Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aranda56 4

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.

[edit] Aranda56

Final (19/5/0) withdrawn 7 January 2006

Aranda56 (talk · contribs) - This is Aranda56's 4th nomination, I know. But he's been waiting for so long, and he really deserves it. He's an exceptional vandal fighter and RC patroller (he's always telling admins about articles to be speedied). Dang it, just give it to him already. He deserves it! :-) WikiFanatic 23:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate your acceptance of the nomination below this line:
  • I accept the nomination. I hope my previous incidents have been forgiven. Thank You. --Jaranda wat's sup 23:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I withdrew, Honestly this was the last chance I got in becoming a admin, I'm heading down the path of inactivty and if I become a admin, I probaly won't have time to use the powers as I got baseball season coming up, and also after baseball season ends, I'm going to have surgery for a bad arm defect that had since birth and I'm probaly going to be in a cast for months until fall, and after that I will be in my senior year of high school and my GPA is a bit low and I probaly won't be in wikipedia again. I withdraw my RFA, as I honestly have no time for wikipedia coming up and if I get elected I probaly won't have anytime to enjoy it. If you can I would also like it deleted but its probaly a no. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 01:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Obviously. WikiFanatic 23:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Has great knowledge of policy, and his spelling and grammar have gotten better (or he gets me to fix it :P). I know he threw a fit last time, but I don't think this reflects poorly on his ability to be an admin. I think he has matured since then.--Shanel 23:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, seen him around practically everywhere, and always comes off as an experienced user. «LordViD» 00:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Good editor. Olorin28 00:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support Great editor and Wikipedian, will benefit from the new tools. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strong support good editor and helps around the wikipedia. Deserves promotion. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. KHM03 01:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 01:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 01:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    You're a good user and all, but Durin's vote and evidence is pretty damning. NSLE (T+C) 00:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support — Even though he called me names. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 01:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support.He will do a good job and I think he can trusted with the extra tools.--Dakota ~ ε 01:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Extreme "Quit this opposing - he should have been an admin months ago" support --Celestianpower háblame 23:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Celestial Support Sceptre (Talk) 23:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Reasons for opposition (across all nominations) are either no longer applicable or are spurious. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    So admins do not need a good grasp of copyright violation? This is a serious question because i would be open to change my vote if you think that is not the role of an administrator. David D. (Talk) 00:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think this issue is likely to cause problems with Aranda's performance as an admin, as he seems open to further instruction on Wikipedia's policies on copyrights, and would probably instruct himself if he were to employ adminsitrative powers in dealing with copyrights. My impression of him so far is that he is quite responsive to serious concerns expressed by other users. The issues you've presented, while I agree that they need to be addressed, don't seem substantial enough to warrant prohibiting Aranda from using administrative tools; if he makes a few mistakes in this area as he is settling in as an admin, it's not a big deal. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support I believe I didn't vote in your last RfA because of your poor spelling and grammar, but you seem to be making a genuine efffort to improve. You're also a top-notch vandal fighter, and I have no problem supporting. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. I think it's great that you have 100% edit summaries. Though the grammar thing would have been a problem, it looks like it's improving, thus, my vote!--ViolinGirl♪ 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. Near-model editor from what I've seen. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support - even if withdrawn, I want to let you know that I support you. Renata3 02:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Strong Support, he is like an admin. He can be trusted with the admin tools. --Terence Ong Talk 03:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, too many nominations. First nomination was in october. Second and third and fourth nomination were each started less than a month after the previous one ended. Give it some time already. The first two hinged mostly on lack of experience, but there was significant objection to the third, and I strongly feel this needs some more time to be addressed. Radiant_>|< 00:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    Too many nominations? Not to be harsh, but that's a rather weak oppose reason. WikiFanatic 00:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    To paraphrase, the last nomination was less than a month ago, and there was significant opposition to that, and I strongly feel this needs some more time to be addressed. Radiant_>|< 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Radiant. Give it some time. Andre (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, I'm sorry but this is too soon, again, and on top of that there are copyright violations that make me sense you do not understand wikipedia policies as well as you should to be an administrator. Your first request for adminship was 8 October 2005 but you withdrew with the following comment:
    "Withdrewing I'll let someone nominate me later around late November when I reach 3 months just too soon."
    Instead of waiting two months you waited three weeks for your second request for adminship coming on 2 November 2005. Several users suggested that you should wait a few months:
    " so maybe you should wait at least a few months"
    " re-nomination should have happened 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"
    " 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 rather than waiting for the new year, at the earliest, you accepted a nomination four weeks later on 1 December 2005.
    The result of the third RfA was criticism of your impatience, lack of editing articles and more importantly sloppy use of grammar, especially poor syntax.
    Now after four weeks you has accepted another nomination for a fourth RfA. I find your impatience to be quite disturbing. I would have expected you to wait until at least February and possibly March. In my eyes every time you hurry this procedure along it is a negative against you. You are not listening to the advice that is being offered. I have no doubt you will be successful this nomination as you have made many friends (a good point) but it still worries me that most of your contributions are fighting vandalism and voting on RfA. How does this help you understand the process of building an encyclopedia?
    I will note there has been a considerable improvement in your edit summaries with regard to syntax. Obviously you have tried hard to improve in this area. I also note that you have made an effort to contribute to the encyclopedia. I'm sorry, however, but I still have my doubts that you are ready to be an administrator. I noted that one article you wrote was an almost exact copy and paste from another internet source. Certainly it is a copyright violation. At the time I warned you of this fact rather than put a copyright violation tag on the article, I was hoping to give you time to rewrite the article. I noticed that, as of today, however, that the article is still in violation of copyright. This is despite the fact that on the talk page you implied that you had rewritten the article. If Wikipedia administrators are to represent the community they need to understand the severity of such flagrant copyright violation. You seem to think this is a trivial matter otherwise you would rewritten the article by now. I have not checked your other articles for copyright violation but the fact that the Landry one has not been fixed is bad enough for me. I feel uncomfortable bringing this up as it seems like I'm playing gottcha. But I want to point out that the reason I looked at the article was to help you, if needed, with grammar. It was only then that I noticed the copyright violation since your supposed original work was almost too good with respect to grammar.
    If you had waited to seek adminship until late February early March, i.e. three months, I would have been less critical but this rush to get adminship is not good. You need to concentrate on quality. That means check for blatant copyright violation, think twice before nominating pages for deletion (a criticism from previous RfA's).
    I wish we could give you roll back alone as you are an excellent vandal fighter but given what is expected of an adminisrator in wikipedia, being an excellent vandal fighter is not enough (maybe I am wrong on this, I would appreciate input from others). If this was your second AfD after your first one in October I would almost certainly vote support, but it is your fourth. Give it time, come back in three months. Now, that means at the beginning of APRIL! I'm sorry but you really do need to show more attention to detail and patience. David D. (Talk) 23:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I just did some rewriting on it to avoid copyright violations in which I don't really see. I never really copy and paste it, I just found the info on the internet and I just used it as a main reference. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I replyed by personal emails. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose: I've reviewed the last 100 edits by Aranda56. What I've found is a bit unsettling. Before that, I'd like to point out strong agreement with what David D. said regarding the copyright violations on the Greg Landry article. Aranda56's lack of attention to this shows a casual disregard for copyright violations. That you "don't really see" how it is a copyright violation is astonishing. You say in answer to question 1 that you want to help out with copyright violations, but you do not seem to understand what a copyright violation is.
    In my review, I found several cases in which you do not seem to understand the proper tagging of images:
    • You tagged Image:Bobby Byrne.jpg using {{pd}} [1]. Yet, the image is taken from a non-Library of Congress website, and even if the image is courtesy of the Library of Congress, it may be subject to copyright. It's not a government work and thus not automatically in the public domain.
    • You tagged Image:Ceausescucourt.jpg with "{{pd}} TV Screenshot" [2]. We have a tag for that. Not surprisingly, it's {{tv-screenshot}}. PD and tv-screenshot are very different. The latter is fair use and not usable just anywhere. This is an important distinction which you do not seem to understand.
    These incidents, I don't think, are isolated. You tagged this as PD. Why? You tagged this as {{AustraliaGov}}, but the image came from a private website. That appears to be a copyright violation. If you are to be an admin, others will be following your lead. These copyright issues and your handling of them is hardly the example we want users to be following.
    Also, you deleted a user's endorsement from an RfC with the edit summary "Fixing" [3]. Why? That person's endorsement of that particular outside view is still missing. If this was not in error, this is vandalism. If it was in error, you need to be more careful with what you are deleting. I believe the impatience is a bit of a minor issue, though I would have liked to see you wait three months since your last failed RfA. I also think your use of English still needs dramatic improvement, as even your words in this RfA show (for example, it is "conflicts" not "conflects"). I think your heart is in the right place, but your talent is not up to the task yet. --Durin 00:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I probaly removed that comment by accident as I remembered that I accidently removed a part of the RFC it while making a comment and tried to fix it, but it looks like that user was voting while that happened. The Hobart_at_sea was a mistake, the Leiriadis map image had the summary of PD and I tagged it as such as it was a map, the Ceausescucourt I wasn't so sure what it was so I tagged it as both and I thought that baseball cards images are always in Public Domain. I'm still new to this image tagging thing as I started not that long ago and I of course make rookie mistakes on it. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 01:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I find no evidence that you tried to fix M0RHI's signature. Indeed, it's still missing. For Image:Leiriadis.gif, you overrode a nosource comment and instead chose to go with the {{PD}} from the original edit summary. Yet, we still have no source for the image. That is improper. For Image:Ceausescucourt.jpg, if you were unsure how to tag it you should have asked for advice rather than improperly tagging it. --Durin 01:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I honestly never knew that I removed M0RHI comment until now and I would had fixed it if I knew. and I'm tagging the Image:Leiriadis.gif as nosource as I saw the original edit summary as PD by the user and I thought PD and that was a mistake in my part. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I have given this nomination much thought, Jaranda is an excellent vandal fighter, but I find that the problems this user has in certain areas, articulated by David D. and Durin above, mean that I cannot support at this time. Whilst I recognise that he would make good use of certain admin tools, particularly the rollback button, I do not feel that this would outweigh the problems of promoting a user whose grasp of policy is not complete (I believe it would be irresponsible to promote a user in the hope they would be "further educated" on the job). Also, given the level of opposition last time around, I don't think enough time has passed since his previous RfA for me to properly judge whether he has dealt with the issues highlighted. All this being said, I genuinely hope that Jaranda comes back in two or three months, having dealt with the highlighted issues, because I believe he would make an excellent admin in the future. Rje 01:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

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 have been doing much work lately with images and broken redirects and my deleted edit count is over 1300 because of that. I’ve already been closing AfDs for months now but I do have my limits, and I would probaly do more on it. The same for categories, taking care of Copyright problems, templates, and images. I also do alot of anti-vandal work and a rollback button will be nice. I would also block obvious vandals and do other stuff when I have time and I would use my admin powers very carefully and avoid conflects. I also need to unblock myself occasionally as I got AOL and I normally tend to hit into autoblocks, limiting my edits.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Since my last RFA, I have had more interest in creating articles. I'm most pleased with the work I've done on Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida, which I created, as well as four Did You Know articles includng Nat Moore and Earl Morrall. I'm currently trying to get a couple of articles (Terry Bradshaw and Miami, Florida) into featured article status.
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've sadly been in conflicts before, plus I tend to worn out rather quickly in which I tried to control. I quit Wikipedia and came back a few times before, and I'm pretty sure I'm going to get oppose votes for it. I also threw a huge 58 minute fit one month ago, after my last RfA. However, I wish that that incident is put in the past. In most other conflicts, I've taken myself out of the discussion until things cool down. In most other conflects I've taken myself out of the discussion until things cool down or try to solve a solution to end the conflect. I have no problem helping out with others' edit disputes I also been in other conflects eariler in my wiki career but other then that and a few isolated conflects with vandals nothing else really.


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.