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

Vikrant Phadkay[edit]

Final (2/10/3); Withdrawn by WjBscribe at 06:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vikrant Phadkay (talk · contribs) - Self-nomination Vikrant 20:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Editing protected pages and protecting those which need to be. I have also fought vandalism whenever it has been noticed and participated in recent deletion procedures. I would like to get involved more actively in these.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Two featured articles: Casino Royale (2006 film) and The World Is Not Enough (song). I have also helped achieve good articles such as Octopussy, GoldenEye 007, A View to a Kill, Die Another Day, The Living Daylights, Halle Berry, Daniel Craig and Madonna (entertainer).
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: No. If such incidents happen in future, I would resolve them through discussions.

Optional questions by Keeper Thanks for your nomination. Two questions, feel free to answer or not, they are optional.

4. Your block log shows that you've been blocked twice in the past (although not since June of 2007). In your opinion, why were you blocked, do you feel it was appropriate, and what have you done differently (if anything) since those blocks to avoid being blocked since?
A. The first block was due to a dispute over whether or not to merge 493 article about each Pokemon. I was feeling frustrated since I had made many contributions to individual pages and expressed this on the merged pages. I regretted doing so, but the second time I was blocked was due to lack of an edit summary- I was removing a game guide list from Pokemon Puzzle Challenge and also told this to the user who requested blocking (Just before this, I had been giving summaries for trivia cleanup but someone else went on stating them vandalism. This also decided blocking). Since then, I have utilised most edit summaries and been civil.
Follow up question: I've never seen anyone blocked for not using an edit summary. According to the block log, you were blocked the second time for blanking pages and/or sections of articles (according to the blocking admin). What do you mean by blocked for not using edit summaries? Thanks in advance for your answers!
A.As I have stated above, my edits on trivia were stated as vandalism. The user who requested me to be blocked sent a message right below the warnings for the trivia edits. And the list of "Playable Pokemon", still present in Pokemon Puzzle Challenge is Game guide.
5. What is the difference between a block and a ban?
A.Block is temporary and is intented to prevent damage to an article. It also maintains user conduct since Wikipedia is not a battleground. A ban is usually permanent and for sock-puppetry.


Optional questions by Sarcasticidealist

6. You cite "editing protected pages" as one of the reasons you want to be an admin. Under what circumstances would you edit protected pages?

Optional question from User:Krator

7. Concerns are voiced in the discussion below about your understanding of policy. What do you consider to be the most important policy on Wikipedia? Please elaborate upon your answer.

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Vikrant Phadkay before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Has not edited since ~21:30 on Jan. 17. Dlohcierekim 06:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support[edit]

#Moral. Appreciate your edits to featured articles, which some administrators and adminstator candidates don't have at the present time. I would suggest admin coaching for your next RFA. Cheers! Miranda 22:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC) [1] Miranda 01:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Great content contributor: fine work to James Bond-related articles. Acalamari 22:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. An experienced user, with no recent conflicts. He now knows the difference between a block and a ban, so that's no longer a problem. Epbr123 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose User does not know what a block really is. RuneWiki777 21:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose I'm concerned by the misunderstanding over a block and a ban, but I'm considerably more concerned that this user thinks that a block helps user conduct. I (and I doubt I am alone) have seen situations escalate out of control very rapidly following a block that was intended to let a user cool down or to enforce some minor policy. Nick (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose - per above concerns. Lack of policy indicated by answers to questions and the RFA in general. Rudget. 22:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose. Sorry, but you have no clear understanding of the policies, and so I, like Miranda, would recommend admin coaching, and another attempt in some months. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 22:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose per above concerns. Knowing what a block and a ban is and the differences between is fundamental for being an administrator. Also, few edits to Wikipedia namespace are of a concern, and it appears that you have made <6 (if any) reports to AIV and Requests for page protection. I recommend admin coaching as others have. NF24(radio me!) 23:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose - Answers to questions worry me. Tiptoety talk 23:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Strong Oppose See incident archive after a seriously angry outburst back in June. It shows a temperament that admins should never have. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose. As per Hbdragon88. That kind of behaviour is quite unacceptable from anyone, and certainly from an admin candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose Someone who has been blocked twice for page blanking cannot be an Admin. He has been rude about other people's edits in his edit summaries [2]. Support Hbdragon88 when he says his behaviour is unacceptable. He makes a false statement when he says he has not recently been involved in a dispute. Look at his Talk Page where he is being warned about being blocked again. have been warned. He must never be an Admin. Vonita (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose per Hbdragon88. The incident(s) cast serious doubt on maturity, civility and understanding of policy. More troubling, however, is that the candidate did not disclose this in the answer to question 3 or accurately articulate the issues in question 4. It’s understood and acceptable for people to have made mistakes, as mistakes are opportunities to learn/grow – but how can you learn from mistakes if you can’t acknowledge you’ve made them? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral based on answers to all questions above. You obviously have good intentions, and you are a good contributor. Most of what you are good at you can do without admin tools. I strongly recommend you take up Miranda's suggestion (above) and go through the coaching process if you feel the admin tools are of use to you. Best of luck to you! Keeper | 76 22:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral I would recommend more experience in the admin-related areas and try again. By this I mean Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol, checking for vandalism and reporting it at WP:AIV; checking Special:Newpages for pages that need stub sorting or tagging for WP:CSD, and taking part in discussions at WP:AN/I and WP:AFD. This will help you develop knowledge of the admin related areas and help others better know your strengths and weaknesses. Cheers and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 00:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, forgot to check the block log. Will add the advice of reviewing the dispute resolution process as well. The blocks were >6 months ago, so ancient history to me if no lapses occurred recently. Stresses don't go down when one is admin. One must be prepared to back pedal at times, to compromise, and to always 1) assume good faith and 2) hold to a certain level of detachment. When one is continuing to edit past the point where fatigue clouds judgment and one's temper is fraying, one must be prepared to bite one's tongue and work even harder at assuming good faith. Dlohcierekim 00:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Neutral This user is a valuable asset to the project, and his mainspace contributions are sterling. I've had the pleasure of encountering his work through GA several times, and he has always been courteous. However, the lack of knowledge about some of the core admin duties is troubling. VanTucky 01:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Has not edited since ~21:30 on Jan. 17. Dlohcierekim 06:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Category