Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Prahlad balaji (talk | contribs) at 20:32, 18 May 2020 (→Current nominations for adminship). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Policies on civility and personal attacks apply here. Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.

• WP:RFA
• WP:RFX

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Misplaced Pages community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections took place in October 2024.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Misplaced Pages long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Misplaced Pages (500 edits and 30 days of experience). However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.

If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Misplaced Pages administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Misplaced Pages:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

If you are relatively new to contributing to Misplaced Pages, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".

There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.

The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process. In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.

In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way". A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Monitors

• WP:MONITOR

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 03:12:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

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

Prahlad balaji

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

Nomination

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 Misplaced Pages. I mostly warn, revert, and report vandals, and I'm also a WikiGnome. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 20:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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

• Links for Prahlad balaji: Prahlad balaji (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Prahlad balaji can be found here.

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

Support

Oppose

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)

    Bureaucrat note: The user has acknowledged their IP on the IP's talk. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

   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)

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)
3. Oppose Totally WP:NOTYET - Rich 20:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
5. Oppose WP:NOTYET and likely a WP:SNOW.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
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)

   It was briefly and was a mess then it wasn't...Praxidicae (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

   @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)

   More like there was a missing (UTC) and so the bot thought it was closed. Primefac (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

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)
8. Oppose. The lack of AFD participation is my biggest concern. Sorry! LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
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)

Neutral

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)

John M Wolfson How do I withdraw it? --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

General comments

• Bless, but unfortunately premature. Clean block log and good interest in the project. Just needs more experience in the usual areas and you'll be fine. Nick (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Nick: I am pretty sure you mean WP:NOTYET —usernamekiran (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  That too. Nick (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2020 (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.

About RfB

• WP:RFB

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Misplaced Pages community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Misplaced Pages:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Misplaced Pages:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

Related pages

• Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.
• Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Requests to remove the administrator access of another editor due to abuse may be made at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but you should read Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Grievances by users ("administrator abuse") and attempt other methods of dispute resolution first.
  • Misplaced Pages:Requests for de-adminship – Failed proposals to create a community-based process for de-adminship processes.
• Misplaced Pages:Miniguide to requests for adminship
• Misplaced Pages:Guide to requests for adminship
• Misplaced Pages:Advice for RfA candidates
• Misplaced Pages:Request an RfA nomination
• Requests for other user permissions can be made at Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions.

1. Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
2. Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
3. The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
4. Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
5. Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors

• Unsuccessful requests for adminship
• Requests for adminship
• Misplaced Pages adminship
• Misplaced Pages processes