Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jaranda (reconfirmation)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ganfon (talk | contribs) at 00:02, 5 July 2007 (→Discussion: support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jaranda

Voice your opinion (talk page) (40/0/0); Scheduled to end 02:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Jaranda (talk · contribs) - I was an admin for exactly a year now and a editor for two years with over 20,000 edits under the belt. I wanted another user to renominate me for adminship, but seeing a couple of other RFAs with the similar situation, like W.marsh and with the heavy backlogs at times, there is no need for waiting. I requested desyropping of my account the other day as I lost the passion for wikipedia and I didn't edit much for the last three months. When I became a normal user again, I noticed that the site has much to be done in the cleanup department and I could be an experienced hand there. I'm not going to be the most active user in wikipedia as I do have to work on my college studies, but I will try to help as much as I can. I could have easily requested my tools back, but I consider myself conterversal because I do comment occationally in the wikipedia review as wikipedia isn't perfect and the wikipedia review was the only wikipedia crtisism website on the net. I do also edit wikiabuse now and I prefer that than wikipedia review because wikiabuse is a website that us admins could learn from our mistakes in my opinion without ousting or making the editor look like a complete villian. I just don't like the name and the creator of the site. I can't stand the posts in wikipedia review that attack or harrass the editors though, especially SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and MONGO who I do consider as role models here in wikipedia as they went though alot of abuse and survived it, and I don't work with the trolls who are normally associated in the website though. I also don't agree that those sites should be linked here in wikipedia as it does hurt the editor alot and I respect the editor wishes. I hope my occational comments there doesn't affect my status as an editor, and if it does, please forgive me and remember, not everyone is perfect. I do also hold the record of the most RFAs with seven, but I was very immature back then and I abused RFA, but I have learned from those mistakes. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Reconfirmation of my adminship, I accept Jaranda wat's sup 02:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I admit I'm not going to be as active as I used to because of college. I will mostly do new page patrol, where I was one of the most active participants during my tenture as an admin. I would also work with image copyrights, and with the always tricky fair use, which can use my help again, especially after User:Robth derparture. I do consider myself as an expert in copyrights now and I dealt with them since January, 2006 and I am thinking a career in copyright law. I cleared out my watchlist (which was giving me stress and likely led to my March burnout) with the exception of a few articles, so I will be not really using my rollback button as much as I used to. I may work with WP:AFDs again as well, but I rather do article wrting then to work with that. If I get repromoted, I will stand for admin recall, in which I was most of my time as an admin. I will also mentor any newer admins that needs it.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I did wrote two featured articles in wikipedia, History of Miami, Florida and Selena, and over 200 articles, including a number of Good articles and Did You Know so I am an experienced article writer. Most of them as a former admin though, but I am heading back to article writing again, even if I don't get reconfirmed. My current project is Eric Gagne. Because of my writing experience I understand all of wikipedia sourcing policies and the living people policies better than most. I'm not the best with grammar and with copyediting though. I'm also a supporter that people who go through RFA should have some decent writing experince under the belt, as without it, an admin could be prone to mistakes easier, especially dealing with BLP.
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 dealt with a number of conflects in the past. My main conflect was the banned user Blu Aavark, (I'm not sure about the spelling but many users know who I'm talking about) who started to harrass me and in the chaos I temporarly lost the password for my account for about a month. I didn't treat that case so good. I also did some dumb admin mistakes before including some conterversal blocks and AFD closes but I learned from those mistakes. A recent conterversal block I did was of former admin Gurch, who I saw disrupting Gracenotes RFA, but I blocked him after he stopped so I made a mistake there. I also had several conflects in IRC, but I was normally immature when I logged on and it's mainly my fault. I'm not active in IRC anymore but I am avaliable there if someone needs to talk to me.
4. You hold the record of the most RFAs with seven, but only three are listed in the "RfAs for this user:" box. Would you please clarify this? -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Five of them was with my old user name Aranda56, here are the links withdrawn, withdrawn, My closest one out of those, 73%, withdrawn early and Withdrawn as well, all of them over a year ago. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 18:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

RfAs for this user:

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jaranda before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Sure, I'll support you for reconfirmation. Why not just email ArbCom? Keegantalk 03:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbcom has nothing to do with this though, it was my own opinion. Thanks anyways :) Jaranda wat's sup 03:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to be clear: you choose reconfirmation when you could just email ArbCom or post to the B'crat's board to be resysopped. Keegantalk 03:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - was an admin before, why not now? Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, if you're active again, then you should be able to get your admin status back as well without much trouble. Voluntarily going through RfA is quite reassuring as well. --tjstrf talk 03:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Jaranda changes his mind faster and more often than anyone I've known, but there is no reason not to give him the buttons back. -- DS1953 talk 03:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Better than ever. Dfrg.msc 03:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support this rather pointless exercise :) Majorly (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Jaranda, maybe you should take breaks more often. --MichaelLinnear 03:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. It took him something like six or seven tries, but when Jaranda finally became an administrator he was one of the better and more productive ones around from what I saw. I'm happy to support this for the eighth time. :-) Grandmasterka 03:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support-Hmm....user goes through RFA again to get their tools back, when all they probably had to do was post 2 lines on the bureaucrat noticeboard. :) Anyway, you were a great admin and I'm sure you'll continue to be. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 03:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, but this time hold onto the tools! No big deal, after all. Andre (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Good job actually taking this seriously and not just using it as a "hey look, everyone likes me!" stunt. -Amarkov moo! 03:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Very Weak Support. He's a valuable contributor, but his RfA statement is one of the sloppiest I've seen recently. It's riddled with misspellings and other issues. Jaranda, it's hard to take your request seriously when it's fraught with errors. Majoreditor 04:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    His typos come from a physical disability. Keegantalk 04:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry about that, I do have an issue with grammar and spelling my entire life, and I did fail a RFA because of it. I do depend alot on a special spell and grammar checker that I use on my desktop computer but I don't have it with me as I am staying in the FIU dorms and the computer I'm using now doesn't even have access to Microsoft Word so there is nothing I can do about it. I did learned alot with my spelling and grammar thanks to wikipedia though, just see my edits from 2005 :). Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 04:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please keep this to yourself, but I too run just about all my posts through Microsoft Word's spelling and grammar checker before I post. I even go so far as to use the grammar checker's grammar and style setting. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Was a good admin before and I think that they can be so again. (aeropagitica) 04:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Given my past interactions, I'll readily support, but I hope that Jaranda would be clearer in explaining his actions, like in this case, where the action was allowable per WP:SNOW, but the given explanation made the action of dubious and ambiguous "legality" (for lack of a better word). —Kurykh 05:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support There is no reason to not give him back the tools...add a flamethrower just for doing the right thing and seeking community input on the matter.--MONGO 07:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But flamethrowers incite flame wars! :) Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Ok, but...Moreschi Talk 07:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Welcome back. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, of course and welcome back. =) Terence 08:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oh most definitely! :) Sebi [talk] 09:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Don't need reconfirmation. Got desysopped on personal request, in uncontroversial circumstances. No reason to deny adminship. --Dark Falls talk 10:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Rlevse 12:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Welcome Back...--Cometstyles 13:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I appreciate your desire to do it this way even though you didn't have to. It shows you understand that community support is important. JodyB talk 13:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. He wanted to relive RfA again. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support no reason not to. - Zeibura (Talk) 13:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, just don't quit again :) Wizardman 15:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mind striking the neutral just below? Just increases clarity. Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, welcome back. Next time you get smoe burnout, just walk away or just don't use your tools, don't bother with the de-bit'ing! — xaosflux Talk 15:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Apparenly the candidate wants the full support of the community before he gets it back, which I don't mind supporting him for. Kwsn(Ni!) 15:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support... —Anas talk? 15:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support with absolutely no hesitation. ElinorD (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Very strong support Jaranda has always done excellent work here. Acalamari 16:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong support as always. :) I also don't think this is necessary, as I believe the respect for the candidate is universal. Xoloz 16:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. RFA is not a vote, but heck, it's decided anyway. I vote for Jaranda. :) Shalom Hello 16:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support with even less hesitation than ElinorD :D —AldeBaer (c) 16:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, of course. While it's probably not necessary to go through this step (see Moreschi's comment above) I can understand sometimes wanting the reassurance of a reconfirmation. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Reconfirmation says a lot about his character. – Steel 17:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Anyone that chooses to go through RFA again is the sort of loony we need! GDonato (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - Normally, I look for trustworthiness. In this case, consensus in his last RfA established that Jaranda had trustworthiness. Under these odd circumstances, I think it appropriate to look for untrustworthiness. Jaranda is not untrustworthy and the tools should be restored to him. Also, his willingness to go through RfA rather than some other route to get the tools shows a lot of character. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong Support A great editor, and a great admin. Good to have you back, Jaranda. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. This does seem a bit unnecessary, but Jaranda is to be commended for wanting to "double check" with the community before going ahead and using the buttons. Good on him for doing so, and he certainly has my trust. gaillimhConas tá tú? 18:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Absolutely yes. My long experience with J has been nothing short of a pleasant experience, and his admin actions have been unquestionably in th best interests of our project. Phaedriel - 19:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per above, seems like the time is right Modernist 20:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - About time... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. (edit conflict) Definate support, if you are voluntarily going through RfA again then you obviously aren't going to do anything bad - if you were, you would have just asked a crat, and had it done privately :) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Great contribs, good answers, doesn't look like they'll abuse the tools...no way i can oppose. Ganfon 00:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Protest oppose - you can (and should) be reinstated on demand. I don't like the pointless display of process. RFA is not a "pat me on the back and tell me I'm doing a good job" - it's an opportunity for the community to state that someone can be trusted with the tools. Since you can be re-sysopped on demand, there is no need for an RFA, and thus I make the protest oppose. I would say, as a side note, that beyond correcting misinformation about yourself or removing libel, I don't think that it's a great idea for us to be involved with WA - it gives it legitimacy. --BigΔT 23:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

I'm a bit reluctant to give the tools to someone who keeps quitting and requesting desysopping over and over. Granted, you've been an admin before, so I'll probably change this. Wizardman 03:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't quitted in over six months though and the last time I requested desyropping was in the Blu Aabark (sp) fiaco back in October. The other time I asked for desyropping was when my senior year of high school started and I needed to try to consertrate on that instead of wikipedia, but that failed obviously :p. I created this RFA to see if I'm trusted with the tools. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thought it was longer than that. Okay, nevermind. Wizardman 15:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jaranda_(reconfirmation)&oldid=142563074"