Final (44/2/0) ended 07:45 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Bhadani (
talk·contribs) – Bhadani has been here since this March. He has contributed widely across the length and breadth of wikipedia, his user page is testimonial to that. I have known Bhadani right from his early days. He has been a daily contributor since then, and has raked up
6,012 edits. He is also active in VFD. A solid contributor.
=Nichalp«Talk»= 07:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Me of course!
=Nichalp«Talk»= 07:47, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yay. I actually remember welcoming Bhadani! :) One of the best n00bs I ever saw, and even now one of our best. Bhadani has also been a valuable participant in VfD, contributing many good rewrites. Make him an admin already!
Dmcdevit·
t 08:29, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Support: I've known Bhadani since he has been here. He has been an extraordinary contributor. He has often gone to great lengths to improve many articles I had started, and had left out as stubs. Bhadani's 6000+ edits is also noteworthy; I recall the number was 4000 not more than 2 weeks ago, he has been really busy editing everyday. He will surely be a great admin. --
Ragib18:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Very solid contributor; level-headed; deserving.—
encephalonέγκέφαλος 21:08:41, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
Support. Great contributor, no reason not to. -
GregAsche(talk) 22:24, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Dmcdevit said everything I could say. Bhadani has shown equanimity, writing skill and tact. He has thrown himself into Wikipedia and Wikipedia is the better for it. We can ask no more of a sysop. --
Tony SidawayTalk00:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. For his great work, encouragement to new wikipedians like me and most importantly, for the clear vision he has abt what to do as an admin.
Gurubrahma10:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Fragmented discussion merged from
User talk:Xiong -- please avoid fragmented discussions.
Hello Xiong, I invite your kind attention to your stand about my nomination for adminship. I am sure that you are having very valid reasons for your stand. Still, I have come to your page to make a request: Would you please come closer to me and explain the exact reasons for opposing my nomination for adminship? Do you really feel that wikipedia should have materials, which do not conform to the guidelines? I invite you for a chit-chat, and I shall certainly endeavor to remove your doubts. Thanks. --
Bhadani15:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)reply
You're talking to an inclusionist. I think of myself as a moderate, but I'm considerably left of center all the same. You are a rightist, a deletionist; you may define yourself as extreme or moderate, but I don't think you deny the bias.
I'm a private citizen, if you will; a member of the Community of ordinary editors; I'm free to have an agenda, to express it and advance it. You're running for a public office of trust, and for this I require impartial, unbiased candidates. You may or may not share a common confusion, but for me it's plain: Leadership is neither required or desired in a trustee. Please see above my comments on Andrevan's RfBuro.
To answer your question directly, I no longer believe this Project has objective, consistent guidelines for the content of our Corpus. All deletion is wrong, therefore; any given item might be seen as deletable today, yet permissible tomorrow. There are exceptions, true; but it is evil to justify the massacre of an entire village because a few criminals are hiding in it. It is always sufficient to suppress the display of questionable content; the simplest way to do so is to put better content in its place. If the title of a page is objectionable, then it is simply foolish to delete it, since the next attempt to view it will bring up a nice, sunny invitation to Start the Foo article.
That may seem like a fairly radical position on inclusion, but I'm actually pretty happy to see tons of stuff pushed down into History, out of sight, out of mind. Users who drag stuff out of the garbage are problem users; the content itself is not problem content. We need to restrain problem users, not destroy our Corpus.
Fear not; I'm sure you'll get in. RfAdmin has become depressingly like a circle jerk; anyone nominated is ensured of 30 votes right away, from would-be politicos and log-rollers. Vote for them, they'll vote for you, and all is well. —
Xiong熊talk*20:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Yes, hello Xiong,
Namaskar. I thank you for elaborating your comments in response to my request. Basically, I agree with you except on very few minor counts.
Firstly, I do believe that we as a community are writing an encyclopedia, and not simply collecting all bits of information about each and everything around us. This position entails a limitation to the contents and pages.
Secondly, I am neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist. In my opinion, such categorization is not warranted - in my opinion, one does not belong to any group because such an affiliation, in my opinion, compromises the integrity of an editor (of Wikipedia) as an editor of an encyclopedia.
Thirdly, life is dynamic and so is the wiki-community’s collective will to shape the contents and the direction of the project. Corpus of contents implies contents useful for an encyclopedia, and I am sure that the community ensures this by collective expression of its intent. Incidentally, by reading between the lines, I have a feeling (my feeling, hopefully may be misplaced) that you may perhaps be of the opinion that the project has failed. In fact, it has not failed and it shall never fail: had it failed you would have neither come to oppose me, and not responded to my request for a “chit-chat” nor I would have come to share my thoughts with you. We continue to be a vibrant community of editors, everything, including “adminship” comes thereafter.
Fourthly, as a responsible member of the wiki-community, I have confidence in the community – in the expression of its collective will while deciding a deletion or otherwise or while selecting one amongst them to be an administrator or any other collective action. Similarly, I have full faith in the individual member’s capability to function towards the common goal of the community to build an encyclopedia, which is emerging as the best, at least one amongst the best, in the human history. And I do not believe that we are so gullible to support and oppose someone on whims and fancy. I am sure that your vote to oppose me was well considered and not an impulsive action. Likewise, we should give the same accreditation and consideration to votes by all others. “Holier than thou attitude”, and imputing that other editors just come to vote without applying their mind, is, in my most humble opinion, not acceptable, particularly so when all members are free, with equal rights of forming their opinions.
Fifthly, dear Xiong, please believe me, my response to your oppose vote was not on account of any fear or apprehension. I desired to interact with you to understand your view point properly, so that in case, the community decides to elevate me to function as an administrator, I may keep the position of trust of the community, as indicated by you, in a really trustworthy manner. Otherwise, everyone, you and me including, knows that “adminship should not be a big deal”.
I am sure that you shall agree. In case, I am unable to convince you, let us disagree on a friendly note. I thank you for your vote opposing my nomination as it provided me to share my thoughts with you and other members of the community. --
Bhadani12:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)reply
A. I shall keep a keener watch on the VfD discussions and close VfDs, with a special focus on
Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. A number of other tools available to an administrator would certainly be helpful in actively involving me, along with other editors and administrators, in the task of keeping the wikipedia in shape as per the existing policy guidelines. As such, facilities for faster
reverts; to
block, if the situation may so require; and dealing with the
active vandals will surely be of great assistance. The ability to modify edits in the
protected pages after consensus is reached would be a nice experience as I will be giving shape directly or indirectly to a collective consensus reached. Finally, being an administrator shall enable me to respond directly to the requirements of editors who may be seeking administrative assistance.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Yes, sure:
2005 Maharashtra floods, which remained on the
Page (in the news) for around 24 hours (or perhaps more) as the lead news item. On the talk page of this article, I had hazarded a guess: I am not sure, but perhaps by creating this article on wikipedia, I have endeavored to prove that wikipedia can function and deliver pretty fast, compared to several other similar medium, which are in the field (of encyclopedic writing) for a period quite longer than wikipedia. This article was preceded by several other attempts, covering a variety of areas – just by way of examples:
Armenians in India,
Art of Ancient Egypt,
Cuisine of Africa,
Science and technology in ancient India,
Culture of Africa. I may also mention several other articles including
Mughal painting,
Madhubani painting and
Adolescent psychology which I simply wrote on the spur of the moment to widen the base of information available in wikipedia.
In the ultimate analysis, I am proud of being an editor of wikipedia – I am contributing, and I derive comfort that there are several thousand other editors who are working together in building the best encyclopedia in the world.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I have not been involved in any serious conflicts. Having said this, I do accept that in an open environment, which WP provides, conflicts and POVs shall always surface occasionally, intentionally or unintentionally. My aggregate experience in this respect has remained very fine and I have been able to strike a balance in such discussions and been able to resolve the issues. Moreover, whenever I have spotted such materials, I had endeavored to present the contents in a manner for which we all as a community strive for, that is, building the best encyclopedia in the world with contents which are representative of the sum total of human knowledge. I am sure that each one of us is here with this as the prime objective.
Nevertheless, once in the course of discussions in a VfD
[1] relating to
Nehruvian Stalinism, I faced a lot of stress. After the page was deleted, the deleted contents surfaced in the article
Jawaharlal Nehru and the matter continued to be debated endlessly. By that time, I had moved on to doing other edits, so as to remain in the sidelines to give the issue a chance to settle. In the meanwhile, I was asked by
User:Zscout370 to intervene. Naturally, I had to come forward and explain the issue to him. Although I never expected this, he decorated me with a barnstar. This debate taught me a lesson – that we are a vibrant community: both who may support an issue as well as those who may oppose an issue.
Over a period of time, I find that I have matured to withstand all the stress, in whatever forms it may emerge: after all, we are dealing with nice people here - the real
human beings. And, so there is no need to be panicky – every issue can be solved and resolved
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Final (44/2/0) ended 07:45 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Bhadani (
talk·contribs) – Bhadani has been here since this March. He has contributed widely across the length and breadth of wikipedia, his user page is testimonial to that. I have known Bhadani right from his early days. He has been a daily contributor since then, and has raked up
6,012 edits. He is also active in VFD. A solid contributor.
=Nichalp«Talk»= 07:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Me of course!
=Nichalp«Talk»= 07:47, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yay. I actually remember welcoming Bhadani! :) One of the best n00bs I ever saw, and even now one of our best. Bhadani has also been a valuable participant in VfD, contributing many good rewrites. Make him an admin already!
Dmcdevit·
t 08:29, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Support: I've known Bhadani since he has been here. He has been an extraordinary contributor. He has often gone to great lengths to improve many articles I had started, and had left out as stubs. Bhadani's 6000+ edits is also noteworthy; I recall the number was 4000 not more than 2 weeks ago, he has been really busy editing everyday. He will surely be a great admin. --
Ragib18:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Very solid contributor; level-headed; deserving.—
encephalonέγκέφαλος 21:08:41, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
Support. Great contributor, no reason not to. -
GregAsche(talk) 22:24, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Dmcdevit said everything I could say. Bhadani has shown equanimity, writing skill and tact. He has thrown himself into Wikipedia and Wikipedia is the better for it. We can ask no more of a sysop. --
Tony SidawayTalk00:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. For his great work, encouragement to new wikipedians like me and most importantly, for the clear vision he has abt what to do as an admin.
Gurubrahma10:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Fragmented discussion merged from
User talk:Xiong -- please avoid fragmented discussions.
Hello Xiong, I invite your kind attention to your stand about my nomination for adminship. I am sure that you are having very valid reasons for your stand. Still, I have come to your page to make a request: Would you please come closer to me and explain the exact reasons for opposing my nomination for adminship? Do you really feel that wikipedia should have materials, which do not conform to the guidelines? I invite you for a chit-chat, and I shall certainly endeavor to remove your doubts. Thanks. --
Bhadani15:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)reply
You're talking to an inclusionist. I think of myself as a moderate, but I'm considerably left of center all the same. You are a rightist, a deletionist; you may define yourself as extreme or moderate, but I don't think you deny the bias.
I'm a private citizen, if you will; a member of the Community of ordinary editors; I'm free to have an agenda, to express it and advance it. You're running for a public office of trust, and for this I require impartial, unbiased candidates. You may or may not share a common confusion, but for me it's plain: Leadership is neither required or desired in a trustee. Please see above my comments on Andrevan's RfBuro.
To answer your question directly, I no longer believe this Project has objective, consistent guidelines for the content of our Corpus. All deletion is wrong, therefore; any given item might be seen as deletable today, yet permissible tomorrow. There are exceptions, true; but it is evil to justify the massacre of an entire village because a few criminals are hiding in it. It is always sufficient to suppress the display of questionable content; the simplest way to do so is to put better content in its place. If the title of a page is objectionable, then it is simply foolish to delete it, since the next attempt to view it will bring up a nice, sunny invitation to Start the Foo article.
That may seem like a fairly radical position on inclusion, but I'm actually pretty happy to see tons of stuff pushed down into History, out of sight, out of mind. Users who drag stuff out of the garbage are problem users; the content itself is not problem content. We need to restrain problem users, not destroy our Corpus.
Fear not; I'm sure you'll get in. RfAdmin has become depressingly like a circle jerk; anyone nominated is ensured of 30 votes right away, from would-be politicos and log-rollers. Vote for them, they'll vote for you, and all is well. —
Xiong熊talk*20:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Yes, hello Xiong,
Namaskar. I thank you for elaborating your comments in response to my request. Basically, I agree with you except on very few minor counts.
Firstly, I do believe that we as a community are writing an encyclopedia, and not simply collecting all bits of information about each and everything around us. This position entails a limitation to the contents and pages.
Secondly, I am neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist. In my opinion, such categorization is not warranted - in my opinion, one does not belong to any group because such an affiliation, in my opinion, compromises the integrity of an editor (of Wikipedia) as an editor of an encyclopedia.
Thirdly, life is dynamic and so is the wiki-community’s collective will to shape the contents and the direction of the project. Corpus of contents implies contents useful for an encyclopedia, and I am sure that the community ensures this by collective expression of its intent. Incidentally, by reading between the lines, I have a feeling (my feeling, hopefully may be misplaced) that you may perhaps be of the opinion that the project has failed. In fact, it has not failed and it shall never fail: had it failed you would have neither come to oppose me, and not responded to my request for a “chit-chat” nor I would have come to share my thoughts with you. We continue to be a vibrant community of editors, everything, including “adminship” comes thereafter.
Fourthly, as a responsible member of the wiki-community, I have confidence in the community – in the expression of its collective will while deciding a deletion or otherwise or while selecting one amongst them to be an administrator or any other collective action. Similarly, I have full faith in the individual member’s capability to function towards the common goal of the community to build an encyclopedia, which is emerging as the best, at least one amongst the best, in the human history. And I do not believe that we are so gullible to support and oppose someone on whims and fancy. I am sure that your vote to oppose me was well considered and not an impulsive action. Likewise, we should give the same accreditation and consideration to votes by all others. “Holier than thou attitude”, and imputing that other editors just come to vote without applying their mind, is, in my most humble opinion, not acceptable, particularly so when all members are free, with equal rights of forming their opinions.
Fifthly, dear Xiong, please believe me, my response to your oppose vote was not on account of any fear or apprehension. I desired to interact with you to understand your view point properly, so that in case, the community decides to elevate me to function as an administrator, I may keep the position of trust of the community, as indicated by you, in a really trustworthy manner. Otherwise, everyone, you and me including, knows that “adminship should not be a big deal”.
I am sure that you shall agree. In case, I am unable to convince you, let us disagree on a friendly note. I thank you for your vote opposing my nomination as it provided me to share my thoughts with you and other members of the community. --
Bhadani12:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)reply
A. I shall keep a keener watch on the VfD discussions and close VfDs, with a special focus on
Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. A number of other tools available to an administrator would certainly be helpful in actively involving me, along with other editors and administrators, in the task of keeping the wikipedia in shape as per the existing policy guidelines. As such, facilities for faster
reverts; to
block, if the situation may so require; and dealing with the
active vandals will surely be of great assistance. The ability to modify edits in the
protected pages after consensus is reached would be a nice experience as I will be giving shape directly or indirectly to a collective consensus reached. Finally, being an administrator shall enable me to respond directly to the requirements of editors who may be seeking administrative assistance.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Yes, sure:
2005 Maharashtra floods, which remained on the
Page (in the news) for around 24 hours (or perhaps more) as the lead news item. On the talk page of this article, I had hazarded a guess: I am not sure, but perhaps by creating this article on wikipedia, I have endeavored to prove that wikipedia can function and deliver pretty fast, compared to several other similar medium, which are in the field (of encyclopedic writing) for a period quite longer than wikipedia. This article was preceded by several other attempts, covering a variety of areas – just by way of examples:
Armenians in India,
Art of Ancient Egypt,
Cuisine of Africa,
Science and technology in ancient India,
Culture of Africa. I may also mention several other articles including
Mughal painting,
Madhubani painting and
Adolescent psychology which I simply wrote on the spur of the moment to widen the base of information available in wikipedia.
In the ultimate analysis, I am proud of being an editor of wikipedia – I am contributing, and I derive comfort that there are several thousand other editors who are working together in building the best encyclopedia in the world.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I have not been involved in any serious conflicts. Having said this, I do accept that in an open environment, which WP provides, conflicts and POVs shall always surface occasionally, intentionally or unintentionally. My aggregate experience in this respect has remained very fine and I have been able to strike a balance in such discussions and been able to resolve the issues. Moreover, whenever I have spotted such materials, I had endeavored to present the contents in a manner for which we all as a community strive for, that is, building the best encyclopedia in the world with contents which are representative of the sum total of human knowledge. I am sure that each one of us is here with this as the prime objective.
Nevertheless, once in the course of discussions in a VfD
[1] relating to
Nehruvian Stalinism, I faced a lot of stress. After the page was deleted, the deleted contents surfaced in the article
Jawaharlal Nehru and the matter continued to be debated endlessly. By that time, I had moved on to doing other edits, so as to remain in the sidelines to give the issue a chance to settle. In the meanwhile, I was asked by
User:Zscout370 to intervene. Naturally, I had to come forward and explain the issue to him. Although I never expected this, he decorated me with a barnstar. This debate taught me a lesson – that we are a vibrant community: both who may support an issue as well as those who may oppose an issue.
Over a period of time, I find that I have matured to withstand all the stress, in whatever forms it may emerge: after all, we are dealing with nice people here - the real
human beings. And, so there is no need to be panicky – every issue can be solved and resolved
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.