project in any capacity, may learn from some of the words of Churchill:

1. I cannot pretend to feel impartial about colors. I rejoice with the brilliant ones and am genuinely sorry for the poor browns.
2. A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
3. Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught.
4. Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.
5. There are a terrible lot of lies going around the world, and the worst of it is half of them are true.
6. To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day.
7. I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents.
8. When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber.
9. Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
10. I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.

I have learnt several new things by nominating Idleguy. My thanks to him and and all the participants (including those who are yet to record their opinion) for their insight and opinions. --Bhadani 12:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment moved from RfA

Moving my comment below.

Sorry for adding this comment to a closed RfA. Just want to bring the issue raised by me to a closure. I feel that there is some merit in SV's claim that Admins need to be more patient than other users because of what they're likely going to endure. But, I strongly feel that adminship itself is a strong moderator on one's temper. On a side note, I'm sorry to say that certain people whom I held in high esteem (including SV) have come down to some degree. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also offended by SlimVirgin's use of rollback feature in this edit. The section on the feature says,

"Reverting a good-faith edit may send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanatory edit summary." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor;"

And, I really felt like that. It is particularly difficult to assume good faith given that the reverted comment was critical of the person who reverted it. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)