Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ambuj.Saxena

Talking WikiPhilosophy

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)

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)

Herd mentality

I do not know about others. But, I do not believe in the Herd mentality. --Bhadani 17:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Tomer^talk 07:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So you think that he is incomprehensible? Blnguyen | rant-line 07:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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. Tomer^talk 07:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't launched personal attacks. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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. Tomer^talk 07:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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...] Tomer^talk 08:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. Tomer^talk 08:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

I think Tomer's "acceptable level of English" is far above what most native speakers of English are likely to ever achieve. Everyone is entitled to their own (mild, but stern!) opinion, but I'm sure many of us realise we all use sub-standard English from time to time. We are, after all, imperfect beings. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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... Tomer^talk 18:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Extension

This RfA is hereby extended until 16:50 (UTC), August 4 2006. Thank you. Redux 16:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Invitation

I strongly invite all the opposition to spend some time at FAC and learn to understand what goes on there. Ambuj isn't the only one to demand templates or consistency. Would you all like to de-admin me for insisting that footnotes follow punctuation (even before it was in the style guide) or that the word "very" should not be in any article?

SlimVirgin: Objections are a pain on FACs (I got one annoying one from Neutrality on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gas metal arc welding), but usually the objector is not wrong, s/he is simply raising an issue that you don't find important. Just fix it and move on. If you're serious about this "rigidity" thing in admins (I prefer to think of it as excellence), feel free to tell me to request that I be de-admined by the stewards, and I'll do it. Personally, I think this whole thing is ridiculous. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 18:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Spangineer, I'm sorry that you are upset by the outcome of this RFA. I sympathize with your frustration. But I do not think lashing out at the people opposing the RFA is a good solution.

Additionally, the situation is more complex than you describe, including false accusations that SV re-wrote policy and guidelines to make her article gain approval. There were legitamate concerns raised by SV around this issue.

Another RFA in a few months will pass if the problem of this RFA are addressed. Hopefully, the nom will get great support from his Wiki pals and continue to do his high quality editing. --FloNight ^talk 18:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Spangineer. I think there has been a grave injustice done here. None of the reasons for oppose, would, in my opinion affect Ambuj's ability to be a good admin.

Also, the fact that SV "clarified" policy relating to something that Ambuj objected about does indeed look like "SV re-wrote policy and guidelines to make her article gain approval." Ambuj was *completely* justified in mentioning this. And frankly, that's exactly what SV did. As far as I can tell, SlimVirgin deliberately changed policy to reflect her own personal preferences, and not that of Wikipedia consensus (see [1] for example). Full discussion can be seen here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Changing_the_rules_of_the_game. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sukh, I'm sorry that you are upset. Different people have different opinions about this matter. We need to agree to disagree and move on. Continuing this conflict will be disruptive to the community and interfere with writing the encyclopedia. Take care, FloNight ^talk 19:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

My dear FloNight, what more disruption can one do when a level-headed and committed fellow like Ambuj is denied adminship over a STUPID reason? This fellow is from IIT - he's got plenty of knowledge to give, and believe me, he's got plenty of better things to do. I completely agree with Spangineer and Sukh. Rama's arrow 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Different people will have different opinions. But that doesn't mean the baseless nature of their opinions need to be accepted just because they cross a minority barrier of 25%. Rama's arrow 19:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why we have bureaucrats to judge consensus. There is no automatic threshold for success or failure. -- SCZenz 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not read the 75-80 guideline... Ambuj was at 74. Only a few weeks ago, Sean Black was promoted at 70. Rama's arrow 19:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, bureaucrats have discretion. What's your point? -- SCZenz 19:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

FloNight—Personally, I don't care much about Ambuj's adminship; I think he's a great contributor and certainly doesn't need it. I don't use my admin tools to any great extent, and I get the impression that Ambuj wouldn't that much either. I don't think I'm lashing out either. I'm just stupified at this whole thing. My point is that if the community really wants to say that Ambuj doesn't deserve adminship, it needs to consider the inconsistency; namely that people like me (who have been committing more grievous crimes than Ambuj for months) got adminship without a single opposition vote. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We catch what we can, I guess. What really bothered me about Ambuj's approach to FAC was that he was willing to write loooong essays about what the format should be when he didn't even once attempt to make the improvements himself [2]. This seemed not only rigid to me, but anti-wiki. If you do the same thing, I'd like to request you stop. -- SCZenz 20:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

All the time. Some articles I fix myself, but others I just point out problems. From the very top of WP:FAC, "If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised." This is a recurring debate on WP:FAC, and every time it comes out on the side of reviewers—it isn't our responsibility, it's the nominator's. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 21:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Even nit-picky technical details? I think FAC might have gotten a lot worse since I last went through it. -- SCZenz 21:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I think the problem was his willingness to extensively argue a small technical detail that would have been faster to change himself. I certainly understand requiring the nominator to fix things that a random editor might not know how to fix; I did extensive rewrites of the featured article I wrote most of for its FAC nomination. But date formatting? {{sofixit}} -- SCZenz 21:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right; the more nit-picky it is, the more likely I am to do it myself. But I get the impression that SlimVirgin would have reverted in this case anyway, since she even went and modified the style guide (I'm not saying that action was right or wrong; it just demonstrates that she was sure that she was right). That said, I'm sure I could dig up numerous nominations where I told people to put citations after punctuation, and didn't fix it myself. The way I see it, I'm helping them by giving them a review, because without reviews, their article doesn't pass. If I have time to actually fix the article, I'll certainly do it, and there have been cases where I've gone so far as to dig up quality references for other people's work. But ultimately, regardless of the issue, the responsibility lies with the nominator. So if the community expects me to attempt to solve every problem I point out, and says that I don't deserve adminship unless I do, there's no alternative for an honest person except to deadmin. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 21:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I second Spangineer here. It is clear that the nominator should take or leave the recommendation. Is AndyZ supposed to work on every article his bot analyses? The nominator can always make an argument why they think it is not neccesary. It may not sway the reviewer but that is life. I do find it incredible that a user who is participating in community feedback gets slammed because he disagrees a little too forcefully. Better that than not participate at all. Surely the only justification for oppose votes due to his actions in that forum would be if he was disrupting the process. I did not see evidence of him doing that. It is worrying that a relatively minor difference of opinon such as this can cause people to vote oppose. Can one really expect everyone to agree on style all the time? Can one really expect just pats on the back when they offer their FAC for community review? We all know these are unrealistic expectations. David D. (Talk) 21:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

But he was willing to object, which means to me that if he had his druthers the article would not have been featured, over a very minor point he did not bother to correct himself. That seems to me to be working against the interest of the encyclopedia. People who may tend to work against the encyclopedia's interests, even if they have the best of intentions, are my number one priority for RfA opposition. -- SCZenz 21:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[Fifth time lucky - I must get a faster phone!] Let's not forget that there were too main reasons given to oppose here, and a very narrow margin. With just one objection, the RfA would have passed. Stephen B Streater 21:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz, isn't that the whole point of the FAC process that he should make his thoughts known? I really don't understand your point. Are you saying he should have supported otherwise the FAC would have failed and this is not fair to the nominator? If it was such a great FAC, and he was so wrong, i don't think his opinion would have counted for much. You seem to be warping the whole consensus thing here. We should never be placing a guilt trip on people with respect to offering their candid opinion. David D. (Talk) 21:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, with respect to the comment: "if he had his druthers the article would not have been featured, over a very minor point he did not bother to correct himself.". This is pure speculation. Given SV's responses, i think he was probably wise not to edit war on this issue. But that does not mean he has to withdraw his opinion. SV knew she could win his opinion with the minor edits. Apparently she chose not to make that change. This is the normal process in FAC. David D. (Talk) 21:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying "object" and "oppose" means clearly that he did not want the article to be featured as it was; that was inappropriate when the issues were very minor. Also, I note two things in Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Changing_the_rules_of_the_game. First, Ambuj is insinuating that SlimVirgin edited policy in an inappropriate way, which indicates a bit of a misunderstanding of how policymaking works, and uncivil to boot. Second, SlimVirgin did admit she was wrong on one issue; I don't see any evidence at all that she would have edit-warred if Ambuj had changed the formatting to another equally functional system. Everyone has a right to his opinion, but I think these were bad calls, and they touch on fundamental issues of how Wikipedia works; hence my stated view in the RfA. -- SCZenz 22:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it not his right to oppose? trivial or not. if his oppose is not warranted then it will have no effect on the outcome since all the other editors will make the difference and be supportive of the FA. There are always argumets over style. Just look at Rebbecca (ambi) and bobblewick war over dates. As far as I can tell Ambi would also support wikifying the dates (FYI, I agree with SV that some unlinked dates is preferable). There were only two posts there from Ambuj and the last one has an apology for his first being perceived as hostile. This all sounds like a storm in a tea cup. For it to boil over into this RfA is bizzarre. David D. (Talk) 22:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's his right to oppose, but that doesn't make it a wise decision, and it's certainly not irrelevant to the RfA. Ambuj made a big deal out of a small point, and was a bit uncivil about it, especially with regard to the policy discussion; that's what I think was the real storm in a tea cup. I think we fundamentally disagree on how big an issue this is—I think the argument with SlimVirgin an indication of missing the point, which I consider to be a bad thing, whereas you think it was no big deal. I'm not sure what else there is to say about it. -- SCZenz 22:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to say more. At least I know where you are coming from. Since I was not a witness it to the events it is possible I am missing some nuance in the editing history. David D. (Talk) 22:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict]I've said this before, and I'll say it again :) Ambuj's insinuation was apt and more importantly appropriate. Maybe not "civil" (depending on your definition), but certainly was appropriate because that was EXACTLY what SV did (whether she meant to do it or not is another matter). SV makes comments such as "the only dates that the MoS suggests linking are complete dates so that date preferences work, and so I'll make sure these are all linked;" and "The citation templates are not even recommended to the best of my knowledge; they are just an option, and one that many people don't like and don't use.". SV then proceeds to CHANGE policy to match what she has written.

I don't think there is an issue of edit-warring likely to arise here. Neither SV or Ambuj are the type of users who are likely to do such a thing. However, what I find astounding is that Ambuj is being portrayed as doing something wrong here, when in my opinion it's the other way round. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand policymaking a bit. She thought it did say those things, and when she realized it had changed she believed it was an error; so, this being a wiki, she changed it back. -- SCZenz 22:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely, as an administrator, SlimVirgin should have checked the history of the respective policy pages to see who changed the "original wording"? Surely, this demonstrates that SlimVirgin herself is not up to the standard of what is expected of in an administrator? Not only did Ambuj state objections that were generally in compliance to policy at the time, but he stated them plainly and clearly with no malice intended.

The MoS is constantly being changed. When I saw that it suggested linking dates without a year, I thought someone had recently changed it. I therefore changed it back (as I saw it). It was only later that I realized this had not been a recent change, which is why I left it as it was when it was reverted. What's important here is that I made that edit after the nomination had passed; not, as Ambuj implied, to help the nom to succeed, which would be dishonest, not to mention stupid. It was a bit much of Ambuj to accuse me of that. His immediate and absolute presumption of bad faith, coupled with his (as I saw them) inappropriate and frankly bizarre objections to the FAC (some of which I still haven't understood) caused me to vote against him in his RfA, because I don't like to see that rigidity of mind or willingness to assume bad faith of established users. Someone who is disrespectful of long-term editors is likely to be even worse with new editors. You may disagree with me, but please don't compound Ambuj's presumption of bad faith by continuing to presume it. My oppose vote was perfectly valid. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of policy making is that things are done when a consensus is reached. That is not what happened here. I'm actually going to go back and check these policy pages now to ensure that SlimVirgin's changes aren't accepted without discussion. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do. You can start by telling me what changes I made. I made an edit to the MoS about dates, which was reverted, and which I realized was my mistake so I left it. I added to WP:CITE (a page I had a hand in writing) that citation templates are neither required nor recommended, which is a simple statement of fact. And Ambuj accused me of having made some edits to change WP:LEAD, but in fact I didn't: the diff he provided showed me reverting someone's change, not making it. Most importantly, my edits came after the FA nomination had passed and therefore didn't affect it (not that they could have affected it either way). Ambuj got his facts wrong and assumed bad faith. You are now doing the same thing, because you're disappointed by the outcome of the RfA. Please take a step back and review the diffs (all of them) carefully. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no issue with the WP:LEAD comment (and as such haven't touched it). I have, however, edited the WP:CITE changes. Largely because the addition of comments such as "nor recommended" suggest that the templates are "not recommended" which is far from the case. I'm not sure if this was the intended effect, but I have edited it accordingly. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There was no WP:LEAD "comment" for you to touch. Please read the diffs before commenting any other. Ambuj got it wrong, and continued to get it wrong after his mistake was pointed out to him; and now you're getting it wrong too. I would also appreciate an apology for your assumption of bad faith. I made the edits to the MoS and WP:CITE in good faith and I opposed the RfA in good faith. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

One way to build consensus (although not my favorite for policy) is to make an edit, see if others let it stand, and then discuss. For guidelines like the manual of style, this isn't inappropriate. No one is claiming Ambuj's objections were inconsensistent with relevant guidelines; that was never the issue. -- SCZenz 22:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, so we both agree that SV's actions were not wholesome either. However, if this is the issue alone, then it wouldn't bother me (I know we all make mistakes). However, what got me *steaming* is that Slim Virgin presented the issue as if she has been hard done by. For example, she fails to understand why his compliant was valid (and specifically talks of "his bizarre "complaint" about me afterwards.") The key issue was in the way SlimVirgin presented what happened, and how various copy cat opposes never looked at the issue fully. But, nothing to be done now, just hope Ambuj's contributions aren't affected by this incident. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You are the only one who has said my actions were not "wholesome." Please stop these slurs. The opposition to this RfA was perfectly valid; you have every right to disagree, but you have no right to insult people who voted to oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If you took that as a slur, apologises (it was not meant to be). I was referring to your changes to the MoS pages, and not your vote. Of course you're entitled to vote as you like, but I don't have to agree with your reasoning for doing so. Especially when I feel it deprived a very worthy candidate of adminship. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, I looked at the issue fully. I hope this is clear from the lengths I have taken to explain my position. -- SCZenz 23:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes sure. Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was having a go at you. Just venting my opinion :) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I was right

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)

Yes, we are very fine at driving away good wikipedians! --Bhadani 07:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I never thought I was wasting time here. I think I was wrong. --Bhadani 08:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Herd mentality is herd mentality! And, I do agree with you that quality counts. --Bhadani 08:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If you torture the data long enough they would accept anything! --Bhadani 08:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

We should respect all wikipedians, and we should also give proper due to those who have worked the hardest and contributed the most. Tyrenius 12:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

For posterity

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)

---

The integrity

This may look weird to many, but you deserve one: for integrity of your expression. --Bhadani 12:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

.

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)

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)

---

BTW, I found that some of us can read at the speed of light while recording their opinion on RfA, or they might have read "it" earlier, and just dropped in to record their opinion - I am not sure. This was certainly not on account of herd mentality but on account of supersonic reading speed! I envy them! Waiting to be charged with: WP:POINT. --Bhadani 14:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

---

For the sake of record

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)