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

Aranda56

Final (19/11/6) ended 21:32 November 9, 2005 (UTC)

Aranda56 ( talk · contribs) – This is a second nomination. first nom in which I withdrew a few hours later with a vote of 6/6/3. I wasn't really planning to ever self-nominate again.. but I really belive that I could be a great admin and I want to contribte and help the community with my powers as soon as possible as late serge of vandalism and impersonators of me which Im being affected by make me want to nominate myself rather to wait. I could normally be found around in AFD and RFA and doing heavy RC Patrol which is hard without a rollback button.And I already done some admin type work like closing Keep AFDs. I also do some cleanup of articles and removing of POV as well. I try to be a fair editor who normally avoid conflicts. I do my best to listen and I generally go with my own opinion instead of others . I have over 2600 edits in only two months and two weeks, but its not too little. I don't know if Im going to be accepted or no cause of time I only been here 2 and a half months and I also got slight consern over my first 2 edits in here as well over a month back. 2 Pages which I done vandalism while I was a clueless newbie but I hope that u guys help forgive my mistakes and Im ready to yield a mop and busket.I know this is a very big risk and the opps of not succiding is 60% around there and Im not planning to self-nominate again but Im going to try and hopefully pass. And I also hope that you can judge me in the quality of my edits rather than the time. JAranda | watz sup 02:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept as its a self-nom -- JAranda | watz sup 02:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Another withdrew. I was too impatient in listing this adminship and I should have known better so I will withdrew. A main reason why I listed this adminship so early after was mainly for the rollback button to fight vandalism. I requested for it in here Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges and I promise this time I mean it wont renominate myself for admin. I will just wait no matter how long it takes for someone to nominate myself for admin. Thanks alot for all your support -- JAranda | watz sup 21:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Support

1. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Support, at least so he can unblock himself when hit with AOL blocks. Outside of that, I've seen him very active reverting vandalism, so my statute of limitations on those first "clueless newbie" edits has expired. Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 03:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Support because my grandson drooled over the oppose keys. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
4. The bucket to the mop, come on. -- Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 04:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Support I am absolutely convinced of this user's earnestness and sense of fairness -- judgment and a dash of humility are qualities an admin needs that can't easily be learned. Spelling isn't everything :), and doesn't have much to do with mopping up and respecting consensus which I see as an admin's two main jobs. Xoloz 04:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Support Good Editor PRueda29 07:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Support — we need more admins, this is a positive editor. Wackymacs 08:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
8. Support. Diligent is the word. -- Nlu 09:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
9. Support - I see the user very active in reverting vandalism. That's what is needed! Svest 11:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™} reply
10. Support - I see him active all over the place. The oppose reasons seem very weak to me. We want people who want to be admins. -- Cel e stianpower ^háblame 16:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

    I see nobody on Oppose criticising your reasoning, so maybe you should try the same and simply express your opinions regarding the candidate. -- Sn0wflake 23:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

    Sorry, it came out wrong. I meant, "the reasoning for the various oppose votes cast havn't convinced me that he would make a bad administrator". I apologise and did not mean to insult at all. -- Cel e stianpower ^háblame 18:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

11. Support - Fir e Fo x (RFA) 17:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
12. Support Johann Wolfgang 18:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
13. I'll have today's sandwich, and may I have a look at the wine list? — JIP | Talk 19:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
14. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 20:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
15. Support great vandal fighter, give him the tools. - Greg Asche (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
16. Support it is afterall, "no big deal".-- MONGO 00:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply
17. Support. He's been impersonated by vandals 9 times, including WoW twice? He must be doing something that the vandals don't like! ;-) -- Idont Havaname 01:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply
18. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 01:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply
19. Support. -- NSLE _{( Communicate!)} ^{< Contribs>} 05:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Oppose. Obviously a dedicated RC patroller, but I think two and a half months is too early. Some experience only comes with time. -- NormanEinstein 03:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose. Too short a period. Not much difference in the wording of the first and second noms (looks like copy-paste). Just as I would not trust an editor w/o usage of good English, so is the case with an admin. belive, contribte, serge, consern, busket - 5 spelling mistakes in a self-nom coupled with bad grammar leave me with doubts if this is serious. -- Gurubrahma 04:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

   Its true my spelling is just horrible :( but English is my main languge and the 3rd response was more or less a copy paste as I used my first nomination as a example for my second nominationa nd I havent had any known conflect since that nomination but I took nearly a half a hour for the nomination and this is serious. -- JAranda | watz sup 04:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

3. Oppose Too soon. In the previous self-nomination you stated: Withdrewing I'll let someone nominate me later around late November when I reach 3 months just too soon. That was on 8 October. You seem a little impatient. You are doing work however, so I'll be glad to support later on. Turnstep 14:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
   • • Thats True Im a bit impatient and should have known better but its cause all those imperonators 10+ so far and vandalism made me looking at adminship a bit early than expected. -- JAranda | watz sup 15:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose: Today, he removed a number of red links from List of male singers (example [1]). Some of these were people who are linked from a number of articles. For example, removing Mark Murphy. Doing a quick google test for "Mark Murphy" and jazz returns 98,300 hits ( [2]). Another removal of a red link ( [3]) was to a perfectly valid term in tennis. There's a reason for red links; they help show what articles are most needed (see Red Link Recovery, [4]). Removing these links can actually disrupt Wikipedia. Placing this in juxtaposition of the Rod Strickland article created by you with redlinks ( [5]), your handling of redlinks seems very unusual, and perhaps too casual. I am also concerned about the removal of Abdul Kalam from 21st century labeled as "Reverted POV" in edit summary ( [6]). This person is the president of the 2nd largest (by population) country in the world. I have a hard time understanding how inclusion on a list of influential people in politics could be considered POV pushing. Dr. Kalam is still missing from that list. More care in deletions is needed; your impact here was negative and ongoing. There's also a curious deletion of content on the Nelly article ( [7]). The edit summary says only "revert". The content deleted is very similar to the line right above it in the version where it was not yet deleted ( [8]). On what grounds did you delete the content? I also have some mild objections to improper stub sorting ( [9], [10]) which was later corrected by others ( [11], [12]), and improper speedy tagging of Lenny and Squiggy ( [13]) which I feel was premature, and was corrected a few hours later ( [14]). If you're not familiar with a topic, you should be careful before tagging it, much less speedy deleting it. Any of these things by themselves would not be sufficient for me to vote oppose. But, taken as a whole, I feel there is a pattern of behavior that shows the nominee to be too quick to judge, and less careful than needed for an administrator. I do feel the nominee's heart is in the right place. Given improvement in carefulness of their approach to deletions of articles and content and a few months time, I may be inclined to support. -- Durin 16:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
   • When the Abdul Kalam was added it also had something called Scientific Predictions which was POV and was removed and It is true that I dont normally check if the redlinks are notable people as that list I took out red links normally thinking that it was just normal people that added there names in there as that list List of male singers could be a easy target of vandalism also. Im not good in stub sourting and the speedy I placed was more of a canditate for cleanup and I was to quick too judge there. And with the Nelly article I reverted that cause it said (not yet released as a single) which is for me cryistal ball -- JAranda | watz sup 16:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose - too soon, be patient and go forth and produce edits. Vsmith 16:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose, way too soon. There is no need for rush, so maybe you should wait at least a few months before nominating yourself once more. -- Sn0wflake 17:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose, previous RfA was too recent. Patience is a virtue, and adminship isn't going anywhere. I've been here years without trying to get get the mop, I'm living proof that it's possible to last a few months! Lord Bob 18:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose Too soon. Privat e Butcher 19:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose too soon after old nom. Seems a bit over eager for adminship, and also per Durins reasons. Job e 6 20:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose My understanding was that this re-nomination would happen in late November and, if it had, I would have supported. Adminship isn't a big deal, there's no hurry. I expect to support early next year. Dlyons493 Talk 01:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

    Oppose Doesn't recognise the death of Scott Keith. Bad timing removing so called 'vandalism' just because he checked Yahoo. Far too hasty. Needs to respect someone far greater than him, Mr Scott Keith R.I.P(stricken by Nlu 03:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)) reply

11. Oppose Durin makes a very convincing argument here. I simply do not feel this user has enough experience on wikipedia yet. Also renominating for RFA less than a month later strikes me as showing lack of experience with the typical RFA process. In a few months I might consider supporting but for right now I have to say "oh hell no"   ALKIVAR ™ 08:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Neutral. It seems this guy would be good admin, but it seems he is really in a hurry - resubmitting rfa only in 2 weeks... I would recommend to wait another 2 weeks at least. -- Monkbel 12:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

   Almost a month ago acually ;) -- JAranda | watz sup 15:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

2. Really these quickie admin nominations are not good for the candidates. I won't oppose or support because I honestly don't think the candidate has been around for long enough for us to get to know him. -- Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Seems like a great user, thus I don't want to oppose, but the others have made a valid point about the swiftness to re-nom yourself. Please, please try again later, but come back when a little time has passed. Thanks and good luck, [[ User:Mys e kurity| Mysekurity]] ^{[[ additions | e-mail]]} _{02:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)} reply
4. I'm torn on this one. On one hand, I know that you mean well, and you actually try to improve Wikipedia. I am also for young people being interested in Wikipedia and applying for adminship and all that, myself being in that position. However, on the other hand, there are some areas I'd like to see improvement in before I vote for approve. The spelling and grammar for one, and more time on Wikipedia for another. Reading of the articles in the Wikipedia namespace would be a plus; some users have complained about red links, and I've noticed that. If these questions are addressed I will be more than happy to vote for your adminship. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 03:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply
   • The red links are mostly my fault I will for now one look before I remove the red link in google but if its a red link that should be removed like Births June 6 , born 1988 Person Personal Future president of the United States than I will clearly revert it and if I see no google hits, or a vanity link or website spam link I will remove it as well. I honestly didn't think that removing red links from lists was a big deal. Now I know that it is -- JAranda | watz sup 03:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply
5. What is the rush? Give it some time so that you can demonstrate to the community your commitment to the project. Two months from now I will gladly support. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 12:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Neutral. I initially supported, since he is very good at fighting vandals, but I'm changing my vote in keeping with how I have voted on previous multiple self-noms. While he is a good editor, I think that multiple self-nominations (plus similar wording among them) show that he might be too eager for adminship. -- Idont Havaname 15:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Comments

• Guess your famous now see User:Aranda56 the wannabe admin on Wheels!. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Another Impersonator Im supriced and confused that WoW knows that early my adminship. -- JAranda | watz sup 06:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Your edit summary usage in the first 500 edits was 21%. In the last 500 edits, it's been 99%. Way to go! Constructive criticism; your English is terrible. You need to significantly improve your spelling abilities and your grammar. I would think your own self nomination would be something on which you would concentrate a fair bit of effort. Despite that, there are numerous errors. I'm no spelling/grammar nazi. We all make errors from time to time. But, the number of errors demonstrated just here in your self-nom is surprising. Admins are looked up to as examples of how to be a great contributor at Wikipedia. Please, improve your spelling and grammar. -- Durin 13:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Will do -- JAranda | watz sup 15:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• I do my best to listen and I generally go with my own opinion instead of others -- Are you sure that's what you meant to write? —  mendel  ☎    #    01:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Yeah my bad english writing opps.. That means that I normally follow my own view but I listen to what others have to say. My fault :P -- JAranda | watz sup 01:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I whould first help clear out the ever growing AFD backlog which is for me my main task I will do as a admin. I will also help Curps block those vandal bots and impersonators which normally attack Wikipedia in a Current Basis and I know I got impersonated more than 10 times now. I whould also be very active in RC Patrol reverting Vandalism with the rollback button and help out closing and deleting in AFD and deal with speedy canditates accoudinly.I am known as a deletionist but Im going with a 2/3 majority in AFD no less no more.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Im not a good article writer see List of Sports Flops but I have written a few decent articles as well Manny Mota I have 8 articles to my credit. I also help out in baseball,basketball, and american football pages and also Rappers pages which is my strength and did some severe POV cleanup before see Tracy McGrady. I also trying to work Miami my hometown to a featured article.

A.

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. I normally try to avoid conflect with users but sometimes I get slightly stressed out. I was involved in a slight conflect with SPUI over some Traffic Circles in VFD but I mainly avoided it. Also lately I got my nerves being tried by User:Alpine88 who kept placing nonsense on many articles and I was the only one to reverted it because it was minor nonsense but still nonsense. And also I get slightly stressed out of vandals but I deal with it. If I become admin Im going to avoid stressesful situations like School Articles in AFD and other similar situations.

4. Have you edited under other user names? I ask because it's a bit unusual to see someone afd an article as their second edit. [15] — Cryptic (talk) 05:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

A. I have seen this site before having a AOL IP number and the first article in the random pages that I saw was a Radio Station which I thought it shouldn't be there and I blanked it not knowing better and a warning soon after let me to the AFD tag. That was the next page I saw I think and placed the afd tag thinking nn. Then I kept testing the AFD Tag with the Bridney Spears article which was reverted before I reverted back and also the FA article as well and than I started voting is what I belived what happened -- JAranda | watz sup 05:58, 2 November 2005 (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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.