Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aranda56 5

Add links
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.

Aranda56

[edit]

Final (5/3/2) ended 06:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Aranda56 (talk · contribs) – This is a really useful guy. He listens, he does great work, he tags a lot of unsourced images, but he could as well dealign with them afterwards rather than chasing some of us other admins. He withdrew his last nomination since he thought he was going to be away, which only shows he's going to be responsible about the sysop bit, he's not just aspiring it for the sake of being an admin. So let us give this guy the tools-- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination --Jaranda wat's sup 05:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC) I withdraw as I accpeted that RFA for all the wrong reasons and please, please delete it. Thank you --Jaranda wat's sup 06:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. support -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support He was winning last time Mjal 05:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per last RfA. --Aaron 05:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. He has been here for a long time and made a mulitude of good contributions spread throughout the project, he reverted my page after a vandalism and many others as well. He has proven himself trustworthy and he should have the adminship tools.--Dakota ~ ε 06:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support despite the objections in his RfAs I've seen nothing to make me believe he won't make a good admin, and my interactions with him have left me the impression that he's genuinly dedicated to the project, which is great. There is some merit to objecting to the short time between nominations, but ultimately it seems like people are mostly objecting to him running for admin, not to the idea of him actually being an admin. The ends justify the means in this case, I think he needs a mop. --W.marsh 06:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I hate to oppose, because Aranda is a fine editor, but it has been less than one month since you last withdrew. I would like to see a bit more time between nominations in a siutation like this. Sorry. --LV (Dark Mark) 05:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for clarification, is there a specific reason why should there be time limit between RfA nominations or why do you believe it's necessary?--Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 05:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Will answer on your talk page. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Very reluctant oppose. Aranda, I really don't want to oppose you. You're a fine editor, and you always make efforts to change when people ask you. Well, except here... I really think that you appear far too desperate for the admin position, far too impatient to wait for it to come your way, since you deserve it, and your stunt where you "quit" just to see what people would say about you didn't go over well with me. If this RfA fails, which I hope it does not, I implore you to wait 2 months before trying again. Mo0[talk] 06:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I left because I needed a break anfd I thought I was going to be inactive soon which later found out to be false, it wasn't no stunt. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak, weak oppose per Mo0. WikiFanatic 06:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. This is becoming a monthly ritual despite people recommending that you give it at least two to three months after the last attempt. [1] Why do you always come back too soon? David D. (Talk) 05:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to add that I do not agree with your rationale below either. You want us to consider your last RfA as your 3rd on Dec 8th "the last one I withdrew with 19-5-0 as I thought I was going to be inactive soon which I later found out it wasn't the case, and I wasn't that interested in adminship also so I want that RFA forgotten" But why should we forget that RfA? Have you forgotten there were significant copyright issues brought up at the time? [2] You have not addressed whether you have an understanding of copyright issues at all in this RfA. David D. (Talk) 06:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cannot oppose in good faith. Cannot support either as I agree this is too soon. Try around April, or May. NSLE (T+C) 05:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 97% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 05:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Aranda56's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • I had 4 prior RFAs in 4 months, the last one I withdrew with 19-5-0 as I thought I was going to be inactive soon which I later found out it wasn't the case, and I wasn't that interested in adminship also so I want that RFA forgotten and instead follow this RFA. The other two RFA was here back when I was a clueless newbie and I withdrew and here in which I withdrew also. I know I'm a rather controversial editor with all those RFA's and I expect some opposes, but I'll understand the oppose votes and I am a rather quick learner. Thank you --Jaranda wat's sup 05:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I would mainly work with copyvio and no source images, which I been working with in the last month and it would be better to work with a delete button rather than asking in IRC or tag them for speedy. I don't do anti-vandal work nor AFD work as much as I used do but I still revert vandalism in my watchlist and a rollback button will be nice and I may close the occational AFD. I also need adminship powers to get the blocking power to unblock AOL Ips so I can edit as I contently get hit with AOL autoblocks and I'm sick and tired of that.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. One of my articles I gravely worked on and created, the History of Miami, Florida just got promoted into Wikipedia:Featured Article a few days ago and I'm very proud of that. I'm also proud on some of my work with sports articles in which I got 5 Did You Know? among them Earl Morrall and Nat Moore.
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. Yes I been in conflect before and honestly I dealt with it rather bad. I'm currently involved in Boothy443 RFAr, and in other conflects among them with user Fidelfoo with FAs, and I get rather worn out quickly after them. If I become a admin I will just try to avoid conflects period as I get to prone by them.
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Aranda56_5&oldid=1142577349"