Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ambuj.Saxena

message: Most people who participated in this RfA would be thinking: "What the hell happened?" So I would like to encourage some discussions regarding what is my WikiPhilosophy regarding FACs and what exactly is "rigidity".
To me, an FAC is a special type of Peer-Review process. The basic difference is that FAC is directed towards assessing the quality of the article and deciding what if it conforms to certain pre-defined benchmarks. In addition to that, editors may discuss the general aspects of the article under the "comments" section. It is the responsibility of the editors to clarify what is said as objection, and what is comment.
Now let's re-visit the FAC in question. I saw the article and saw that there is a potential of improvement in the article. Knowing that these are not the reasons for opposition, I noted them down under the "comments" heading. SlimVirgin replied to my comments, apparently thinking that I am opposing article on the basis of what I said, which I was not. The next time I saw the article, I found certain issues with the article, viz non-wikilinked partial dates, inconsistancy in comma usage, and missing accessdates of web-based references. I opposed the article on this minor-but-fixable issue, and at the same time clarified my views on the citation templates. Noting that I am writing it under "Oppose" heading, I again made it clear, that it is not my reason of opposing. SV replied again, and I clarified again that this is not my reason of oppose. Now comes the next day when I made a few mis-informed decision. The mis-information was that I was assuming that FAC hasn't ended, while it had. That day I saw the edit by SV to the WP:MOSDATE page and saw it was reverted by another editor. I saw her edits to other policy pages and noted my observations on the FAC talk page. I find it odd that even after clarifying 4 times (3 times in the FAC, and once in my RfA), people are still thinking that I objected because of citation issues.
Now let's discuss "rigidity". So exactly what is rigidity? Is it holding strong opinions, or is it forcing them on others? I strongly believe its the latter. Had I been "rigid" as SV puts it, my first comment would have been "oppose". I didn't pursue the issue of either infobox ('coz it was just a suggestion) or long dashes (assuming that she knows the stuff). What I said as a suggestion, clarified four times that its just a suggestion, is being used in this RfA over and over again stating that it was my reason to oppose. It is completely acceptable for someone to hold strong opinions. It is only because of this that we get motivated to raise articles to FA status, and as a group work towards making Wikipedia better. But unless we force our opinions on others, it doesn't qualify as rigidity. I think when I was trying to discuss my opinions, the editors thought that I am forcing them to use my way. This was never the case. Perhaps I should have used the talk page for it, as the editors thought the only use of FAC is discussing merits of article an the pre-defined benchmarks. While it is the central issue in the FAC, it isn't the only one.
I would like all editors, those who supported me, and those who opposed me, to discuss if there is anything wrong in my WikiPhilosophies. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to discuss all relevant issues at both RfA and FAC. There are many opportunities to misunderstand each other, and talking (and listening) is the way fix the misunderstandings. I sometimes find a third party can help solve a communication problem between another two people. Stephen B Streater 17:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talking WikiPhilosophy

message: I do not know about others. But, I do not believe in the Herd mentality. --Bhadani 17:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, I am sure that any RfA is a discussion, and not a Poll. Thus, point of discussion revolving on a single point should be treated as a single point of opinion. All participants are right: we should not be "rigid" in our approach. Likewise, we should not be rigid in repeating the same point in different ways when SV and Jayig have clearly classified their opinion as a "vote of protest". We should respect their considered opinion on the issue, and do not blow the issue to disproportaionate dimensions. --Bhadani 18:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What SV said was "Given the numbers, this will end up as just as a protest vote, but I want to make it anyway." At the time, the tally was around 80/1, so she reasonably viewed it as a protest vote. If other editors wish to take her reasons (including the diffs she provided) into consideration, that's their right. Aren't I Obscure? 18:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd also like to note that since SV's post at 16:12 1 August 2006, there has been 27-8 opposition to the RfA. I actually think a 24- or 48-hour extension might be warranted given this recent trend, though this would be up to a bureaucrat. Aren't I Obscure? 18:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's "herd mentality" for the community's opinion to turn the other way given new evidence or a better argument. (It happens sometimes on AfD, and it has happened here in a big way.) I'm a supporter, by the way. I never oppose based on one incident (or a small set of related incidents) so my support here remains; but the opposers have valid points and I'm more sensitive to badgering oppose votes now than ever, after a recent extremely contested RfA. Grandmasterka 21:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am also still in support. The contested action shows both good and bad points. Ironically, I'm more concerned about the English errors in the defence above, but even more concerned to have a good spread of Admins from different English speaking nations. I'd be OK with having this Admin amongst the mix. Stephen B Streater 21:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is precisely my point in my opposition.  I don't think AS has done anything to indicate that his actions would make him a poor admin, rather, as I've stated sternly in my opposition, his abominably poor grasp of English makes him a very poor candidate at this point.  An admin must be able to communicate effectively in the wp language edition in which s/he is an admin, and AS' grasp of English leaves, at least in my humble opinion, a great deal to be desired.  Tomertalk 07:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So you think that he is incomprehensible? Blnguyen | rant-line 07:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On more than one occassion, yes.  More to the point, however, he is not an effective communicator in English.  And you, sir, should seriously consider toning down your attacks against those who oppose this nomination in good faith.  Tomertalk 07:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't launched personal attacks. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without addressing, at least for the moment, the strawman you erect here (note I said "attacks", not "personal attacks"), your statement in response to me here, is a mildly-worded personal attack. Tomertalk 07:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You said "attacks against those who oppose this nomination", inferring that I am making attacks against persons. Well, I did not, I felt that the reasons given are "farcical", that is a reference to the basis of opposition, and not a personal attack at all.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bleh.  As I said, you are clearly in no position to pass judgment on the view of whether or not AS' grasp of English is imperfect, since your own is so clearly lacking.  The word you're looking for is "insinuating" or "implying".  You inferred something, I did not, nor did I either insinuate nor imply anything, including any vague assertion that you were making personal attacks.  Your judgment that my reason is "farcical" is clearly ludicrous, since, as I've pointed out, your grasp of English is even worse than Ambuj.Saxena's.  What you need to do, if you want to promote this nomination, at this point, is enhance your calm, and stop with the poorly-worded flailing and flagellating denigrations of every viewpoint with which you happen to, or think you happen to, disagree.  [And yes, for the record, I just implied that I don't honestly believe you understand half of what you claim to be opposing...]  Tomertalk 08:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as my English being worse than Ambuj, that's not a problem with me at all. I'm fully aware of the existence of my many imperfections.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About time.  Perhaps now you'll act in good faith on that admission and withdraw your fallacious assertions regarding my opposition, both here and on the RfA page.  Tomertalk 08:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was aware of that a long time ago, before you pointed it out to me.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (2x edit conflict) I gave him an NPA warning... This is ridiculous. To tell someone else not to make personal attacks and then say that? Unbelievable. Someone else who didn't support this RfA is welcome to weigh in. Grandmasterka 08:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I propose that we add a condition that all RfA candiates from non-English speaking countries be made to write TOEFL and promote only those who score 600 or above :P Tintin (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope this discussion won't continue, at least not on this page, and hopefully not at all. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sukh, the issue isn't whether or not people use sub-standard English from time to time, but whether they're capable of using above-average English when need be.  The reason I care is because Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a chatboard, where even I am often inclined to use sub-standard language.  From my review of Ambuj's contributions, I am unconvinced he has sufficient grasp to pass muster.  This isn't about whether or not I like him or you or can figure out [when I can] what you or he mean when using sub-standard English, it's about the ability to communicate clearly and concisely.  For whatever reason, I don't seem to be able to get that through to you…perhaps I should review my own abilities... Tomertalk 18:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Herd mentality

message: This RfA is hereby extended until 16:50 (UTC), August 4 2006.  Thank you.  Redux 16:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning a recent post on this RfA: I cannot be more specific about why the RfA was extended.  It's not because I want to be "mysterious".  If a Bureaucrat starts judging the outcome publicly while the RfA is still active, that would be a direct and heavy influence on the discussions (and the outcome, logically), which I cannot do.  The broader reason for extending this RfA is pretty much standard: it is a close call and discussions were still ongoing even past the original closing time (as opposed to a RfA that would have "quieted down" approaching the original deadline).Suggesting that I could be looking to ensure whichever outcome is completely unjustified, since I could have decided right now, as opposed to giving the community extra time to try and determine the outcome more firmly.  Not to mention that this suggestion was completely overlooking WP:AGF.  Redux 20:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I have faith in your judgment, may I request you to let some other 'crat close this RfA when the deadline ends? Otherwise whichever side loses might accuse you of stagemanaging a result. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a reason to recuse myself.  Extending a RfA is not a manifestation of side picking, but rather a known means to give the community extra time to develop consensus as to whether the candidate should be promoted or not when the circumstances allow it.  Only one user seems to have misunderstood that, while all other users who have commented on the extension, directly or indirectly, either supported it or, at the very least, had no issue with it at all.  Redux 13:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The extension is exactly the type of action that 'crats need to take in order to help the community. --FloNight talk 13:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extension 

message: When I used the phrase herd mentality, I was not sure. But, now I am sure of this type of mentality having permeated (to) the many nooks and corners of wikipedia.  And, this is one of the reasons for one million plus wikipedians creating just one page each, on an average, in five plus years. It is really disgusting to even think of this and it is a real  shame on those who volunteer here. --Bhadani 07:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we are very fine at driving away good wikipedians! --Bhadani 07:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never thought I was wasting time here. I think I was wrong. --Bhadani 08:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What do you regard as herd mentality? Arguing with SV or voting with SV?  Also, there may be one million plus wikipedians but how many are regular editors? And before we encourage people to create many new pages, what about all the one that have been abandoned?  Fixing up pages rather creating new ones should not be seen as a bad thing.  I have merged a few too.  Is that even worse than not creating them? At the end of the day quality is far more important that bean counting. David D. (Talk) 08:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Herd mentality is herd mentality! And, I do agree with you that quality counts. --Bhadani 08:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I wanted to tell: "If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything." And, this applies to the process of RfA too. --Bhadani 09:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, I would like to assert that we should respect all wikipedians -one with one edit as well as one with a million edits. This is in the spirit of wiki. Differentiation based on the number of edits and regularity of edits are not in conformity with the larger interest of wikipedia. --Bhadani 09:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I was right

message: I am pasting the following for the posterity, and now the fellows should not quote the rule book - I am following a simple rule: Be bold. Regards. --Bhadani 14:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For posterity

message: .
Please remember that from ancient times, rules have been broken and twisted to accommodate the privileged. Might is Right is not only a book – it is also a proverb, and a fact of life. In case, you wish to be around even after the traumatic experience, you are welcome to be around. I would love to see you active again. --Bhadani 12:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, I would repeat that "wikipedia is not the ultimate reality of human life," and there is human life beyond wikipedia. --Bhadani 12:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The integrity

message: Added for the sake of record: 
*Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-08-07/Features and admins
*Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-08-07/Features and admins
--Bhadani 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For the sake of record