Administrator dismissed valid points that clearly established the fact that there was No Consensus. See
here. I have to question the administrator's neutrality, research skills and professionalism.
PtAuAg (
talk)
10:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Restore and relist - Personal attacks - particularly calling a fellow editor a 'dick' - is prohinited on WP. Except, apparently, for the 'inner circle' of admins themselves. Regardless of the personal abuse the reason for the delete was the respectable but low Scopus h index. Sparta then accuses me of using this 'minutiae' as a basis to game the system to claim No Consensus. I have no relationship with JGH other than knowledge of his work and WP rules on notability. To say JGH is not referenced in academia is simply false. The issue is whether he is sufficiently referenced. In the context of a literary ethicist and biographer, the Scopus h index is obviously inappropriate. I also note this index is not mentioned at all in the notability criteria for academics. Why is it being used here, and why is this so uncontroversial that Sparta can delete the page without protest? It is not directly relevant, but it was amusing to see that Rachel Uchetel was accepted by WP editors as notable - unbelievable - but someone trying to save Western Civilization from a financial Armageddon is considered non-notable. This says a lot about both WP's twisted, trivia-oriented standards of non-professional 'editors' and Western 'civilization' in general. Admins are self-selected with the main criteria apparently being the ability to spend too much unpaid time on trivial pages. The chances of a capable admin understanding JGH's work - or proper notability criteria applying to this unique case - is virtually zero. -
PtAuAg (
talk)
08:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Please strike the vote - you already offered an opinion in the nomination. Given the patronising and offensive way you addressed me I think you got off lightly with my response. Given that you continue to use this discussion as a platform to attack me perhaps someone could close this now.
SpartazHumbug!11:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Having not registered an account I am of course not an admin. My comment relates to your behaviour in this matter rather than you as a person whom I do not know and have not looked around to see if this is typical behaviour. Your statements regarding the closer are however are a statement on a personal level and are in fact a personal attack. I'll stand by my original opinion that this should be speedily closed given your apparent unwillingess to behave in a collegial manner --
82.7.40.7 (
talk)
18:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Reluctant Endorse In practice, full professors at research universities are generally notable, and there's 3rd party documentation for that
[1]. The problem here is the GScholar (and also Scopus) show very few citations. This is essentially due to the nature of his work being out of the mainstream--it it is cited, it is likely to be in publications not included in Scopus and other indexes. I would never go by h-index alone, but the overall citation pattern needs to be looked at. I think the closer did that, and did that correctly. If it could be shown that he is widely cited by economists or other writers in his special field even though not reflected in the usual indexes, then he would be notable. However, I say this endorse reluctantly because I disagree with the way we are using the criteria: I have the very strong personal view that we ought to include all full professors at all research universities (and Angers counts as one) and thus avoid the inevitable ambiguities and injustices of deciding by our self trying to validate scientific careers, instead of relying on those who are expert in doing so , but I do not not consider that this is the consensus position, at least not yet. (and because I know I have this position I do not close debates in this field.) I can not see reversing an admin who closed according to our established practices. DGG (
talk )
18:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Administrator dismissed valid points that clearly established the fact that there was No Consensus. See
here. I have to question the administrator's neutrality, research skills and professionalism.
PtAuAg (
talk)
10:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Restore and relist - Personal attacks - particularly calling a fellow editor a 'dick' - is prohinited on WP. Except, apparently, for the 'inner circle' of admins themselves. Regardless of the personal abuse the reason for the delete was the respectable but low Scopus h index. Sparta then accuses me of using this 'minutiae' as a basis to game the system to claim No Consensus. I have no relationship with JGH other than knowledge of his work and WP rules on notability. To say JGH is not referenced in academia is simply false. The issue is whether he is sufficiently referenced. In the context of a literary ethicist and biographer, the Scopus h index is obviously inappropriate. I also note this index is not mentioned at all in the notability criteria for academics. Why is it being used here, and why is this so uncontroversial that Sparta can delete the page without protest? It is not directly relevant, but it was amusing to see that Rachel Uchetel was accepted by WP editors as notable - unbelievable - but someone trying to save Western Civilization from a financial Armageddon is considered non-notable. This says a lot about both WP's twisted, trivia-oriented standards of non-professional 'editors' and Western 'civilization' in general. Admins are self-selected with the main criteria apparently being the ability to spend too much unpaid time on trivial pages. The chances of a capable admin understanding JGH's work - or proper notability criteria applying to this unique case - is virtually zero. -
PtAuAg (
talk)
08:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Please strike the vote - you already offered an opinion in the nomination. Given the patronising and offensive way you addressed me I think you got off lightly with my response. Given that you continue to use this discussion as a platform to attack me perhaps someone could close this now.
SpartazHumbug!11:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Having not registered an account I am of course not an admin. My comment relates to your behaviour in this matter rather than you as a person whom I do not know and have not looked around to see if this is typical behaviour. Your statements regarding the closer are however are a statement on a personal level and are in fact a personal attack. I'll stand by my original opinion that this should be speedily closed given your apparent unwillingess to behave in a collegial manner --
82.7.40.7 (
talk)
18:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Reluctant Endorse In practice, full professors at research universities are generally notable, and there's 3rd party documentation for that
[1]. The problem here is the GScholar (and also Scopus) show very few citations. This is essentially due to the nature of his work being out of the mainstream--it it is cited, it is likely to be in publications not included in Scopus and other indexes. I would never go by h-index alone, but the overall citation pattern needs to be looked at. I think the closer did that, and did that correctly. If it could be shown that he is widely cited by economists or other writers in his special field even though not reflected in the usual indexes, then he would be notable. However, I say this endorse reluctantly because I disagree with the way we are using the criteria: I have the very strong personal view that we ought to include all full professors at all research universities (and Angers counts as one) and thus avoid the inevitable ambiguities and injustices of deciding by our self trying to validate scientific careers, instead of relying on those who are expert in doing so , but I do not not consider that this is the consensus position, at least not yet. (and because I know I have this position I do not close debates in this field.) I can not see reversing an admin who closed according to our established practices. DGG (
talk )
18:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)reply