Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Prashanthns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Prashanthns

(5/12/2); Scheduled to end 09:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate Enigma message 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WITHDRAW MYSELF It does seem like the Ayes dont have it ;) And well, I must really thank the ones who supported my nomination. An ironic thanks to User:SWik78 for a very nice way of saying things. This is as civil as things can get, and I only withdraw with pleasure and a sense of positive reinforcement. Thanks people for taking time to say things here, some nice and others nicer! Prashanthns (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Prashanthns (talk · contribs) - I have been on Wikipedia since 2005. I have taken a long break in between for a year. My contributions here have been multi-fold: from creating and contributing substantially to fighting vandals. While my experience with adding content to articles has given me a good exposure to the style policies and helps me copy-edit new articles, my experience with removing vandal edits has helped me to understand and interact well with new users. My experience with AfDs has been scarce although, I am familiar with the processes there. I have a fairly flawless track record of civility and have never been blocked for any reason. I dont foresee any chance of my abusing admin tools. On these counts, I nominate myself for adminship. Prashanthns (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

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: I intend to continue adding content to the articles I created as well as others that I watch. While, there is really no need for any administrative tools for this, the reason I started fighting vandals is because, I felt there is a need there for people here, as good article were blatantly getting defaced. I come across many vandal edits even as I 'hang around' wikipedia cleaning up articles. Cleaning up articles and bringing them up to the requirements of MoS is another priority for me. In these matters, I will strive to engage people in disagreement and will strive to reach consensus. Most of my recent exchanges with vandals have taught me that many of them 'convert' just be civility alone, and I shall continue to engage new users and try to turn them around. If that has not been possible, I will not hesitate to use admin tools to make them realize that sausage-making may not be an aesthetic process, but it sure can be kept clean!
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I would count some of the recent articles I created such as Draco indochinensis, James Ranald Martin and older articles that I created, that were very important like the Alma Ata Declaration to be important contributions. My contributions in improving the article on Biligirirangan Hills, Alexander Gibson (botanist) and William Roxburgh are also significant contributions of mine. There was a sense of satisfaction at salvaging new articles out of CSD while fighting vandals. This was the case with Cambridge University Department of Chemical Engineering and several other clean-up and style edits that I took up on articles that I stumbled upon.
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: Anger and consternation have thankfully not been my style. My recent exchange regarding 3RR while fighting vandals is a good case in point. After my second revert of an unconstructive edit, I engaged the IP editor directly. Meanwhile, a note warning me about 3RR was posted on my talk page, while in fact I was already out of reverting already. I presented my evidence to the admin in question and after a healthy exchange, the outcome was 2 specific sentence change suggestions regarding toning down of the 3RR-warning template, which the admin did speedily! I was impressed at how conflicts can sometimes be used to generate good content, if civility is maintained, and we dont get reactionary.
4. (Optional) - You receive numerous complaints from contributors that recently, their contributions and an image they added to an article on a living person has been deleted, with an OTRS ticket number cited as the reason for the deletion. You also notice that the material that has been deleted from the article has been left on your talk page, in other articles, and the image still exists on Commons, with a suitable licence. What would you do ? Nick (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
A: I will immediately contact the OTRS volunteer that made the change by email. I will also inform him of the image being still available in commons and find out the rationale for this action. If justified, I will deem the action as having been necessary per the OTRS policy. Else, I will inform ComCom. Prashanthns (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

  • Good luck to you in the future Prashanthns. Come back in a few months and try again! Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. i suppose that you are right. thank you for replying, and i suppose it is good to see that people on Wikipedia are actually human, so thanks, and go get that Admin status —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themightysquirrel (talk • contribs) 12:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    Note: This user has made few or no contributions outside of this RfA. Tiptoety talk 14:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support His level of article-building experience is acceptable, he seems to polite enough, and his CSD and vandal-fighting work looks good. Epbr123 (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support You seem to be a civil contributor. I ran through some of your contributions (there were a lot in a brief period, so I apologize I couldn't read them all) and everything seemed courteous. I would advise to take the sysop-ing slowly at first and use the opportunity to watch and learn from others. Also, be careful not to get burnt out! We want you to stick around! Keep up the good contributions. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support per why the hell not. Will not abuse the tools. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. -- Naerii 17:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose In a review of contributions over the last month, candidate looks like a solid contributor. However, the candidate has only been actively editing for under 1 month. Not enough experience in general, and outside of reporting vandals, I don't see much activity in wikipedia space. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    Please do see the articles I have created, which are listed on my user page. Most of the articles I have created in fact were in 2005. Many of my content contributions are listed on my user page. It's true that my recent contributions have been on reporting vandals. But, I do hope that my content contributions and the few wikipedia space contributions that I have made, such as the ones on AfD should be good. I am counting more on my strong edit history, trustworthiness with tools and my intention on helping with chores to get me through. Prashanthns (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. oppose prior to last month you only had under 800 edits in 3 years. Then last month you had over 5000. It is hard to judge your editing style and your approach to different situations with such a skewed history. I would suggest you look into admin coaching and spend the next couple of months building up a consistent track record for review and then come back. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    My earlier contributions are to conent and my recent spike in edit count is because of vandalfighting and clean-ups. It's unfortunate that this creates a skew, but I invite you review my earlier contributions to see my editing style. Noted your suggestion reg coaching. Thanks. Prashanthns (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Candidate's contributions have been helpful, but, being mostly reverts of vandalism and additions to lightly-edited articles, they don't indicate much about editorial judgment, good or bad. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    Although, I might flinch at the 'additions to lightly edited articles' comment, it hardly matters. I have a good hold on editing policy as my handling of new users and vandals will show. All the articles I have created and others that I have contributed to did not see any significant conflicts, and I can hardly help that. I invite you to decide on what you do see, rather than what you dont. Prashanthns (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Your work is good, but I think an admin candidate should have several consecutive active months, see my standards page where it says, "At least 100 edits per month for last several months." You only have one. And also where it says, "Doesn't challenge all the oppose !votes." Useight (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - I can't get a feel for how this user operates give the sporadic/erratic nature of the editing. Furthermore, your answer to question 1 is confusing with regards to adminship. And by confusing, I really mean irrelevant. Don't get me wrong, you seem like a great contributer (good anti-vandal work too), but I don't think you fully grasp the idea or the role of being an admin. And I'm also suspect of your first support vote. Although, I will admit that I'm willing to disregard it in this oppose. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    No need to be suspicious. Looks genuine to me; original oppose was probably down to the re-instating of a CSD tag by Prashanthns here (admin link only). Rudget 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    I'll strike that part of my oppose out : ) Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Too inexperienced. 5000 edits in the past month is not enough time to gather and mindfully know all policy that is associated with administrator duties. Could support in the future, but not now. Rudget 15:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose but with moral support - A month with 5000 edits does not give me an image of dedication or continuous maintenance to the encyclopaedia, but keep it steady and this oppose might just turn into a support next time. Keep reaching! asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 15:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Sorry, but I must agree with my compatriots in saying that you need a more consistent track record. ArcAngel (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    Hesitantly responding. Thanks for all the suggestions, but just to set my track record straight, a lot of my contributions have been in 2005 and 2006. The recent 'surge' (pardon the pun ;) is due to vandal fighting interspersed with cleaning up. Just hoping that this is note. Thanks. Prashanthns (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    Pras, please understand most of these oppose votes are because you haven't consistently edited in consecutive months for about two years. We are not opposing because of the 5,000 edits in April, but rather because of the sparsity and spread-out editing in the past. No one is implying they were insignificant, rather a certain recent editing consistency is looked for in admin candidates. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Moral support - keep up the good work, read everything on adminship, develop some articles, and request adminship again in about 3 months. (In the meantime, it would be a good idea to withdraw this nomination.) The Transhumanist    16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    Please don't suggest to candidates that they withdraw their nomination when they have at least two solid editors that feel they are worthy of the bit. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    Which is unimpressive compared to the nine who don't. (Ten, really, but chiming in on the Oppose side for me would be superfluous.) Is there any RfA that would succeed based on a single busy month? Besides that, I'm blinking at the notion of 200+ edits a day; it seems more tinkerhammering and racking up an edit count than thoughtful editing.  RGTraynor  16:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    I wasn't saying that it doesn't look "grim" for the candidate, but I find it discourteous to request/suggest withdrawing when there is potential, albeit slight. This is not a newbie that meets WP:SNOW. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    When you'd need 26 straight editors to vote Support just to offset the Opposes, yeah, this is a snowball.  RGTraynor  16:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    Considering the status of the RfA, I don't see anything wrong with recommending a withdrawal. I'm sure there are editors who aren't Opposing simply to avoid a pile-on. However, I find TTH's style confusing. Moral support in the Oppose section? IMO, it should either be in the support section of simply a comment in the discussion. Enigma message 17:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    I reinforce my suggestion that the nominee withdraw, because one month of experience gives this candidate a snowball's chance in hell of receiving adminship at this time. This RfA will be nothing but a distraction to him and others, and their time would be better spent elsewhere, such as working on the encyclopedia. In 3 months, assuming he performs as well as he has so far, I would be glad to nominate the candidate myself. But one month is not enough time to generate the trust needed to become an admin. There are two reasons for this: more experience in the Wikipedia community and encyclopedia are needed by new admins to reduce the learning curve they face when they are granted the mop and reduces the likelihood of admin errors (which are particularly stressful for editors, and reflects strongly on Wikipedia - we need competent admins with some familiarity with the nuances of Wikipedia). Second, new accounts could be veterans who failed RfA under another account name, in which case they generally need more than a month to prove themselves (I see starting over as fine, but if an editor has turned over a new leaf, some time is needed to prove it). The Transhumanist    17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    That's an invalid reason and should be discounted by the closing bureaucrat per WP:GRFA - RfA specifically instructs editors to nominate themselves. Self-nomination is part of the RfA process, which was developed by community consensus. Opposing a nominee for following the nomination process is disruptive to that process, and should be disallowed. As RegentsPark so aptly put it, Kurt's reason is like saying "'it's ok for people to want to run for office but I will only vote for candidates who either don't want to run for office, or candidates who can cloak their desire behind a facade of disinterest.' Seems an odd sort of principle (IMHO) because, if everyone followed this principle, office bearers would either be disinterested in the office to which they are elected or, um, dishonest (in at least one way)." The Transhumanist    17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose I hate to snow on the parade but I have to say that I oppose this request based on the timing, I do not oppose it based on the editor. Also, Prashanthns, based on what the general consensus seems to be building towards, please don't think that the last month's edits were in vain. You've done great work and no one is challenging that. I don't doubt that only a few more months of that type of contribution to the project will get you another nomination. However, I will echo Kurt Weber's concern and advise that you wait until someone else in the community nominates you. When you're truly deserving of the mop, which I believe you will be one day soon, your work will be noticed by others and they will take the initiative to nominate you for adminship. Keep up the good work! Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose not much I can say at this point except, per all above.--KojiDude (Contributions) 17:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral for the moment. I want to look through some of your many contributions this month, but don't have time at the moment. I'll note, though, that you do seem to have a good grasp of policy, and you have been very, very active in vandal and CSD work - and I also see several articles where you removed CSD tags and assisted in copyediting to create some workable stubs. Just curious, do you have a particular article where you've done a lot of work? Good luck, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for the encouraging words (and heavy adjectives :)). Some of them are Biligirirangan Hills, Hanumappa Sudarshan, William Roxburgh and Draco indochinensis. And, yes, I strongly believe that human interactions can decrease more vandalism than templates. Also, I have ended up doing clean-up on many of the articles that I tag. No point tagging and moving on, right. Thanks again. Prashanthns (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks, I'll have a look. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. In 3 months of productive, consistent editing. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2008 (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.