Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jaranda

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.

Jaranda

[edit]

Final (55/17/15) ended 17:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Jaranda (talk · contribs) – Jaranda (formally Aranda56) has been active for the past 7 and a half months, participating in a range of activities including vandal fighting, AFD's, and article space edits. He has even founded a WikiProject and has written a featured article. In the course of these activities, Jaranda has created more than 100 articles and has accumulated more than 9,400 edits.

In the past, Jaranda (under the name Aranda56) did not succeed in 3 previous nominations (2 of which he withdrew). However, the main reasons that people have opposed these noms do not apply now. For the first two noms, Jaranda did not succeed because he had not been there long enough, which is no longer the case. For the third nom [1], there were a couple of leginamate complains, but Jaranda assures me that he has taken steps to reform himself to address those concerns.

I feel that a kind and committed user like Jaranda would make a great administrator, and would be a big help in vandal-fighting and closing AFD's. We need more users like Jaranda as administrators so that Wikipedia can continue to maintain itself as it grows, and can continue to be one of the best websites on the Internet. Where (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC) I withdraw, I'm clearly not ready for this. I won't run for adminship ever again --Jaranda wat's sup 17:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Super pre-nom support! Great user, deserves the mop. --Rory096 02:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Great job with everything I've seen, very open and always ready to listen -- Tawker 02:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per my nom :-) Where (talk) Clarify T1-reduce wikiStrife 02:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. When I first came on with the CVU, I was very surprized to see that Aranda wasn't already an admin, considering his hard work and dedication to Wikipedia. He has worked very hard and has put up with a lot during my tenure here, and I would look forward to see his work continue as an administraitor. --Pilotguy (talk ¦ ✉) 21:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support same as the last time. Dlyons493 Talk 21:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. — FireFox • T [21:23, 20 March 2006]
  9. Support again. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support looks good! ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 22:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support as last time (whichever iteration that was ;) ). --Syrthiss 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support seen him around, good fellow.--Alhutch 22:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support dedicated and trust-worthy Tim (meep) 22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Joe I 23:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. —Guanaco 23:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support.-R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Just another star in the night T | @ | C 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Moe ε 00:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support, second-most qualified non-admin at this time. Tough on vandalism, great contributor to AFD discussions, and he has also created and/or significantly improved several sports-related biographical articles, as enumerated on his userpage. Furthermore, he has learned to be the complete anti-thesis of m:dick without compromising his masculinity, there is nothing to suggest that Jorge would misuse admin tools, and I do not understand the oppose votes below. — Mar. 21, '06 [00:59] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    How do you rank the nono admins, out of interest??Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that he's previously been blocked for 3RR, surely revert warring admins aren't good for us. NSLE (T+C) at 01:05 UTC (2006-03-21)
  22. Strong Support like the last two times. He's clearly qualified and very friendly. I know few Wikipedians who have not been somewhat frazzled lately, and cannot hold opposer's complaints against candidate. Xoloz 01:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Helpful and friendly. AnnH ♫ 01:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Hahnchen 01:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, per all of the above. Helpful, friendly, good vandal fighter, good editor. I've seen no evidence that he's likely to become involved in revert wars, even if he has been previously blocked for breaking 3RR. Requesting the block implies that he saw his error and was truly sorry for it, as shown by his comments below. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 01:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support an insightful, solid editor, whom I entrust with admin privilleges. --Jay(Reply) 02:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, solid, veteran user.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Flowerparty■ 03:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support: Good and helpful editor. Tutmosis 04:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. support: Tireless contributor whose recognition with Admin status, evidently, is long overdue. Ombudsman 04:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call him tireless, he seems to burn out every fortnight or so. Also, "recognition with admin status"...we don't give it out as a reward for time spent here or good editing, otherwise SPUI would have it. (SPUI for admin!) Rob Church 17:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support: Good contributor. Olorin28 04:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support; I see him around, and his edits improve articles. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per above. --Khoikhoi 05:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Jaranda is very qualified to be an admin. His contributions are good. I would thoroughly trust him with the mop and bucket.--Dakota ~ ° 05:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I don't think there is anything to suggest he'll abuse admin powers. I am, however, a bit concerned about the issue raised by Lord Bob. While it seems that stepping back from the situation for a few hours and put Wikipedia aside has been a helpful strategy for him, I hope that he has enough sense to seek help if he is really burning-out and feels he can no longer cope. Nephron 06:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support Jaranda seems to be a valuable contributor whose name I see quite often. I'm confident he'll make good use of the admin powers. mdmanser 09:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. support personal interactions wih this user has give me an excellent impressionBenon 10:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Good contributor, and withdrawing for a while when one is stressed out is not a bad thing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. And I hope you take it easy next time when you're under wikistress ;-) --Tone 14:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support unconditionally.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. In the past I have not felt ready to support Jaranda, primarily because of communications issues. I have followed his progress and I believe he has earned my support. I'll admit that I cringe a little when he announces that he is leaving, but taking a break is exactly what he should be doing in those instances, though more quietly and with less finality. The bottom line, however, is that I think he knows the role of an admin and will handle the job appropriately. -- DS1953 talk 17:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support.  Grue  19:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support --Latinus 23:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong Support -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 00:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support!, per my promise here. Just the fact that he's stuck around here through 5 previous RfAs shows that he is much more dedicated than the average user here. How many people (not bots) can you name that have written over 100 articles, including a featured one? How good is this guy at reverting vandalism? Jaranda's many times more qualified than I am to be an admin, and I'm an admin (who he nominated)! He's one of the most underrated people here. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support as positive member of Wikipedia, lets give him a chance. Yamaguchi先生 00:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. NoSeptember talk 01:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support I see no strong evidence that this nominee will abuse his admin tools.--MONGO 02:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Although he has claimed leaving wikipedia several times, he was under pressure and he never left, he said that wouldn't happen to him again as an admin and I believe him wholeheartedly. I've seen him around here and there and he's made great edits, I have no problems with him and I wish him the best of luck in the future hopefully as an admin. -- Patman2648 21:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong Support, he is one of the best editors on Wikipedia. He also does admin coaching, he has enough experience on Wikipedia. Its time for him to handle the mop and bucket. --Terence Ong 08:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support --Ixfd64 09:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, seems unlikely to abuse admin tools. - Liberatore(T) 13:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. That's hot. Mike H. That's hot 19:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. I felt terrible about my reason for opposing him last time (spelling), since it seemed so trite. And I was all set to go support on this one. But I noticed something disconcerting: he seems to have a habit of declaring he's leaving Wikipedia forever, and then coming back. The reasons for these seem to be acute wikistress. I present into the record the following revisions from the history of his user page (this was only a fairly brief look, but I think I got them all):
    • Wants to quit - October 15, 2005 [2]
    • Takes an indefinite wikibreak, saying he likely won't be back - November 4, 2005 [3]
      • Proclaims he shall return after a few weeks - November 5, 2005 [4]
      • After this, leaves a quit message - November 6, 2005 [5]
    • Leaves again in anger over his RfA - December 8, 2005 #*[6] (reneges an hour later)
    • Another indefinite wikibreak - December 12, 2005 [7]
    • "I am leaving wikipedia." - January 6, 2006 [8]
      • Adjusts to "staying but almost inactive" [9]
    • Proclaims that, although he is trying to leave Wikipedia forever, he cannot. - January 15, 2006 [10]
    • Proclaims a long wikibreak because of editing problems on History of Miami, Florida (which later became an FC anyway) - January 25, 2006 [11]
    • "Bye" - February 4, 2006 [12] (declares in an edit summary that he is returning less than twelve hours later, both because of "no more stupid RFAs" and because of Comcast cable internet)
    • Again, declares he is leaving Wikipedia - February 8, 2006 [13]
    • Another indefinite wikibreak where he "may or may [not] come back", presumably because of userboxes. - February 27, 2006 [14] (declares this wikibreak no longer indefinite less than a day later)
    He seems to have a real problem with wikistress, with various problems coming up as recently as February. From what I have been led to believe, adminship is not a cure for wikistress, and I cannot entrust the mop to somebody who already spends so much time on a razor's edge with Wikipedia. Lord Bob 23:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained in question 3 --Jaranda wat's sup 23:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how that explains he wouldn't make a good admin. Having stress doesn't prove a user would misuse admin tools. Moe ε 01:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree it proves nothing, but it is evidence against that I find persuasive. I don't see that adding an admin who has attempted to quit eleven times in seven months, no matter how high his edit count is, can be a good thing. Lord Bob 01:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And pray tell, how is it bad that he left? Did he do something offensive, misleading or just plain bad by leaving. I should say not. Having a life outside Wikipedia is alright. The evidence shown isn't that pursuasive either. Moe ε 01:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that, in his eleven attempts to leave over the last seven months, he has proven that he is easily susceptible to stress, more than most of us as the raw numbers show. This doesn't mean he's a bad editor. It means that putting him in an even more stressful position, in my mind, is a bad idea. Lord Bob 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That still doesn't prove that he would abuse admin tools. Stress does not cause one to misuse the tools. Moe ε 01:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If we disagree on the basic point that "stress can make people do things they'd later regret", I don't think we're ever going to reach an agreement on this. Lord Bob 01:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. :-D No hard feelings Bob. Moe ε 02:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is interesting that Jaranda cannot accurately guess how long he will be on a wikibreak to deal with inevitable wikistress. However, I do not understand how this will affect Jaranda's behavior when he is not on a wikibreak. Where (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Lord Bob's observations (woohoo, you collected the diffs so I didn't have to!), weak answers to questions and perception that this user isn't - and perhaps never will - be suited for adminship. Rob Church 00:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per above, also see new questions below. Also, cannot have disruptive admins. NSLE (T+C) at 00:44 UTC (2006-03-21)
    I admit I do get very streesed out when something goes bad, but who doesn't. I tried to unsuccesfully quit or get burned out, several times but I keep coming back in one way or another because I'm too hooked. I know that I have a good chance of burning out rather rapidly if I get granted adminship, but I'm trying to avoid that to the best of my abilty. I would use my adminship powers in a non-burnout way like avoiding wheel-wars, avoiding closing close AFDs and avoiding undoing other admins decisions unless it's clearly done in bad faith and instead do simple admin work like reverting clear vandalism with rollback or deleting nonsense. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 01:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I admit I was a bit disruptive there, but that was when I was very stressed out about that RFA I accepted that foolishy becuase of some autoblocks I hit and I completly felt sorry there, I wasn't trying to be disruptive and I won't never be. --Jaranda wat's sup 05:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, per above combined with the fact of the 6 previous failed RfAs. -lethe talk + 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Drew out from a to-be-successful nomination I gave him not too long ago. I don't believe he's ready yet. Also showed impulse behavior to me back in January: He asked me to ban him permanently, then about an hour later told me not to. SushiGeek 04:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per above. Great editors don't always make great admins, and believe me adminship can be quite stressful. I'd advise a much longer break until the next RFA (if this one isn't successful) and I might then change to support. --kingboyk 09:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Lord Bob (thanks for the diffs!!). Jaranda has improved the communication problems mentioned last time around, which I applaud. But his responses to stress, his frequent threats (?) to leave Wikipedia, his claims of being "hooked" on Wikipedia, etc., all lead me to oppose. The candidate says he wants to "use adminship powers in a non-burnout way" but I am not confident that he has the judgement to stay away from that kind of trouble. FreplySpang (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose: Yes, he has surely done great work and he is a nice editor, but so many RfAs makes me feel higly uncomfortable. A respectable gap is perhaps required between RfAs. --Bhadani 16:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose (changed from neutral). Adminship is not a trophy and I just think this user has not demonstrated the temperament needed for an admin. I'm also concerned about the response to Titoxd's question below (NLSE #5). The rambling reply talks about "try to stop and prevent it if I become a admin" and "I am going to have a no tolerance policy on heavy wheel warning" without any indication of what concrete actions this implies. It makes me think this admin would tend to act first and think later, so I am reluctantly opposing. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. It's hard to predict how a user will behave when he becomes an admin, but Jaranda's behaviour in the past makes me fear what will happen if he starts blocking admins or performing other admin tasks that, even if he sticks to the rules, are contested by other parties. I definitely agree with the 'support' voters that he is very dedicated, and I don't think he'll abuse the tools, but I just don't think he'll be able to handle it, sorry. --JoanneB 22:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per the leaving tantrums. User has not shown the maturity to properly handle adminship. -Mask 02:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. I wish I could support. I really do. However, I don't think he's ready to consistently handle the wikistress of admin duties based on the comments above and his responses below. --Alan Au 05:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Per above. --Masssiveego 09:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose The melodramatics after each of the previous five RFAs seem to indicate a lack of maturity. Clearly Jaranda has the Wiki experience and his spelling has vastly improved, but the monthly RFAs and recent statements like "I feel unworthy and hated in wikipedia, so I'm leaving Bye"[15] leave me thinking he's not ready to be an admin. --NormanEinstein 14:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, as an admin, you will only face more stress than you did as an editor. Perhaps a barnstar would be a better reward for all your hard and stressful work. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per NormanEinstein. Stifle 15:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose (moved from neutral). The more I watch this, the more I realize I still don't want Jaranda to be an admin. He seems to really want adminship as a trophy, but hasn't shown yet that he could handle the stress. I really admire his recent contributions, and this is what made me vote neutral, but I realized that I was letting adminship be a trophy for good contributions, by balancing his good contributions against my doubt that he could handle being an admin. If he can take a rest from RfAs for 4 months or so and maintain his good contributions, then I'll be more convinced. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral I don't want to oppose, but I don't want to support either. This makes the sixth request for adminship in only seven six months. That demonstrates desperation rather than real thought over taking on the responsibilities of being an admin. joturner 21:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral for now. I want to see the answers to NSLE's questions. At first glance, it looks like a no-brainer support, but per the Lord Bob and joturner above, I have definite concerns about this user misusing admin privileges when the next wiki-breakdown occurs. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 01:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to oppose per further reflection and per answer to Titoxd's question below (NLSE #5). —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Per Lord Bob and joturner. — Rebelguys2 talk 02:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per above Prodego talk 02:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - Somehow, although a neutral vote doesn't count for or against, I think it's right for me to positively vote neutral. Admin status shouldn't be seen as a trophy, although it seems to be seen that way by most people who visit this page, including Jaranda. - Richardcavell 03:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Repeated failed request for adminship for short time makes me wonder how reliable this candidate is. Neither support nor oppose.--Jusjih 03:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Terrific editor. Unfortunately, I can't support for various reasons. Some of the oppose voters raise some significant concerns. --TantalumTelluride 05:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Has done great work, but so many RfAs makes me feel uncomfortable GizzaChat © 08:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral, I have to agree about so many RfAs. However, this can't be a sole criterion to oppose, otherwise his chances of being promoted would weaken every time he is nominated. So my only real concern is the amount of time passed between nominations. JIP | Talk 09:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral. - Mailer Diablo 13:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral per JoanneB's oppose. An excellent contributor, but I'm a bit concerned over his past behavior, particularly in his other RfAs. Robert 22:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral. per above Weatherman90 02:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral, drama doth not the sysop bit earn. Alphax τεχ 06:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral, a good user but the concerns over temperament worry me. Hiding talk 09:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Jaranda's a great editor, and adminship is no big deal... but it can certainly be stressful. Neutral for now. +sj + 10:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral. No more drama. pschemp | talk 14:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 21:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Jaranda's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • I had 5 RFAs acually the last one Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aranda56 5 happened almost two months ago and I withdrew from it because I knew better and I felt it was WP:POINT, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aranda56 4 I withdrew because of personal reasons and some vaild oppose votes, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aranda56 3 ended with 74% and the first 2 was time concerns.
  • I also going to be mostly inactive this week and in the next month because I'm taking ACTs and SATs and also Spring Break coming up so I there may be delay in answering any extra questions but I will answer them. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 20:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I got blocked for 3rr almost two months ago in the Super Bowl XL, but I knew I broke 3rr and I asked SushiGeek to block me for it in IRC, I later noticed that my 3rr was 3 reverts and one accidental revert that still counted because that article was getting badly edited, and I hit edit conflects a few times I asked to be unblocked. I would never do a revert war as that breaks wikipedia apart. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 01:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment blanking my userpages with the sign wikibreak was a mistake and I should know better. I do normally got on a few days wikibreaks every time I get stressed, but I doing it in a blank my page for everyone to see is a mistake and also the wording, I would keep my occational few day breaks to myself when I do one. Thanks--Jaranda wat's sup 20:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if this is going to make sense but I want everyone to hear about my opinion on about the mutiple times on why I wanted to quit. A few times was mostly because of wikipedia related, but most of the times I wanted to quit is beacuse of personal reasons. I'm a normal teenager and sadly wikipedia is taking time away from friends and stuff. I could handle wikipedia stress easily except for RFAs. I honestly never intended to be active in this site in the first place, and I tried to quit in occations because I want to become a normal teen again, friends and homework and going outside. My grades has acually been dropping because of this. I'm going to be much less active for now on as I do need personal time for myself, but I will be around, and I could handle adminship powers easily and will not burn out. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 23:29, 21 March 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 be careful with my adminship powers when I get them and avoid wheel wars as I think that is breaking wikipedia apart. I would normally deal with wikipedia chores such as delete no source, clear speedy articles and orphaned fair use images. I would also close AFD, CFD, IFD, etc. I would also do mass vandal fighting and a rollback button will be nice.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I created over 110 articles so this is a tough one ;). I will say the History of Miami, Florida article as I worked very hard to make it a Featured Article and I'm very proud of that. I'm also proud on some of my work with Wikipedia:Wikiproject Florida in which I created and helping out in Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League. I also got seven Did You Know? among them Earl Morrall, Jerry Reuss 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. Who haven't? Yes, I have been in quite a few conflects and yes I get stressed easily in conflects. I have avoided the mass userbox wheel war recently but I been in other conflects before, most recently with Geni over some magazine covers, but I managed to get that worked out. I also been in conflects in the Super Bowl XL article and with other users such as SPUI and Fidelfoo a while back. I do get rather worn out quickly and if I become a admin I will just try to avoid controversy period.

Questions from NSLe:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    • I would talk to the editor first in IRC or via email to tell that user to stop with the sockpuppets. If this continues, I would ask for a checkuser and post a comment in the Admins noticeboard and let a more experienced admin take the case from there. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
    • I won't revert the admin decision but what I may do is to either talk to the admin about the article, list the article on deletion review or search google so I recreate a better version of the article if I can. --Jaranda wat's sup 02:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
    • I will place a deleted page template in the article that keeps getting recreated and hopefully that will stop. If the user keeps vandalising my page, I would give them test1, test2, and after a few vandalisms I would block them for disruption. If the user never got welcomed at first, I would welcome them and hopefully he or she becomes a good editor. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    • I would check what is going on in the article first, I would warn both editors not to break 3rr in the article and try to meditate the situation and semi-protect the page. If another admin blocks, I would never wheel war with him/her and explain the situation in the talk page. If a RFAR is created I would comment on it and if it gets rejected, I would try to find a soulution to it without getting myself overstressed or worn-out. --Jaranda wat's sup 02:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Since your behavior under stress has been mentioned, what do you think of wheel warring and how do you plan on avoiding it in the likely situation that an admin decision of yours is criticized? (added by Titoxd(?!? - help us)) 04:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that wheel-warning is the worst thing in wikipedia since vandalism and I will try to stop and prevent it if I become a admin. Wheel warning is currently breaking wikipedia apart, especially with userboxes and a couple of variable editors, most notably Radiant left wikipedia because of it and several other users got desyropped. I am going to have a no tolerance policy on heavy wheel warning, and I would NEVER wheel war myself. If a admin decision of mine becomes critized, I will try to keep my cool, and resolve the situation without wheel warning, blocking, etc. And if I notice that the admin decision of mine is not pouplar, I won't mind a revert, I just going to avoid the conflect. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 04:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jaranda&oldid=1125659982"