Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bhadani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Bhadani

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. User:Nichalp/sg 07:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I gladly accept the nomination and feel privileged. --Bhadani 08:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Me of course! User:Nichalp/sg 07:47, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. Support Jisha C J 08:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support Tintin 11:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. He's nominated by a bureaucrat; he has to be notable!

    Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

  6. 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. --Ragib 18:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Very solid contributor; level-headed; deserving.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  21:08:41, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
  8. Support. Great contributor, no reason not to. -GregAsche (talk) 22:24, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support, definitely; one of the good ones. Antandrus (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support: has more barnstars than you can shake a stick at. Jonathunder 04:45, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
  11. Support Another goody. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support, gladly. A dedicated contributor with a good attitude toward resolving conflict and building the project. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support Pamri • Talk 07:23, September 12, 2005 (UTC),
  14. Support and only support. - Darwinek 08:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support - solid contributor. Guettarda 12:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. Having seen his past works, I feel certain he will do a fine job as an admin. BorgQueen 14:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  17. Strong Support. One hundred percent. Bhadani is a good, responsible and experienced wikipedian--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. Excellent candidate. Like his attitude about responding to and addressing conflicts.≈ jossi ≈ 15:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support Martin 19:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. No big deal. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. Excellent candidate and contributor. Hall Monitor 22:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support Molotov (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support Sebastian Kessel Talk 22:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support Vanakkam! --Chris S. 23:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  25. 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 SidawayTalk 00:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support Very active in VFD AFD et al. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  27. --Jusjih 07:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support - How did I miss this for so long? A friendly, level-headed and hard working contributor, most likely to use the proverbial mop effectively. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  29. Cool. --JuntungWu 13:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support - Adminship should not be a big deal. --Phroziac (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support RADICALBENDER★ 17:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support Looks decent. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  33. BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-14 02:47
  34. Support. Looks good, so into the janitor closed he goes! Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. Won over by the nom. -- BD2412 talk 03:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  36. 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. Gurubrahma 10:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support Andre (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support. El_C 04:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  39. Strong Support. utcursch | talk 08:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support from the Philippines! Mabuhay! Agbiag! - Saluyot 14:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support - not that you need it... --Celestianpower hab 17:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support creates good content --Duk 21:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support. Contributions seem reasonable and helpful, see no reason for concern. Jayjg (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose -- deletionist agenda. — Xiong熊talk* 14:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. --Boothy443 | comhrá 05:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral


Comments

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. --Bhadani 15:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

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)
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. --Bhadani 12:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Xiong do you have any specific instances of this deletionist agenda that Bhadani is accused of? User:Nichalp/sg 18:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
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.
Several of my edits and contribution relate to India and I fondly remember the 4th May 2005, when in during a single day I created five stubs: Paradesi Synagogue, the oldest synagogue of the commonwealth; St. Francis Church, Cochin, the oldest church of the Indian subcontinent; Parasnath hills; Makhdoom Yahya Maneri; and Srisailam. Incidentally, these articles represent the cultural diversity of India and are associated with adherents of five different religious faiths, namely, Jews, Christians, Jains, Muslims, and Hindus. By the way, in the 'company of wikipedia', I always feel new and fresh. Incidentally, I have also created several stubs, which are part of the list of missing articles. I would surely continue to work in this direction.
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.