Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ambuj.Saxena

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

[edit] Ambuj.Saxena

Final(110/40/12) Ended 16:50, 2006-08-04 (UTC)

Ambuj.Saxena (talk • contribs) – Ambuj Saxena has been a valued contributor here since February 2006. In that span, he has been a prolific editor to India related and other pages (most notably in bringing Indian Institutes of Technology to FA status) and has particpated avidly in Articles for deletion (where he has been thoughtful and has exhibited fine judgment; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HSR Layout for example, where he took the time to build the article up after being alerted about it on AfD). He has contributed to Portal:India by selecting articles, pictures, and DYK's for the Portal's main page. He always has a cool temperament, even when attacked personally (see these diffs for brilliant displays of self-control and collegiality: [1], [2], [3]). He has also contributed to the spoken Wikipedia project and even fights vandalism. He is modest and has a level headed understanding of being an administrator: [4].
Of all these things, what has most impressed me is Ambuj's thoughtfulness in all that he does on-wiki. I think that quality is exactly what will make him an exceptional administrator -- Samir धर्म 23:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination and thank Samir for showing confidence in me. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Extremely Strong Support No question about it. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 05:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Support per nom. - Ganeshk (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. If you get vandalized as much as his userpage (and photo), you have to be doing something right. αChimp ^laudare 06:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Really annoying, long drawn-out insanely-praising lots of boldced words that everyone will have to look at all week support. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong Oppose + Strong Oppose = Powerful Support Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always 06:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

   So you are one of those guys who thinks that two wrongs make a right? I don't advise it on Wikipedia :) Gizza^{Chat ©} 03:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

   Why are you "one of those guys" who has to be too literal? Relax and have fun. Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always 06:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

   Bah! WP:ENJOY everyone! --Nearly Headless Nick 16:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

6. Strong support as nominator -- Samir धर्म 07:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support I agree with Samir that Ambuj's a knowledgeable and levelheaded editor with a good temperament. I'd support him for adminship anyday. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sundar (talk • contribs).
8. Support as per all of the above! TruthCrusader 07:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Support per nom. DarthVader 07:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Merovingian - Talk 08:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong support Sameer has not mentioned about his helpfulness so let me vouch for that. Regular worker at the helpdesk -- Lost 08:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
12. Super-duper strong support!! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 09:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Looking good to me. Mostly Rainy 10:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Seems to tick all the boxes ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 10:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Go for it. Yanksox 10:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    Support yes please - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Chg to Oppose. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

16. Strong support per nom - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Looks like an extremely strong candidate for adminship.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    Strong Support I have to keep reminding myself that Ambuj is not an admin already. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

18. Support.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
19. S-U-P-E-R S-T-R-O-N-G S-U-P-P-O-R-T -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}13:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
20. Support per nom. Very impressive. :) RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 13:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
21. Support Has the right stuff AdamBiswanger1 13:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
22. Support Not only does he meet my standards but he goes beyond them! --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 13:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
23. Support A blessing for Wikipedia. --Incman|वार्ता 14:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
24. This was long due. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
25. Very Strong Support: I know him for long, almost from the time he chose to become a wikipedian. A real gem among us! --Bhadani 14:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Tintin (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
27. Support Any enemy of the Vandals is a friend of mine and a welcome admin. --Vengeful Cynic 15:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
28. Undescribably strong support per this and this. This is just the kind of things that strengthen my faith in us. Dear Ambux, no matter what - never change, please. Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 15:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
29. Orane (talk • cont.) 16:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
30. Support Seems a very good candidate. --Guinnog 17:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
31. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 18:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    Support 172 | Talk 18:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

33. Support great user. —Khoikhoi 19:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Support Good luck, not that you will need it. 8-) -- Avi 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to Neutral
34. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-27 19:51Z
35. Support His name and picture were used by an IP to vandalize my user page. Vandals know of him; he appears to be doing the right things. Gimmetrow 20:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Almost 600 portal edits?! I've been searching for just 1 to make for a month now, just to have it on my list :P -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
37. Support good editor. Dlyons493 Talk 20:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
38. Cleared for adminship, without any further doubt. Interactions with this user suggest this user is able to maintain a positive interaction with others, and is able to maintain a strong attitude (no pun intended), even through the toughest of times. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 22:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. A very good distribution of edits, and I see no sign of incivility in contribs. This user would've gotten my support a month ago. Picaroon9288|ta co 22:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
40. Wish-I-could've-beat-nom-Support Pleasure to deal with. Edits are well distributed. Cool under fire from vandals. Could use more time here, but a fine editor, enough to see my support too. Kevin_b_er 22:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. Sound candidate. Tyrenius 23:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
42. Support excellent candidate per nom. Eluchil404 02:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
43. Support His promotion will have a positive result for Wikipedia. Gizza^{Chat ©} 03:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
44. Hrm, I thought he was already an admin Support I suppose this might be a bit of piling on and I think that Wikipedia will do well to give Ambuj.Saxena the extra buttons —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoopydink (talk • contribs) .
45. Full support. User's contribs look good, and I feel we need more admins knowledgeable on India-related topics.--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
46. Support. Everything that was said in the nomination, along with your answers to the questions, show me you'd be a great administrator. Mo0[talk] 05:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
47. Strong support. Got to know him with respect to his edits on Indian Institutes of Technology, and didn't find anything wrong with him back then, and his contributions have widened since that time, which can only be a good thing. Hope you do a great job! Ansell 08:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. Looks like a great candidate. Valentinian ^(talk) 10:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
49. Support. — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:07, 28 July '06}
50. support per all of the above —Minun ^Spiderman 12:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
51. Support; hard worker and handles stress and criticism well. The IIT nomination was a grueling experience, but he did a great job of working with everyone on it. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 13:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
52. Support; everything looks good; I expect him to be an excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
53. Oh yes, support of course. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
54. Suppport - Handles situations very well. Looks good. —Mirlen 18:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
55. Support good contributor, should be a good admin. -MrFizyx 19:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
56. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
57. Support Support. How could I not support? Gimme a reason to not support. I don't want to know the reason anymore. I support. Viva La Vie Boheme 00:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
58. ~ Encephalon 02:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
59. Support seems solid. Viridae^Talk 03:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
60. Support, looks good. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 04:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
61. Support per nom. Michael 06:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
62. 'Support You have my support, you would be great as a SYSOP! Good luck Æon ^{Insane Ward} 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
63. Support. Excellent contributor. The oppose vote is an example of where Ambuj did the right thing and the user didn't like it. Oh well, can't win em all. - Taxman ^Talk 17:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
64. Support, although I could've waited till early October. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
65. Pepsidrinka supports. 22:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
66. Support He has surprised me with his ability to remain diplomatic under the most pressing situations (where usually I am ready to become confrontational). Very much an admin material. --Blacksun 04:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
67. Support I've seen nothing to disuade me from endorsing this request, keep up the good work! ShaunES 04:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
68. Support. Good contributor with an excellent knowledge of the policies. And hey, wait a minute...he shares my birthday too! - Cribananda 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
69. Support Hv been inactive for a while, else, i'd have nominated him for RfA myself. --Gurubrahma 06:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
70. Support. utcursch | talk 07:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
71. Support Seivad 12:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
72. Support Newyorkbrad 16:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
73. Extremely strong Support a very helpful wikipedian, would make an excellent admin.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
74. No reason not to. Support ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
75. Support: edits look sensible and I haven't seen any reason to suggest this candidate would be difficult to deal with as an Admin. Stephen B Streater 22:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
76. Support the compiling, into a venerable tome, of the many Good Words with which he has graced WP. Good admin material. ImpuMozhi 01:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
77. Support —WAvegetarian•(talk) 02:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
78. Support, without reservations. Sango123 03:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
79. Support, great contribuater to the CVU team. :) --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 08:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
80. Strong Support, and everyone goes :o whaaa!? lol, even though i disagreed with u on my RfA, your definetly A-Class Admin material. and I do believe i said (in ref to RfA) I'm sure i'll get there one day, and I hope you do too, I can't see it happening if i don't vote! Good on u Ambuj, I wish you luck ;). --Deon555|talk|e 10:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Ps. I just saw in ur nom the ref's to our convo's, and although I didn't think I was attacking you personally, I was out of line, and you dealed with the situation awesomely ;)
81. Support -Bharatveer 10:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
82. Strong support : deserves adminship. Has helped in PR and FAC of many articles, providing great judgement. --Ragib 14:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
83. Support. Someone should really close this, you're a shoe-in. SynergeticMaggot 15:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
84. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
85. Support will be good admin --rogerd 23:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
86. Strong Support.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
87. Strong Support per nom. That's a large number of portal edits. Grandmasterka 05:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
88. Support Stubbleboy 18:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
89. Support per nom. BryanG^(talk) 21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
90. Support per nom and personal interaction. —Nightstallion (?) 21:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
91. One Article to write, One Article for peer review, One Article be made FA and the RFA shall bind him. -- Миборовский 21:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
92. Support per nom, et al. Joe 01:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
93. Support I'm jealous, IIT-KGP article is really good as per this chap's edits. Where are all the IITK alumni?Netaji 11:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
94. Support A valuable contributor. The objections raised by SlimVirgin are not valid in my opinion. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
95. Support per many votes above from many voters who generally use a fine toothed comb. He has my trust. Attic Owl 15:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
96. Support per lots of the above; a diligent and conscientious editor.--Runcorn 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
97. Support, seems to be a good candidate, opposing arguments do not convince me abakharev 00:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
98. Support, as I find the reasons for the opposition mildly interesting, and legitimate concerns though I may disagree with their meaning and importance, but wildly blown out of proportion by bandwagonning. There is no cause here great enough to deny this fine editor adminship in my opinion. Dmcdevit·t 05:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Is is your wording correct? Seems the opposite of your intended meaning. "There is cause here great enough to deny this fine editor adminship in my opinion." Hope you do not mind me questioning you language choice. I bring this up to point out to other users that editing mistakes are common among experienced admins. I do not consider myself part of the English language literacy police. In fact, I find the RFA comments about Ambuj.Saxena language troubling. I partly changed my "vote" to Neutral to counter these votes. Take care, --FloNight ^talk 16:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Hm, I do agree with you on the matter of lanaguage and you are right that Ambuj is by no means any more difficult to understand than average, (although in my case it was just a matter of an accidental omission of a word, which isn't really indicative of the kind of non-nativity they're getting at). I even consider myself pedantic, so what irritates me more are the garbled and grammarless netspeakers like, for example, Deon555, above. Dmcdevit·t 20:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Bandwagonning? And the Support !voters are all independent thinkers? - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Of course not. RFA is broken, and the use of words like "!vote" rather than just calling them comments demonstrates the point. Of course, my point was that it was disproportionate to the merit. Dmcdevit·t 20:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

99. Support Had earlier opposed due to concerns raised by Slimvirgin, but upon further thought the matter does not look extreme enough to merit an oppose vote. Concerns about language skills seem overblown since AS's English seems to be more than adequate for the task. JoshuaZ 07:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Uh is it just me or did this close like an hour ago o.O --Deon555|talk|e 06:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    RfA's close when a 'crat decides to close it, often a few hours later than the listed time (especially if the correct closing time is late at night East Coast US time it seems). JoshuaZ 08:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

100. WP:100 Support - I don't think has been closed yet... Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 07:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
101. Support per nom. --ManiF 08:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
102. Support if not too late. Has made solid contributions to the project, and while he may have made some mistakes causing the oppose votes, the whole thing generally shows that he is willing to discuss and admit mistakes. JPD (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
103. Support, I think he shall learn from the comments and be sure to be flexible in the future. No suggestion that he will misuse the admin tools. NoSeptember 15:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
104. Support, edits don't seem to show any tendency to want to misuse the tools. Disagreement over the applicability of a particular footnoting style was valid, but the bandwagon opposes smack of some sort of non-native-speaker bias (I shouldn't feel that way, but there are a lot of names in there I don't recognize). (::edit:: And I just had to come back here to fix my own typo, and I'm a native speaker!) -- nae'blis 16:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
105. Support My judgement is that this editor will not abuse admin tools. --MONGO 17:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
106. Support I see nothing wrong with his English.--Poetlister 17:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
107. Support. The issue is whether the nominee has a use or need for the tools and if the nominee can be trusted with them. For this answer, I believe this editor could use the tools and can be trusted with them. If I had the ability to raise one eyebrow, the concerns raised by SlimVirgin would not cause me to do so. Agent 86 17:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
108. Support. i looked at the objections cited in the oppose section below and non seemed to be bad enough to warrant not supporting. While nitpicking to an extreme is a bad thing s/he did at least try and justify the position. A willingness to express ones opinion is a good thing. I disagree with some of AS's opinions but that is neither here nor there. I think I could work with this editor despite our differences. David D. (Talk) 18:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
109. Support. I do agree to an extent with both of the reasons for the opposing voters. However, I don't see anything indicating this user wouldn't be a good admin or would abuse or misuse the tools. - Bobet 18:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
110. Late support he nitpicked a FAC? Well, that never happens.... Strong contributions outweigh an occasional minor mistake. Opabinia regalis 03:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Lacks judgement , balance and maturity .Example :in debate on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justice Kan Singh Parihar he considers a former judge and ALSO a former Vice Chanacellor of Jai Narain Vyas University not notable enough .Obiviously needs time to learn and develop .Shyamsunder 9:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

   However the consensus in that discussion was to delete, so his judgement seems to be in line with the majority of the community. Kevin 07:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign earlier)

   That is not relevant here .What is relevant is Ambuj's comments therein .Ambuj did not consider a high court judge for about 10 years and who was appointed as a VC of a University after retirement and was also selected to head a panel to assess the excesses in the emergecy in 1975 notable enough. Ambuj's comments were remarkable in sense they provided insight into his thinking, understanding and objectivity . Look at various pages started/ edited by him on people associated with IIT for example page on Nitin Saxena.For Ambuj Nitin Saxena is notable Kan Singh is not.With his current sense of judgement and fairplay he would not be an ideal administrator as of now.The wikipedian community should not thrust administratoship on him .Instead Ambuj should be allowed some more time to develop.Shyamsunder 8:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

   Please take your issues to WP:DRV. This is not an appropriate forum. Many other editors "voted" to delete that article also -- Samir धर्म 21:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

   If anyone got interested, I have no connections with Nitin Saxena, and my judgement of his notability was based on his involvement in developing the AKS Primality Test. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

   I can't see how a misjudgement of a persons notability (in your opinion) in one AfD is significant enough reason to oppose the users adminship. I also couldn't help notice you voted Keep in that AfD[5]. So I am led to believe that you are only opposing the candidate simply because of a disagreement in an AfD which didn't go your way.--Andeh 23:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

   How are AfD votes (which were supported by the consensus) an objective reason to vote oppose. Take the process seriously, dont point out the obvious, ie. that he could make a mistake, admins are human too. Ansell 08:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

   While I disagree with his vote, that is not a reason to deny him adminship. --Gurubrahma 06:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Given the numbers, this will end up as just as a protest vote, but I want to make it anyway. I recently encountered Ambuj for the first time during the nomination for a featured article I partially wrote, and I came away with a very negative impression of him; in fact, my first thought was: "I hope this guy never stands for adminship," then I saw this nomination. He opposed the FA nomination of a very carefully researched, 11,000-word article on the grounds that it didn't use citation templates, and didn't link dates the way he likes them to be linked. His comments are here, here, and here, and after it was awarded FA status, he changed his object to something called "strongly abstain," whatever that means. He then complained about me on the talk page, implying that, after his opposition, I had edited policy pages to make it easier for the nom to pass, even though it had already passed. I have rarely encountered such rigidity of thinking, small-mindedness, disrespect for other people's hard work, and such a fast presumption of bad faith. I want to stress that I'm not opposing because he voted against the nomination; it was the way he did it, the reasons he did it, his misunderstanding of policies and guidelines, his presumption of bad faith, the lack of coherence of his opposition (some of which I still don't understand); and, above all, his bizarre "complaint" about me afterwards. The worrying thing is that this was him during his adminship nomination, when you'd think he'd be on his best behavior. Clearly, he seems to think there's no need for best behavior, and that's a concern too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Opposes like this would require some clarification on my part. First of all, I encourage those assessing the claims to go through what happened before this oppose (by the diffs provided by SlimVirgin). In the FAC, I first made a suggestion (by saying "comment") to use citation templates. I made other suggestions for improvement to the article. SV replied that the citation templates are a nuisance. By the next time I replied, I also noticed other issues with the article, i.e. non-wikilinking of dates and not providing last access date for web references. I noted my views on the citation templates, and not to confuse that this is not something I oppose, I made a note that my objections are not because of them. In the third edit, I again confirmed that I am not opposing because of it. I also clarified some of the doubts raised by SV in her previous reply. Fast forward to next day when the article was promoted, but I didn't knew of (there are no templates at the top and bottom saying the discussion has ended). I find the edits to WP:MOSDATE made by SlimVirgin, that were against what was consensus. These edits were reverted by another editor. I went to other policy pages, only to see that she has edited them to say what she told in the FAC, something that didn't exist before. I also her edits to WP:LEAD. I noted these in the talk page (linked by her), and I accept that I was not happy with the way she changed them. I request those who read this to go through the actual conversations/discussion that happened, in the chronological sequence they did. I agree that my tone of "requesting" change to citation template was rigid. But I have noted in this diff that my oppose wasn't for that. If any "presumption of bad faith" (quoting SV) came, it was because of my unawareness that the article had passed FAC. So what I have learnt from this? In addition to what has been discussed above, I have learnt to be myself. Surprising? If this incident would have occured even a week later, way too may editors would have presumed that I have been "acting nice" just to get the tools. Now at least I am sure nobody would accuse me of that, whether this RfA passes or not. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment While I respect the opinion raised by SlimVirgin, I fail to see how this is a behavioural issue (or any systemic issue) with Ambuj. I view it as a disagreement with respect to decision making around one FA's candidacy. Ambuj has been a forceful contributor to WP:FAC, has brought IIT to FA, and has contributed significantly to many other FA's. I think he is more than aware of what is required for FA, and respects the amount of time and effort that editors put into making an article of FA calibre -- Samir धर्म 01:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment Personally I don't think this is a threat to the wielding of the tools. Somehow I don't think Ambuj wold go and make unilateral decisions to delete articles which weren't referenced, etc, or block peoplewith unusual editorial styles....? Blnguyen | rant-line 02:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   Oddly enough, for someone who "respects the amount of time and effort that editors put into making an article of FA calibre" Ambuj didn't have any actual comments to make about the article itself or its content. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment The reasons for Ambuj's oppose vote was perfectly valid in my opinion. A featured article has to be as close to perfect as possible so nit-picking is not something that should be received negatively. I'm personally a strong supporter of cite templates and I will oppose a FAC if there is an inconsistent approach to referencing. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   The references in the article were not "inconsistent"; on the contrary, they all followed an identical format that conformed with policy. Ambuj opposed the FAC because he wanted some non-mandatory, non-recommended templates inserted into an article that didn't need them - a fetishistic makework project. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose for the reasons listed above. I realize this is also just a protest vote, but Ambuj's behavior in regards to the Featured Article (which I also did a fair bit of work on) shocked me. Ambuj seems to think that the purpose of Wikipedia is to promote conformity and rigid enforcement of template use, rather than the production of great encyclopedia articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

   I wouldn't make that sort of a sweeping generalization. Ambuj has an FA that he contributed to as a primary editor, and has bettered several FA's based on his constructive comments at FAC. He's participated in FAC discussions for the past 4 months and no one has ever questioned his motivation before. I'm certain that he believes that the purpose of Wikipedia is the production of great encyclopedia articles. His heart is in the right place. It's not fair to him to spill histrionics over one FA's candidacy to his RfA, as an admitted "protest" -- Samir धर्म 09:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose based on the immature and very non-admin-like behavior described and linked above. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose - evidence is that he's a prolific editor with a helpful attitude, but we already have enough admins with vaguely deletionist tendencies and too much confidence in their own judgment. There are many good, and even great, editors who don't make good admins, and this is one of them. --Leifern 17:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per SV - not ready for adminship. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose per SlimVirgin. I'm a perfectionist myself, and I understand this attitude, bur an admin must be able yo distinguish between what is critical and what is not. Many featured articles do not use citation templates, but that is not a sufficient reason for their being stripped of the featured status. Pecher ^Talk 19:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per SlimVirgin. I hope that these protest votes will help the user see that while formatting has an important place in the constructive article, it certainly shouldn't become an obstacle to the production of quality content. Tewfik^Talk 20:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per above. FeloniousMonk 20:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose per slimvirgin. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose because of concerns raised above. AnnH ♫ 20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose While this person seems pretty good at being an editor, I think he would make an awful sysop. I have seen what happens when editors who show such intransigence and spitefullness become administrators. I feel that his response to Slimvirgin's vote proved exactly what she was saying- That he voted against featured status of a good article for unclear reasons that seemed to be based upon tiny perceived infractions of wikipedia policy, he has also shown a remarkable disdain for good faith. If this is the behavior of someone who is up for adminship then I don't want to imagine what might occur when he (as an administrator) is involved in a content dispute with an editor who does not have such privledges. However, I do not want to lose a potentially useful editor from the project, I just don't want to see him "succumb" to adminship.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Rather mild but stern oppose on the basis that from what I've seen, this otherwise relatively productive and useful editor's grasp of English is, in my judgment, insufficient to qualify for adminship on [[:en:]] at this time. I think the objections on the basis of his "odd" behavior on FAC are ... well, well-founded but probably not a sign that the guy's gonna turn into a vandal with a few extra tools. That said, I'm still going to have to respectfully oppose. Admins on [[:en:]] should have an excellent grasp of English, as well as good performance, and I see grammatical, syntax and spelling errors in practically every one of his edits. Tomer^talk 22:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

    Could you please cite diffs, Tom. One of the reasons why I nominated Ambuj was his exceptional use of English -- Samir धर्म 01:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    I haven't bothered with an exhaustive search, but "usability of the article while interacting with machines" might be an example of what's being discussed. Kirill Lokshin 01:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    I don't have time to do it tonight, Samir, but if you really want me to catalog all the problems, I can do so. Like I said tho, there are problems in every single [substantial] edit I viewed. Cheers, Tomer^talk 05:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not saying you're not entitled to oppose, but in my opinion, basing an oppose vote on the use of his English on discussion pages is not really sufficient cause. I say this because I'm a native speaker of English, but I know I often write crap on discussion pages. If everyone spent as much time checking what they've written on talk pages as they do an article pages, we'd be here forever!

    That being said, I have noticed that users from India tend to use excessive and often archaic verbiage. British or American readers may find this difficult to read, but this is not "incorrect English". It just merely highlights the anglo-centric nature of the English Wikipedia - one of the many systemic biases here ;) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    This comment's wanton display of assumption of bad faith is appalling. The poor grasp of English is evident on far more than discussion pages, but beyond that, the assertion that opposition to a candidacy for adminship on the basis of the user's crappy English as illegitimate, demonstrates a profound failure to recognize the purpose and rôle of administrators on Wikipedia. The fact that you [Sukh], as a native speaker of English "often write crap on discussion pages" as an excuse for dismissing the poor grasp of the language for others as a reason [as you appear to proclaim] in favor of adminship, is bizarre in the extreme. If, as you seem to imply, good edits are worthless, especially in favor of just wanton blatherskyte [and intelligible language be damned], then I can only surmise that you are what I would classify as a "worthless editor". You are free to rebut, but that's my take on your statement to the effect that taking care that one's edits to talk pages make sense, is a worthless venture. [To quote you, "If everyone spent as much time checking what they've written on talk pages as they do an article pages, we'd be here forever!" The ability to communicate succinctly and effectively is a critical concern when it comes to determining ones worthiness for adminship.

    That aside, the assertion that Indian users might tend toward excessive verbiage, some of which might be archaic, strengthens, rather than weakens my assertion that this user's grasp of English is imperfect. I have never said his English is "incorrect", just that his grasp thereof is imperfect. Any blithering about "anglo-centric nature of the English Wikipedia" is irrelevant drivel...what you've accomplished is, in fact, weakening your argument by insisting that the user's English is more than imperfect because it's indo-English-centric. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, but you accomplished it marvelously. Kudos on oops. Tomer^talk 06:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    The fact that you saw bad faith in my general observation is your own business. I was objecting on the basis that impeccable English is not used on talk pages (which happens to be the only thing you provide a diff for) was not "in my opinion" good enough cause. You're perfectly entitled to vote as you wish, but as this is a consensus building exercise, I felt it was my duty to say that *I* found your objection to be "objectionable".

    Ambuj's English is far far better than some administrators I've seen on Wikipedia, and I don't find it a problem. Ambuj has a very good grasp of the English language - to a measure that far exceeds what I feel is required in an admin. I believe Ambug generally communicates "succinctly and effectively". There is always the option of asking for clarification if you are unable to determine what he is saying.

    Fortunately for us, your definition of perfect English is not shared by everyone. The fact that he may use archaic verbage in a western sense, does not mean it is archaic in India. Everyone's English is imperfect some of the time - it's something we have to get used to.

    I think many readers can judge for themselves that your vote has little basis. Incidentally, how can your oppose be both "Rather mild" but "stern"? Gasp! Is that a sign of imperfect English? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Well, no. His English is more than adequate. There are regional varieties in English, and Ambuj's choice of vocabulary and sentence structure is in keeping with Indian English. As a Canadian, I've had no problems communicating with him whatsoever (and, despite my knowledge of Hindi, my English is very Canadian). I've checked his diffs as well, and I don't see any problems in mainspace (and I agree that most of us are lax about grammar and word choice in other spaces). Most of the "brilliant prose" in the FA Indian Institute of Technology is Ambuj's. -- Samir धर्म 09:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Maybe next time you are being picky about someone else's grammar, you should make sure that your post does not have more than ten grammatical mistakes. Your reason for the vote is a joke and I hope it does not affect Ambuj's confidence in regards to contributing to Wikipedia. To Ambuj: Your English skills are more than sufficient for adminship and please do not listen to people suffering from delusions. Ahhh! Gotta love knowing that I am never going for the idiocy that is adminship and can speak my mind freely when people are being silly. --Blacksun 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    Maybe next time you insinuate that I have, in "being picky about someone else's [sic] grammar", have made "more than ten grammatical mistakes", you'll care to point out even one. Your insinuation, compounded by your assertion that the rationale for my vote is a joke, amounts to a personal attack in extreme bad faith. For what it's worth, your post contains at least two grammatical errors, at least one spelling error, and a number of punctuation errors... Specifically, on spelling, the genitive of "else" is "else'", not "else's". "in regards to" is a hypercorrective and grammatically incorrect form of "regarding", you meant "the reason for your vote", not "your reason for the vote". That said, if you are ever nominated for adminship, be sure to let me know, so I can register my strongest objections on the basis of your obscene failure to grasp such central concepts governing wikipedia as WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Thanks, Tomer^talk 07:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    You are entitled to your opinion. However, I would like the community to take a quick look at your talk page. It seems to me that you have a history of being inflexible and overly picky. It seems to me also that only person with a problem here is you. Regards, --Blacksun 15:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comment - I'd have to say that I feel that the comment about his English is farcical. It's perfectly understandable and is of an excellent standard. Secondly, I feel that as long as one's English is good enough to make oneself understood, then that is good enough. We need more contributors from all parts of the world for global coverage, and it is poor form in my opinion to deny people adminship on the basis of unusual phrasings when the meaning of what they are saying is perfectly clear anyway.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    You apparently fail to understand that his English is not only often incomprehensible, but that it's also a perfectly reasonable grounds for opposition to his adminship. While you may find the bizarre wording and syntax perfectly understandable, all I can say is, "that's nice", but no native speaker of English can understand them. Excuse me for saying this, believe me, it's not meant as a personal attack when I say his grasp of English is obviously imperfect, but at the same time, I must say that yours is as well...as is made perfectly clear by your above statement. I'm not lashing out against non-native speakers of English, I am simply basing my opposition on the grounds that to be an administrator, excuse the caps for emphasis, YOU MUST KNOW ENGLISH...not 83%, or 86%, but 100%. Not only do you not, clearly, but far more importantly, Ambuj doesn't. Being able to understand (see passive fluency) is very different from active fluency. Tomer^talk 07:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Meh. That sucks, we don't have any coverage on active vs. passive fluency. In case there's any doubt, let me clarify...active fluency in a language means you are completely capable of expressing yourself in the language so that a native speaker has no trouble understanding you. Passive fluency means you can understand a language completely, even if you can't accurately express yourself in that language. Tomer^talk 07:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Ya, you just resolved any doubts I had about your vote. I do not believe even 5% of the current crop of admins would pass your grammar test. --Blacksun 15:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

14. Oppose as per Tom. I hope I'm not being insensitive, but clear communication is an essential tool; an admin must have this at his disposal. IronDuke 00:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    Communication is a two way street. Everything I said to Tom, applies to you too. --Blacksun 21:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    Your argument is nonsensical. IronDuke 00:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Nice one liner. Please feel free to find where anyone who has been involved in a project with him have found his English skills to be inefficient. Only thing nonsensical here is your opinion. --Blacksun 06:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    You sure know how to sweet-talk a guy. NB: In your post above, you may wish to move the comma that comes after "Tom," placing it (gently but firmly) between the words "you" and "too." IronDuke 15:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    I am glad that instead of coming up with any sort of example to prove your (Tom's) case, you are resorting to picking on my comma placement on an online discussion board. This is not about me or you. --Blacksun 18:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    I could easily come up with a great example to support my case, on this very page. I don't want to do that, because I don't want to embarrass the nominee. I've reread the paragraph I have in mind four times, and am only now just getting a sense of what he might have meant. I'm not sure what you think you're gaining by trolling here -- certainly, you're not helping the nominee by lashing out at people who disagree with you. If AS's English improves, I am certainly willing to reconsider a future vote. But if I change my vote, it won't be because of ranting attacks; if it's not about you, stop badgering people. IronDuke 18:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Ok, you are opposing his nomination because you find his English to be confusing and subpar. However, you are concerned that he will be embarassed if you point out specific examples to help others decide (and maybe even help him see what he needs to work on)? Interesting logic. Alright, I am out of this conversation. --Blacksun 20:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

15. Oppose per Tomer. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose per Slimvirgin. JoshuaZ 01:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to support.

16. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Kirill Lokshin 01:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose per SlimVirgin and Tomer. Aren't I Obscure? 02:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Evolver of Borg 04:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Strongly Oppose his nomination for adminship not because he recently supported an article for deletion [6] (In debate on Wikipedia:Article for deletion/Justice Kan Singh Parihar), but due to his immature approach and lack of ability to judge the facts on its merit. Recently, he altered [7]list of notable people from Jodhpur [8] without having any knowledge of their notability. His act is revengeful and amounts to vandalism. It is apparent that he is doing this because I totally disagreed with his views on the above said article for deletion. A person for WP adminship should have an unbiased thinking and maturity. His adminship should not be solely based on the number of people supporting him. It might be misleading.(Jodmar 05:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC))

    [9]is the second link that you have provided. Could you please explain what is wrong with this edit ? The third link is just a pointer to a particular version. Why is that significant ? Tintin (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) Um... He just removed their titles. I fail to see how this "amounts to vandalism". And why do you think he is doing this because of you? Grandmasterka 06:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

    "His edit is wrong because these people are well known with their titles. Deleting titles may cause confusion because there may be many other people with same name.

    It is hard to understand his logic for deleting the titles. Is this a good editing practice? In my opinion it is vandalism because he did it purposefully just after discussion for article deletion ended on July 27th."(Jodmar 05:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC))

    It's completely correct. Look all over the place, be don't include honorary terms except in the formal statement of the person's name in their own biography.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose After reviewing the diffs provided per SV. Also concern that nom is not the right person to deal with ArbCom enforcement, a stated interest. --FloNight ^talk 10:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Change to Neutral FloNight ^talk 11:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

20. Oppose per SlimVirgin.--Aldux 11:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose as per SlimVirgin and Tomer.Ayinyud 13:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Strong Oppose per SlimVirgin. Xoloz 15:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Constructive comments are good; sinking FACs because of minor details is not. If an excellent article has a few silly formatting problems, then {{sofixit}}! That's the wiki way, which is something I rather think we want our admins to follow. -- SCZenz 16:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose per SlimVirgin - this probably examplifies the "rigidity of mind" alluded to. Kimchi.sg 16:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose for now. Still quite fresh candidate (2006). Would like to see some polishing of communication and prioritising skills... -- Olve 17:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Rigidity needs relaxing; this should come with more experience. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Bibigon 18:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Change to Oppose per SlimVirgin. I am sorry. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose per SlimVirgin. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 18:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Oppose not ready yet. I agree with Olve. gidonb 02:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Oppose per above.--cj | talk 03:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
32. Oppose per concerns expressed above. 6SJ7 04:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
33. Oppose per SV. That segment on FAC talk was unpromising. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
34. Oppose per SlimVirgin. --tickle me 07:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
35. Oppose Per above. Please do not harrass me about explaining my vote. --Masssiveego 08:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
36. Oppose -- Oppositions sound genuine. Some people with lack of maturity and depth may hurt wikipedia’s reputation. It appears that this guy is trying to control it with his own interest. Bureaucrats need to look in to this seriously.(ManhattanNY 18:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC))

    I have struck of this user's vote because this user has never contributed on Wikipedia apart from here. See contribs. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    ( Do not cross out my comment. If you do not agree you are free to write your view separately ).(ManhattanNY 20:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC))

    I've cleaned this up after checking policy. Any user with an account may vote, according to the RFA page, but the bureaucrat can discount it if he wishes. So I've removed the strikethrough. -- SCZenz 20:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    I wonder if you could be more specific about what this "interest" is. Tyrenius 07:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

37. Oppose per SlimVirgin. 172 | Talk 18:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
38. Strong Oppose due to the reasons-cannot-be-given extension. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of a candidate, adminship should not result from an artificially skewed RfA. EDIT: In any event, the candidate fails my standards through not having been on Wikipedia for at least 6 months prior to the nomination Cynical 19:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    You are assuming I extended this RfA so as to ensure that the candidate would be promoted. That is certainly not the case. I have no investment either way in this RfA. If I did, I would have joined whichever side that matched my opinion. The specific reasons are not given only so as not to influence the ongoing discussions. Please remember to assume good faith instead of being...well..so cynical as to assume that a Bureacurat was trying to ensure whichever outcome in a RfA. Thank you. Redux 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    If I had to guess, I'd say the extension is due to the recent substantial increase in opposes, based on SlimVirgin's comments, to allow the community to fully take the new information into account. (Just like AfDs are extended when more debate would be useful for establishing consensus!) If anything, I suspect the delay will most likely increase the chances of non-promotion, so you've got it call backwards, Cynical. This kind of judgement is exactly what we have bureaucrats for; I urge you to reconsider your opinion based on the merits of the candidate instead. -- SCZenz 20:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    If he had been biased towards promoting, he could have just done so. How does it help the community to vote against the candidate if you just don't like a bcrat's action? Please speak to the candidates merits or lack thereof to help develop consensus. - Taxman ^Talk 21:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Shouldn't the closing bureaucrat discount this oppose comment? It has got nothing to do with the candidate, his contributions, or his abilities whatsoever. AFAICT, Ambuj did not request this extension. Kimchi.sg 03:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    If an extension may affect the result, it is clearly justified. That's exactly what the point of an extension is. The number of opinions expressed since the first deadline clearly show the extension was justified. Stephen B Streater 08:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    I am sure that is true, but it misses the point of the thread, which is that Cynical is !voting not on the basis of the candidate's merits or lack thereof, but on the basis that he (Cynical) opposes a procedural matter, namely the extension. It was therefore suggested that this effectively invalidated his !vote. Tyrenius 08:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Saying the thread has a point is like saying that there are valid reasons for supporting / opposing in a RfA ;-) While some people say we should ignore the concerns of this editor, this is a bit confrontational in this context. I suggest we should engage the concerns expressed. Stephen B Streater 08:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    The point of RFA voting is not whether you think the person would be a good admin, but whether you think making this person an admin would be good for Wikipedia (there is a difference). Since the RFA process has been extended beyond its normal duration, in my opinion it would not be good for Wikipedia for this person to succeed - I am not arguing either way whether the extension was justified or not, I am just stating that an extension for which the bureaucrat states 'no reasons will be given until after the RFA' should not result in adminship. People may disagree with that opinion, but that is why everyone has a vote, not just me. If you disagree with my opinion, then vote Support rather than trying to say that it is 'not a vote' ('Who may vote: Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to vote, except for the candidate.' WP:RFA). In any event, when examined 'on merits' this candidate fails my standards anyway, through not having been on Wikipedia for 6 months prior to the nomination. I've amended my vote to reflect this, which makes it a moot point. Cynical 11:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Just because all Wikipedians are welcome to an opinion, does not mean all opinions are equally helpful in building an encyclopedia. Considering the user's first edit was 18:05, February 5, 2006 meaning he will have been here for six months as of tomorrow, I'm not sure how many people will view your updated reasoning as helpful. - Taxman ^Talk 13:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

39. Oppose per SlimVirgin and TShilo12. Ral315 (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
40. Oppose - per SlimVirgin. Zaxem 10:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I'd like to see a little more time on the 'pedia. 1ne 22:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral per 1ne.--Jusjih 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral per 1ne. Roy A.A. 14:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral per some concerns above. --CharlotteWebb 19:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral per concerns that were raised. I still think the user is a good editor, but adminiship requires diplomatic skills as well. -- Avi 21:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral. Falls 3 days short of my 6 month minimum for support. Themindset 17:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral I've seen great things from Ambuj and I personally haven't run into any trouble with him, but SlimVirgin has a point, especially with that comment on the FAC talk page regarding her. That was not good at all. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Strongly Abstain (per SlimVirgin of course). Ahem. :-). AS seems to be a nitpicker, which is not a capital crime, and on FA would probably even be a good thing, but he's also not as gracious in reversing himself as I would like. Not an oppose, however, since he's actually right about criticising SV's actions on editing WP:DATE, which does take courage, as SV is a well known and active admin, and not so good at taking criticism herself. Would support if he were a bit more gracious in accepting criticism or being overruled when wrong. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral. Not sure if the exchange with SlimVirgin should mean admin status is withheld, but some WP:AGF would be an essential flavouring. JFW | T@lk 22:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Change to Neutral per JFW, JoshuaZ and nom's response on RFA talk. Ambuj.Saxena please remember to WP:AGF in the future. FloNight ^talk 12:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Neutral. Can't lean to support just yet. --kingboyk 13:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Neutral per Kingboyk. I can't support or oppose based on everything together. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Ambuj.Saxena's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Edit count using Interiot's Tool 2 αChimp ^laudare 07:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Username Ambuj.Saxena
Total edits 5787
Distinct pages edited 2754
Average edits/page 2.101
First edit 14:05, February 5, 2006
(main) 2739
Talk 379
User 314
User talk 830
Image 62
Image talk 11
MediaWiki talk 3
Template 86
Template talk 18
Help 1
Category 7
Category talk 6
Wikipedia 617
Wikipedia talk 93
Portal 597
Portal talk 24

• Bureaucrat's note: For reasons I will not discuss at the moment, I am granting a 24-hour extension on this RfA, counted from the timestamp on this comment. I encourage the community to debate further during this time. Redux 16:49, 3 August 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: As an admin, I see myself significantly contributing to three areas. They are vandal-fighting, speedy deletions, and closing XfD debates, though I will be a little cautious at first. As someone who has had to handle many page moves (though some of them were a result of my own fault), I will occasionally help with requested page moves requiring admin intervention. Later, with more time and experience, I see no reasons for not contributing to other areas I currently have little experience in, which include blocking users for 3RR abuse, ArbCom enforcement and dealing with complex vandalism.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: The articles that I have substantially contributed to are listed on this page. I edit articles across the spectrum: From serious issues like 2006 Jama Masjid explosions to even Why did the chicken cross the road?; from Digvijay Singh to Mrs. World. I am particularly pleased with my contributions to Indian Institutes of Technology article that I helped in reaching FA status. I am also pleased about Parrondo's Paradox article, for which, I received a personal thank you note from Dr. J. M. R. Parrondo. I am also pleased with my contributions to Portal:India, in which I have maintained the front page for the past few months. I am also pleased with my work on the three audio renderings of featured articles.

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: Starting chronologically, my first conflict was in my first couple of weeks at Wikipedia when at vandal patrolling, I removed an image from an article and put it for deletion over profanity issue. The editor was furious over me and wrote a long reply regarding non-censored nature of Wikipedia. Not convinced at the explaination, I asked for an admin's help, who sided with the editor and explained the Wikipedia policies to me. I learned from it and moved on. The second incident didn't take the magnitude of a conflict, but I am mentioning here as the editor concerned had mentioned it in his RfA. It was when I moved an article from the subject's nick-name to the real name according to the policies. The editor who created the article was working on it when the move happened, and strongly replied to my move. I explained to him the reasons for the move that convinced him. I am not sure if the editor mentioned it in his RfA because he got an "edit conflict" when he had tried to save the page over the moved page. The third incident happened when during the course of making the IIT article featured, one of the editors told me that I am taking the POV issue too much seriously removing even the slightest hint of POV from the article (some of which were added by him). He preferred the article to be "overall neutral", not necessarily in every sentence. I had to convince him that my actions were required to bring the article to FA citing the objections raised at the Peer-review and FAC, when even at a lot of places, I had to remove paragraphs written by me. In all these cases, I believe that I remained civil and interacted in a manner to diffuse the situation quickly, not letting the debate getting heated up. I have never been stressed in my Wiki-life and I often end up feeling more relaxed than I was when I started editing. Given these observations and based on my experience in handling vandals, I am certain that I will be able to handle any possibly stressing issues coolly, and without abusing my powers.

4. from user:ShortJason. Why do you have so many user namespace edits?

A: I was once myself startled to find so many user-space edits. After going through my contribution history, I found the reason. This is because many of these edits were vandal reversions (on my own page and other users' page), edits to sandbox (I prefer to write article in my sandbox before posting in article space. In fact, my sandbox is my fifth most edited page of all wikipedia pages.) and many a times helping other users with their user pages. For example, I recently helped User:Kevin Breitenstein in redesigning his userpage (see this). I also keep a toolbox page, a to-do list, and keep updating it for my needs. There are other reasons also, including this kind of edits. Before I close, I also remember having a userpage that I love maintaining. Please go through my userspace contribs to see the exact reasons.

Optional question from Lar:

5.(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...)

A: Yes, I am aware of the willingness to voluntary recalling process, and as I said in the RfA talk page when this issue came up, I am against placing myself in it for strong reasons. In Wikipedia, when you try to do the right work, you often make enemies. To add myself to that category would be allowing myself to betray the confidence the community has given me (if this RfA passes). Instead, I hold different criteria. If either my nominator, or eight people who have supported me now, ask me to go through the process, I would be willing to go through it. Even this, I presume would be a far-fetched thing to do. Instead, if someone comes up and tells me that I am doing bad work as an admin, i will find out what the problem is, and if it is echoed by many good faith editors, then I will try to change myself. If I find that it goes against my principles to change that aspect of my personality, then I will consider voluntarily giving up that specific admin power. For example, if people feel that I am wrongly blocking users, and I feel that I have been right, then I will give up using blocking feature. I will continue to do use the other buttons as and when I feel justified. So, re-phrasing and re-answering the question, I will add myself to Category:Wikipedians who aren't dickheads. I have heard about Rouge admins ever since my first week on Wikipedia. But I simply don't fit the bill. Wikipedia needs Rouge admins (not literally, but the work they ACTUALLY do), but I am simply not the kind of person. I would be amused if someone places me in that category, but it is a possibility that I don't want to think of.

Allow me to paraphrase the first part and tell me if I got it right... you're saying you're not averse to the notion of some accountability, short of being hauled in front of arbcomm involuntarily, but you'd use some other mechanism (your nom, or 8 supporters, rather than 6 random editors in good standing) rather than the way the current suggested criteria for initiating it are structured? I see that as perfectly compatible with the notion!!! The criteria for recall are whatever you say they are, as long as they're reasonable, because it's a voluntary thing after all... I also like the idea of voluntarily recusing yourself from certain classes of actions until you're convinced that issues raised have been addressed... Thanks for giving this matter some thought and good luck with your candidacy. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The above adminship 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.