Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Idleguy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Idleguy

Final (34/24/8) ending 17:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Idleguy (talk · contribs) – Idleguy is actually not idle (smiles): he is really an active member of the community, and has currently more than 4100 edits [1]. He has been regularly contributing to wikipedia from April 2005, though his first edit was on 29.09.2004. His contributions are well dispersed across different spaces of wikipedia. He has the ability and the skills to contribute comfortably to even difficult, relatively sensitive and controversial topics as are evidenced by selection of Kargil War as a featured article. His long association with the Project, his interaction with the community members, sufficiently large number of edits by him (including those to the article, Kargil War) are testimony to his balanced approach, maturity and insight into the subject matter, as also familiarity with the procedures and policies of the Project. Certainly, we require administrators with such abilities who are neutral in their treatment of any issue.

His user page adorns the barnstars awarded by four users, namely, Nichalp, Sundar Pamri and Ragib. I am sure that the time has come for the community to elevate Idleguy, a well-trusted member of the community, to the position of an administrator. I do believe that in him the community will have a well-balanced administrator wielding his admin tools for the general good of the Project. Bhadani 14:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination and thank those who took the time out to nominate and vote for me. Idleguy 16:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support I am a fan of Idleguy's works. Tintin (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support Rama's Arrow 15:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Very strong Support as nominator – with utmost pleasure. --Bhadani 15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support I see a great admin in him. deeptrivia (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Had very pleasant interaction with him in many articles. --Ragib 16:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Had good interactions with him on the Veganism article. He brought a fresh and unusual perspective into a situation that had become a tired, ideologically-driven debate. Skinwalker 17:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support 2 barnstars of national merit for work on different countries and on the topics he works that have high controversy potential! Was supposed to nominate or co-nominate him, but... "et tu Bhadani, then just an ordinary vote GB" <dramatic flourish> --Gurubrahma 17:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Definite support. +sj + 19:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support --Latinus 00:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Excellent contributions, great potential for adminship. gidonb 00:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. Great and prolific editor. --Pamri • Talk 00:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. --Khoikhoi 02:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. --Raghu 03:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support Joe I 04:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Idleguy's confrontations with Anonym and SV are over 4 months old. Since then Idle has matured into a wonderful editor. The arguments were about controversial issues, issues that always develop into edit wars no matter how civil you are. DaGizzaChat © 07:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Aldux 14:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Editing and trying to bring NPOV to contentious articles is often a thankless job. Idleguy has neither compromised on the quality of his edits nor has he shied away from contentious issues and has tried to bring NPOV to the articles he has worked on thus far. AreJay 16:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support -- Aksi great 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support but providing edit summaries for minor edits will be much better.--Jusjih 01:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. I have been directly involved in a few minor conflicts with Idleguy, and I completely agree with SlimVirgin's version of events regarding his past behavior. However, I feel that Idleguy has changed, and can be trusted with the admin tools. I also think that much of the conflict has been due to poor communication on both sides, as well as a lack of respect and cultural understanding. —Viriditas | Talk 03:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support - Hahnchen 04:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support Anonymous editor has done himself "many things that are not acceptable for any editor". I don't know why he brings up these two articles, he is probably thinking that nobody on wikipedia is checking or verifying anything. Anomyous editor has been pov-warring and edit-warring and deleting text in these two articles before Idleguy made these edits that Anon tries to criticize. Some of Anonymous editors diff's in these two articles can be seen here: [2]. Read also the article history. Anonymous editor was also the first who added a biased description of the pov-tag [3] , then others added the other pov, and then Anon editor and others were edit-warring over it. Idleguy cites references from both sides (for example in articles about India-Paksitan he also cites Pakistani sources), and he actually cites sources, he doesn't just delete them like Anon editor. Anon editor could learn a lot from Idleguy, I really hope he would promise to learn from Idleguy instead of making baseless accusations. And as these messages show [4] [5] [6] , Idleguy has tried to discuss the things with Anon editor and with other editors. These messages are just the type of messages that one expects from an editor who is encountering such problems. It would also help to look at other articles like Hamas, London bombings,.. to see that editors who delete text and negative statements about terrorists and terrorism are much more criticized in other articles. About Slim Virgins objection, I don't know if SV or Idleguy or both are guilty, but the matter is old and it is silly to mention this again and again. [7] doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 17:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    Well this is certainly not the place to try and disparage the votes of people who voted oppose and this is definitely not my Rfa so I don't know why blaming me for things that clearly Idleguy has said and done is going to help this process. Even on the articles I haven't worked Idleguy has acted uncivil. How can you blame me for that? Showing carefully selected diffs of material that you have mentioned in the past over and over to use against me when this isn't my Rfa isn't helpful at all and is bad for this process. Again this is not my Rfa. The evidence is there for everyone to see. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    I never wanted to react. However, I am reacting in response to your reaction with all regards to you. Normally I would have maintained silence. I do not know Kefalonial. In my opinion, perhaps the comments by Kefalonial are because administrators are subject to stiffer scrutiny for their words and actions: Kefalonial is probing your past too to which only you are accountable and none else: at anyone's RfA or any other platform. The human nature imputed to be applicable to Idleguy is applicable to all – he can not be single out to be an exception! And, it is thus applicable to we all – you, me and to everybody – if at all, it is applicable to Idleguy. Further, my dear Sir, for each comma and full stop in the Project wikipedia we all, as the wiki-community, are collectively responsible to the humanity and to the posterity as we have joined hands to build the sum total of human knowledge and we all are collectively responsible to the humanity. So, I can not say to someone: look, I did not do this edit so I am least bothered about the edit. We are here to protect the credibility of wikipedia and we should not shy away from our collective responsibility. By the way, we place a premium on being bold and some people like to Do things Differently & Something More. Best regards. --Bhadani 11:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    Okay Bhadani but why have you started campaigning for votes for your candidate? Such as these [8] [9] [10] [11]. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    He is not my candidate, but the candidate nominated by me and once he has been here he is the candidate of the wiki-community. By the way, it is not campaigning as such but exchange of greetings: at least, I am not so "un-initiated" to do so in such a foolish manner. These are exchange of greetings and while exchanging greetings people excahnge the news as well - why are you so disturbed? My excahnges were with a precise purpose to attract attention of some users who continue to harbour illwill and basically have disruptive attitudes, particularly those who indulge in trolling bonafide users. Your attention and action may be indicative of the fact that perhaps you do not have faith in the collective as well as individual judgement of the community members? Do you think that at receiving Bhadani's greetings they shall come running here!!! I marvel at the ingenuity of some people to take up any opportunity to malaign other persons. Do you want me not to exchange greetings on the occassion of one of the important Hindu festivals, particularly when I had sent 100s of greetings on the occasion of X'Mas? How dare you balme me in this naked style? If people like you want me to go - I am willing to say goodbye to Wikipedia. I know it shall be painful for me - but for your happiness I am willing to do that - please do not think that you are the custodian of wikipedia and its processes? You may have a history of fighting like this - I am doing this perhps first time. Thank you. --Bhadani 16:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    And I wouldn't want you to leave either because it wouldn't help me or you in any way, in fact I would be deeply against it. However campaigning like this for any candidate you nominated is a simple action that is not looked well upon in the community even if it is part of a nice greeting and it has happened to editors before. It certainly wasn't my point to make you offended or have a "fight". Again, I am not challenging your style, but your actions while this is going on as I would challenge on any other rfa so please don't overreact to it. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    Enough is enough! - I have already declred the position on my page. I just came to say a nice hello and good bye to you. May God bless you! --Bhadani 17:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    Bhadani, you are overreacting to a simple inquiry. I certainly don't mean any offense, but only to ask why since campaigning is a touchy thing and isn't something I expected from you. Sadly you have taken it offensively. I bid you a goodbye too if that is your final decision, but I hope and think that you will come back after cooling off. It certainly wasn't anything as big as you made it to be. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'm stepping in to meditate this dispute. I'll be replying on your talk pages shortly. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    CLARIFICATION - to all Wikipedians: please do not associate the exchanges between user:Anonymous editor and user:Bhadani above with Idleguy's RfA - his candidacy must be judged on the basis of his record and not a dicussion between other Wikipedians over each other's actions and interpretations. Rama's Arrow 19:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support Boxerglove 18:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support Mjal 21:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Strong support =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support per Pamri, Viriditas, Nichalp, etc. Sympathetic to concerns raised by Anonymous editor, SV, etc. But after reading discussion on talk, IMHO much of the more recent disagreements and much of that from October 2005 arose from cross-cultural misunderstandings, not unilateral trolling/incivility by Idleguy. Impressed by his work at Kargil War, etc. Looking at a few selected diffs from his more recent edit history revealed little/nothing that was problematic/uncivil. Still, I encourage Idleguy to issue a more clearly-worded apology to people who took offense from his behavior in October. Saravask 22:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support per others.--Dwaipayanc 14:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. Strong support. Idleguy is involved mainly in pages that define "dispute" on WP (wars and insurgencies) and his edits have been so tempered and skilled as to preserve him from all controversy. I cannot imagine what greater evidence of having the required admin-skills can possibly be proffered by a candidate. It is galling, a matter of great consternation, that some one-off incident of five months ago, on a totally uncontroversial page, is being taken as definitive depiction of his personality. I find it quite impossible to believe that Idleguy (or if I may add, any Indian) is dead-set against vegetarianism or veganism. A great part of that dispute has got to do with culture (the undergrad/grad confusion). Certainly, this edit results from misunderstanding; the first sentence of the paper reads "In his article, “Least Harm,” Steven Davis argues that the number of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number of animals killed in crop production". Now this could be one valid PoV, but Idleguy almost definitely thought that, coming (as he thought it did) from an undergrad, the paper could not be all that valuable. He summarily deleted it without realizing that the paper actually refuted the assertion made in the first sentence. If this is his major transgression in recent months, he is uncontroversial to the point of being insipid. I request people who voted against him to just look a little deeper into his contributions and revise their vote. The matter can yet be remedied, and I urge taking an overall perspective on this matter. Let our decisions be informed not by vengefulness but by broadmindedness and a more thorough investigation of Idleguy's contributions. Regards, ImpuMozhi 01:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support A great editor who can bring up articles like Kargil War from this state to featured status. He's shown his balanced mindset and respect for WP:NPOV in this article and on many of his earlier contributions. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. I think most of the editors are in the making at WP. All of us have had our moments of arguments and agreements. I think its sad and unhealthy for WP when talk page troubles [12] [13] [14] over a topic or two between individuals transition into full-time biases for each other, and the community is moved on such bases rather than merit. A neutral eye would see 'civility' issues either way on the talk pages, I suppose. I think each party should be subjected to the same yardstick, and thus I have marked Support rather than Neutral. --ΜιĿːtalk 09:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support, interesting controversy here. I'll steer clear of it, and just say that you'd make a great admin. haz (user talk)e 13:26, 7 March 2006

Oppose

  1. Oppose I can't support him right now. He has done many things that are not acceptable for any editor such as often using personal attacks in edit summaries. An example is one where he attacks me by saying that I "should be rubbished". [15]. He also revert wars without discussing such as this one where he says that an article has pro-terrorist bias without explanation of who/what he is talking about. [16]. He spent too much time arguing on edit summaries instead of using talk pages until he violates 3rr when he was the one who originally wanted to add controversial information and then starts using it. [17]. He has also done other things that showed bad faith such as reporting Administrator SlimVirgin to vandalism in progress over a small dispute [18] and using a test 4 Vandal warning on her! [19]. Sorry but I don't believe that Idleguy is ready for this right now. I will support next time if he improves. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    All the diffs you provided seem to be from October 2005. In your opinion, has his behavior improved since then? Saravask 22:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    I don't know if he has. Since he had been here for much longer even for October, he should have known not to do stuff like this before and the behavior was still a big problem at the time. That's why I want him to show that he can improve until next time. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    He's been editing since September 2004, so if by October 2005 he hadn't learned how to speak to people, it's unlikely he's changed between then and now. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    Kindly do not treat my interjection here as unwarranted and an attempt to influence the community. Just for the sake of clarity, I would like to put a brief note. His first edit was in September 2004. Thereafter, there was not even a single edit for months together. In March 2005 he did only two edits, and only from April 2005 he has been actively editing. I keep SlimVirgin in very high regard, and she is like a role model to me. Having said this, I would like to add that I do believe that she shall surely agree that to err is human but to forgive and forget is divine. I do believe that persons surely learn from experience. Idleguy’s recent interactions and edits are testimony to the position that he is now capable of handling difficult and sensitive issues with the required level of dexterity and maturity. This is also implied to an extent in the opinion of Anonymous editor who wants Idleguy to come back after few months. In case, Idleguy is capable of improving in next few months, imputing that he has not changed at all is perhaps not doing justice to him. Madam, please believe me: persons change in real life as well as in the digital life. I would repeat that to err is human, but to learn from mistakes is like baptism by fire, and Idleguy is an ideal example of this aspect of human nature. --Bhadani 15:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    I've responded on talk. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose. Idleguy is rude to the point of belligerence. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'm adding this explanation for my vote. Idleguy took exception to some edits I made to Veganism on an animal-rights issue. In response, in what looked like WP:POINT, he went through the images I've uploaded, nominated 20 of them for deletion, [20] reported me on Vandalism in progress because I reverted his addition of the copyvio tag, [21] [22] complained about me to Cecropia, [23] accused me of admin abuse, [24] said I was acting as a "propagandist" by trying to "promote obscure people" by adding their photographs to articles (bizarrely giving the British novelist Monica Ali and former PLO press officer Bassam Abu Sharif as examples); said it's a shame that people like me are allowed to remain as admins; kept referring to me as "he" after being told I'm a woman; and accused another editor who tried to reason with him of corruption.
    This is an example of the images he tried to delete as a copyvio. It is a monkey in a restraint tube taken by an undercover investigator inside Covance, a primate-testing facility. By their very nature, there is no copyright on such images, because they're intended for distribution and are taken secretly, often by people acting illegally in order to obtain them (meaning they're hardly likely to step forward to claim copyright), so the correct tag is either PD or fair use. Explaining this to Idleguy made no difference. He didn't like the image, doesn't like animal rights, and therefore decided to cause trouble over it.
    In general, Idleguy does not have a good grasp of NPOV or how to be encyclopedic, in my view. This edit to Veganism [25] is characteristic. He objected to the sentence: "Vegetarian capsule lines have become standard in most health-food stores and in many mainstream vitamin and supplement outlets," on the grounds that it displays Western bias. Fair enough. But all he had to do was add "in most Western nations." Instead, he deleted the sentence, and that is my experience of his editing style. People he hasn't heard of are "obscure"; what he personally doesn't like, he wants to delete. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    I think it's only fair if you also add that my handling of the issue (admittedly not suave) of allegedly non-fair use resulted in the deletion of images such as a lady with fur etc (tagged as fair use). And few in Wikipedia could claim authority over knowing the legalities of fair use content and there was some confusion over those images. Moreover, the Veganism article has improved for the better since I started editing it to reduce a systemic bias. Interestingly these issues as with anon above are from the past. And I'd also like to point out that I've only been seriously editing since April/May of last year and not September 04 which was just my first edit. Idleguy 06:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    My recollection is that none of the images were deleted because of your actions, and that I decided to delete the image of the fur coat because it was inappropriate. The point is not the images anyway. The point is the way you handled it. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    I surely do not want to differ with your opinion and assessment of the situation as prevailed at that particular point of time. However, in my opinion, we as a community should assess a person on the totality of his behavior pattern, and on the basis of his/her aggregate contributions to the Project. After all we all are human beings and members of perhaps most vibrant digital community – we should allow each other an opportunity to close the issues. Am I wrong madam? --Bhadani 16:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    Hence my vote. If the matter had been raised by him and discussed, if he had acknowledged that his conduct was less than ideal and had resolved to avoid situations like that in the future I would not have voted to oppose. As is, I don't think he realises what it is that people are bothered by, and if that's the case then there's no reason to assume that there won't be repetion of this behaviour. Guettarda 18:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think that Idleguy ever attempted to conceal or ignore his past conflicts. In his response to question no. 3, he doesn't mention SV or AnonEditor by name, but simply and clearly answers the question. In addition, don't you think that building a featured article out of Kargil War attests to his ability to build consensus and maturely deal with criticism? In addition, Idleguy notes how the episodes helped him to work better and improve article quality. Rama's Arrow 19:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strongly oppose. Occasionally brusque I could live with. Grace Note 04:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - I observed his interactions with SV on her talk page over the image issues and I found his behaviour overly rude, agrresive and inflexible. I am disappointed in his failure to mention issues like this in his response to question #3. He needs to settle down and learn to accept views other than his own. Guettarda 06:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Doesn't yet have the appropriate level of maturity. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 12:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I wish I could support, but I can't. I respect the value of his contributions, but his interactions with SV lead me to believe he is not mature enough to be an admin. I do realize that people can change, but I'd need more time to believe that he has. --Cymsdale 18:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Some good contributions, but seems too hot-tempered to be trustworthy. -Colin Kimbrell 18:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Concerned about civility issues. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. The various examples and diffs above are significant, and his response to them (no apology, and only the faintest of nods in the direction of any sort of admission that his behaviour was appalling), make it seem very unlikely that he's changed. It's also not clear to me from his answer to question 1, below, why he need admin tools. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. The concerns over incivility expressed above concern me as well. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. After reviewing this editor's contributions to Vegetarianism, Veganism, and related topics, it appears to me that he has engaged in edit warring, has been dismissive of other viewpoints and editors, and has made major edits without discussion or consensus despite the complaints of other editors. I do not think that this editor is accomodating of other viewpoints, or knows how to "write for the enemy". I do note that he remained reasonably calm despite one or more editors who were apparently bating him. -Will Beback 01:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Civility is very important.Zaheer89 01:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose because of concerns about civility. AnnH ♫ 18:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per Civilty not much wiki namespace edits, maybe later --Jaranda wat's sup 21:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Not suitable. Edit counts and edit summaries are only signs of dedication. Inflammatory assaults and personal attacks are the exact things an administrator IMHO should never do. Celcius
  17. Oppose on civility and maturity. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose(with considerable regret in view of positive contributions) per several editors above. Evidence presented, although anecdotal and limited to specific incidents, shows either lack of familiarity with, or unwillingness to follow, accepted policy and practice. Further, Idleguy's responses (and continued arguing of points) show a less than collegial approach to resolving disputes and an unwillingness to accept feedback graciously. (not incivil, just inflexible) ++Lar: t/c 15:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose civility issues and low edit summary usage, an excellent editor, but not ready for admin Prodego talk 15:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Civility issues suggest that the user needs more time to learn wiki-love. Xoloz 19:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Weak Oppose not enough wiki space edits and user talks --Ugur Basak 10:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per Lar. Mangojuice 12:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. oppose. adminship is not a prize for being a good user. WP:ANOT. ... aa:talk 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose, SlimVirgin's comments and the nominee's responses convinced me. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral: I was going to vote for, but was concerned with respect to Anonymous editor's comments. Would like to see a response to my question before I decide. -- Samir ∙ TC 02:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    I have to stay neutral. I really think your contributions have been spectacular, but I'm sorry, there are too many concerns about civility. -- Samir ∙ TC 03:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Not so civil. pschemp | talk 05:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. - Mailer Diablo 13:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Good editor, but lacks people skills. utcursch | talk 05:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral per above. Not absolutely convinced he can't deal with conflicts but not absolutely convinced he can. Marskell 15:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    Hi - plase don't consider this inappropriate, but y'all please have a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kargil War/archive1. Idleguy was always working to build consensus and address the concerns of other people. Remember it is a very sensitive subject. Rama's Arrow 16:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral as per above. Dlyons493 Talk 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral changed from Support after some more investigation. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 18:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. The civility concerns may be from more than a few months ago, but they give me reason to be hesitant in supporting. Raven4x4x 06:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 86% for major edits and 19% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 15:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See Idleguy's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • It would be nice if you work a bit more on edit summaries for minor edits. Having say 50% there would be nice. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As a user who has completely changed my relationship with wikipedia after lots of stupid experiments and games, I can confidently say that it is possible to change if encouraged. These transformations can happen in seconds. In my opinion, keeping on reminding someone of mistakes made months ago is harmful, and plain unwarranted if the editor has clearly shown drastic improvement. deeptrivia (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • One more example of a "transformed" user - me. See my admissions to a shameful act in response to the third question in User:Sundar/Admin related/my adminship election. I'd want SlimVirgin and AnonymousEditor to cite more recent examples of uncivility on his part, if any. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Sundar, if you want more recent examples of Idleguy's incivility, look no further than Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Idleguy, where you'll see examples from within the last few days, including him responding with "Are you calling me a liar?" to someone who disagreed with him, and one of his own supporters having to tell him to stop making personal attacks. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • SV, I don't know why you keep putting me under the electron microscope to magnify anything I say but keep letting others off the hook. Mel's statement in the talk page was more than a disagreement and his statement "he's making it up" is in contravention of Wikipedia:Civility which clearly statess "calling someone a liar" is uncivil. I hope you can apply the same rules to everyone and not just to a select few whom you may not like. Idleguy 05:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
          • The only reason I posted the above is because Sundar asked for recent examples. Even one of your supporters, Nichalp, asked you not to make personal attacks. [26] The important point for me about the exchange on talk is that the issue of peer-reviewed journals shows you still don't understand our editing policies, and I wonder how you can uphold policies as an admin if you don't know what they say. The second important thing is that you seem not to realize when you're being rude. Admins are subjected to a lot of abuse. If you go around saying the equivalent of "are you calling me a liar?" every time you think someone has been uncivil, you'll soon be caught in an ever-escalating chain of attack and counter-attack with all the people you take admin action against. It would show more maturity if you would say: "Okay, there are so many people concerned about things I've said and edits I've made that, even though I don't agree with them, I'm going to take some time to consider whether they might have a point." But there hasn't even been a hint of that type of introspection from you, and that is worrying. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It is easy for anybody to blow off the handle on India-Pakistan disputes, as many of the objections regarding Idleguy come from. But Idleguy has shown a maturity and ability to control himself and his work, and making Kargil War a featured article is no joke. He readily addressed the concerns of others during a tedious process. He has made a potential swimming pool of vandalism into one of Wikipedia's best articles. Rama's Arrow 17:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Apart from continuing my current editing on subjects of my interest, I'd also be keeping out vandalism. Speedy deletions are another area of interest as I have already been putting up a few blatant copyvio articles/images for deletion.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Kargil War which became a Featured Article would definitely rank up there at the top given the contentious nature.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I've had problems with some editors in the past on some problematic articles (eg. Terrorism related) and though there was an edit war with a couple of them, most were resolved after sources were provided/pointed out. Those incidents have helped me to improve the edit quality by providing references and linking any outrageous claims properly with notes to avoid such disputes in the future. Please note that all the issues which I've had with certain editors in the past, including being uncivil at times - and recycled here by the said editors - are more than 3-4 months old. The manner I've dealt with recent issues on hotly contested ones, shows that anyone improves over time.
4. Additional question. Please could you comment on your edit summary statistics? Do you feel there is a need for edit summaries for minor edits? Essexmutant 17:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
A. I use edit summaries by and large for major edits. As for the minor ones, I havent' used them with the same degree, but if that is the norm, I will use edit summaries for minor edits in the future. That shouldn't be a problem.
5. Additional question: This is an adjunct to (3) above. Another user has identified issues with respect to comments made on edit summaries that appear to be inflammatory, and the use of a test4 on an admin (see above). These, however, were done several months ago. Please elaborate further on why you chose to proceed in that manner with respect to those disputes, and how you would handle similar content disputes in the future. -- Samir ∙ TC 02:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
A. As for issues with Anonymous editor, they are long since resolved. But since he chose to bring up the subject again, he had used words like "Idleguy's limited ability" (sic) in the talk page here It must also be noted that Anonymous Editor has never had any major interactions with me since that edit war. Additionally, the crux of that matter in Terrorism in Pakistan was over one issue: His refusal to accept Hasan Abbas's controversial statistic which was clearly provided in the note with ISBN numbers too. The use of test4 was maybe uncalled for, as there was a confusion with the fair use images; but the said admin had arbitrarily removed the dubious images from Copyvio images without discussion. Therefore I felt it was appropriate, at that time, to bring the seriousness of the matter to SlimVirgin.

Since that period of heigtened edit wars, I have ensured that I have remained pretty cool when responding to others's edits or comments. I would like everyone to take a look at how I've handled myself in the last couple of months in the talk page and edit summaries and base their decisions upon that.

Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

A. First, I'd have to be 100% sure that the suspected editor is indeed using sockpuppets, since such an allegation was witnessed recently. Then, after discussing with another admin I'd probably move this into a community consensus to get feedback on what needs to be done.

  1. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?

A. Tricky one, but if this is the first time I'm doing this I'd probably take the help of another admin.

  1. When closing out a certain minor WP:AFD, you realise that there is a suspicion of sockpuppetry by a well-known user, or even an admin. Upon approaching the editor, he denies it, but the clues he leaves are too obvious to ignore. His sockpuppet vote did not affect the outcome of the AFD, but what would you do? Would you call him out?

A. Similar to the first question, but since his sockpuppet did not affect the outcome, I'd wouldn't take any action on the user since anyone is tempted to make mistakes. Since the question says that the evidence is undeniable, I'd try to take this issue with another administrator who hasn't been involved with either the article or the editor to get a different perspective on the issue.


The above 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.