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

Prahlad balaji[edit]

Final (0/9/1); ended 21:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC) - withdrawn by candidate. Primefac (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Prahlad balaji (talk · contribs) – Hi, I'm User:Prahlad balaji, and I'd like to nominate myself for adminship. I'm a pending changes reviewer, autoconfirmed user, extended confirmed user, and rollbacker. I've made more than 8,500 contributions to the English Wikipedia. I mostly warn, revert, and report vandals, and I'm also a WikiGnome. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would probably take part in speedy deletions, XfDs, PRODs, and blocks (specifically those reported at WP:AIV).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I often patrol the abuse log, looking for vandalism. When I see a vandal, I revert their changes, notify them, and if they keep repeatedly vandalising, I report them to WP:AIV.
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: I have seen many IPs break 3RR or keep reverting me, and I usually keep calm and warn them on their talkpage. If they vandalise enough, I report them.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Nick
4. Please provide a list of all current and previous accounts, and details of all of your previous blocks (including those made when editing anonymously) in order that it may be possible to determine your editing history more accurately.
A:
Additional question from User:Barkeep49
5. Your RfA looks different than most other recent RfAs. What preparation did you do prior to running? Examples could include pages/essays you read or people you talked to.
A:

Discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support[edit]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Strong oppose you've only really been active in the last two months but aside from that, you seem to be delving into areas where you have no experience or haven't bothered to read the relevant policies (like SPI and tagging socks), an inability to follow basic direction is not a good quality for an admin hopeful. You have no AFD experience and you have virtually no content experience. I could continue but I'm not going to beat a dead horse. Also considering how often you edit logged out, I don't find your request very compelling. Praxidicae (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Bureaucrat note: The user has acknowledged their IP on the IP's talk. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And should anyone seriously be considering this RFA, I'll also note that while their account block log is clean, they've been blocked thrice since March 1 2020 under their IP for making unsourced edits to the same articles they've been editing under their named account. Praxidicae (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose per WP:NOTYET, though I have a few specific concerns too. For instance, this reversion of justified removal of unsourced and unencyclopedic content, issuing a level 3 warning to a user after separately reporting them to AIV, and requesting indefinite full protection on your own userpage with no apparent reason. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose Totally WP:NOTYET - RichT|C|E-Mail 20:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose. This is going to SNOW-close quickly and I don't want to pile on, but I want to provide some advice.
    You've only been active for the last two months, following a long period of inactivity before that. Over 40% of your edits are to user and user talk space combined, with almost 10% of your overall edits being to your user page itself. Your user page and user talk page are cluttered with poorly formatted decoration, taking up a tremendous account of screen space, and would be offputting to people looking for help or asking about admin actions you may have taken. I also have more general maturity concerns, between the confusing signature and what I see as signs of hat-collecting and myspacey behavior on your user and user talk pages.
    I'm also not seeing much content creation - I don't expect GAs or FAs like some people do, but I like to at least see a few B-class articles. Admins deal with lots of content disputes gone awry. To properly handle these it's crucial to have some content building experience so that you can understand the mindset of the involved editors and handle it in a sensible way. Admins without this experience have often turned out to be way too trigger-happy with the block and delete buttons, so many Wikipedians expect substantial content work from new prospective admins to avoid this.
    The logged-out editing, which you've been blocked for recently on the IP, is also a major concern. Someone who has been blocked recently for repeatedly adding unsourced content is in no way suitable for adminship.
    Here's my advice. Find an area of Wikipedia you think is underdeveloped in a topic that interests you. Focus on bringing this part of the encyclopedia into a better state through content work. Keep doing your other types of contributions, but make sure you aren't being too much of an eager beaver on deletion and vandalism. Drop the garish signature and the massively overlong userpage. Make it clear that you're here first and foremost to build an encyclopedia, not to collect icons for your user page. Show improved maturity and experience in areas you would find use for the tools, stop the logged-out editing and keep a clean block log from here on out, and come back after a year or two of sustained activity. If after a sustained period of mature, responsible editing you can show specific areas where the tools would help you improve the encyclopedia, the community is much more likely to grant you those tools. CJK09 (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose WP:NOTYET and likely a WP:SNOW.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose for obvious reasons. Why isn't this transcluded? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Ah! Now it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was briefly and was a mess then it wasn't...Praxidicae (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken and Praxidicae: I threatened the bot to take him to an edit war, and the he caved. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    More like there was a missing (UTC) and so the bot thought it was closed. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Weak Oppose I think you show all the indicators of soon being a fine admin! However, a longer period of consistent activity is helpful to measure strengths and opportunities for improvement. I hope you'll review what CJK09 and some of the others have posted and consider coming back to RfA. Keep up the good work! Chetsford (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose. The lack of AFD participation is my biggest concern. Sorry! LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose - sorry, recent IP blocks per Praxidicae trump all other good qualities, demonstrates lack of CLUE. I hope this is a learning experience, and not entirely disheartening, but I'm sure it's no fun. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. With no votes at AfD, one of the things he has talked about in Q1, as well as the other things this is going nowhere and there's no point in piling on. I ask Prahlad balaji to consider withdrawing this and coming back with more experience when he's ready, as he has no temperament issues AFAICT. Otherwise this will be closed soon. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
John M Wolfson How do I withdraw it? --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just put ((subst:rfaf)) at the top and change your statement accordingly. Have a great day! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General comments[edit]
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