Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aranda56 3

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 (56/22/6) ended 23:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Aranda56 (talk · contribs): I voted neutral for Aranda56 before because I thought Aranda needed some more experience. That experience has come. Aranda's a frequent contributor, whether it be on cleaning up vandalism, welcoming users, participating on [blank]s for [blank], or just plain building an encyclopedia. Third time's the charm. karmafist 22:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Yes! I accept the nomination thank you. --Jaranda(watz sup) 22:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Obligatory Nominator Support karmafist 22:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom (and because Aranda56 with admin tools would be a good thing for Wikipedia). BD2412 T 23:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Looks good enough by now. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 23:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support with pleasure Tedernst | Talk 23:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Looks good! --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 23:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support good vandal fighter, general household waste remover, could use a mop. Alf melmac 23:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Per last time. Regarding spelling, JAranda is well aware of his limits, and I imagine knows what are good things for him to do, and what aren't. He's a great janitor, however, and I'm impressed by his willingness to discuss and learn. Humility and devotion = good admin. Xoloz 01:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support NSLE (讨论+extra) 02:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support no reservations.--MONGO 02:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support was very positive even when I opposed him last time round. Dlyons493 Talk 02:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Good vandalism reverter! Don't forget the importance of User_talk comments on vandals when speedily cleaning them up in the future! xaosflux T/C 02:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Great activity and reverting vandalism. Olorin28 03:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Edit Conflict Support. I was neutral before, due to the multiple self-noms, but since another established editor has nominated him this time, I think that's taken care of. He's a great, dedicated editor, and people like him who are very good at reverting vandalism are people that we need in the admin ranks. He also seems willing to learn about how to improve, and he's willing to help other editors. He knows his limits, and I think he'll use his admin powers wisely. --Idont Havaname 04:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support -pgk(talk) 07:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Merovingian 12:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I don't forsee abuse. Izehar 13:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Now, if I call proper spelling "the submission to the tyranny of tradition", I wonder how many would still rate it so highly. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 14:55
  19. Support His grammar is no worse than his detractors'... :) --TimPope 18:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Its empowering to know one's faults and work to overcome them. I've run across JAranda several times, and believe the user will continue to do good work. Time to give them a mop. --Syrthiss 18:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Full Support. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 20:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Grammar nazism is bad. If you see a grammar or spelling mistake, stop complaining and fix it yourself. Guanaco 21:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. I've gone through Aranda56's contributions for the last several weeks. I see a good understanding of WP policy and a desire to improve things. Chick Bowen 22:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Support Enthusiastic, an asset to Wikipedia. Will make a good admin (will I get de-sysoped because that's sentence fragment?)--Sean|Black 23:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Hahnchen 04:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support my English is even worse!  Grue  08:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support from a spelling and grammar nazi. "This should be no big deal." — Jimbo Wales. —BorgHunter (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. FireFox 18:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, unlikely to abuse administrative tools. Generally mpressed with his handling of this nomination and the previous two. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support --Adam1213 Talk + 23:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. El_C 00:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Shocked SUPPORT He's not one? I'm shocked... -- PRueda29 Ptalk29 03:05, 04 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Much improvement lately.. I've noticed a change in the grammar for the better. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. support he really removes a lot of the vandalism on here so we should help him with the rollback tool Yuckfoo 08:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. strong supportI hope she will use the power as admin especially for those vandalising in an right extremist way (fascists) the page vienna award. Bonaparte talk & contribs 13:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. support per nom. --Dvyost 17:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong support - I was sure I'd already supported... Oh well, better late than never. --Celestianpower hablamé 17:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per nom and above. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support vulcanstar6 dec 4, 05 12:06
  40. Support. Can use some maturity, but so can we all. Dedicated vandalism-fighter who needs the tools. --Nlu 23:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support- JCarriker 00:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, Anthere's English isn't fantastic either! (no disrespect meant to Anthere, she's great) Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per Redwolf24. Great user, I've always liked you and thought you would make a great admin, Aranda56. You'll go places, trust me. :-) WikiFanatic 02:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - your fixed your "vandalism" mistake mentioned below very quickly. You are obviously committed to the WikiCause - go for it! Brisvegas 02:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, seems OK to me. — JIP | Talk 08:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Good luck! -- Svest 22:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™[reply]
  48. Support. The extra responsibilities of an admin require courtesty, fairness, and a willingness to help. They don't require better spelling and grammar than would be required of ordinary editors. AnnH (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - a good user -- Francs2000 02:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Good contributor, I agree with AnnH. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, excellent contributor. --Terenceong1992 10:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Support εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Encyclopedist voted twice --Aranda 56 20:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, good vandal whacker. I thought I had done this before, but apparently I hadn't. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Already a great vandal whacker, the mop and flamethrower will make him even better. Not perfect, but then who is? the wub "?!" 18:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. This user does a lot of good work, like fighting vandalism. Though Aranda should make an effort to be clear and offer to clarify things when communicating with users, I don't think poor writing skills should necessarily preclude adminship. delldot | talk 01:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Active fighting vandals and no matter what some people think that is a huge problem and I think Aranda would be a huge plus in that cause. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. I'm refactoring my comment after some discussions elsewhere, to make my reasons for opposition clearer.
    1. I strongly object to unverified sock puppet accusations toward new users, whenever they occur. Equating newbies with puppets may not directly be an act of biting the newbies, but it helps to promote the harmful AfD culture of newbie-biting.
    2. He generally has a lack of perspective on the Wikipedia community as a whole, because he's too focused on AfD.
    3. During this RfA, Aranda referred to a good faith contribution as vandalism and reverted it. I'd expect admins to be more careful than that. Everyone makes mistakes, but everyone should also be accountable for their mistakes.
    4. Aranda has become quite emotionally involved in this request for adminship; I don't believe that he will be able to keep a level head in future conflicts, something that I expect from every admin.
    5. An objection that is less important than all my other objections is that I'm worried by his poor usage of English. It hurts his credibility. Admins are in some sense the face of Wikipedia, and they need lots of credibility, in every form that they can get it, to be able to fulfill that role. I would be more forgiving if he didn't have English listed as a native language.
    Yes english is my native language and I do read english perfecly, but I admit that I'm horrible in spelling and writing in English so it makes this harder for me. I need tutoring in that.--Jaranda(watz sup) 00:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I assure you all, Ralph Wiggum has been dispatched to rectify the tutoring situation.karmafist 08:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    "Me fail English? That's unpossible!" —Lifeisunfair 16:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Aranda is a really, really, nice person... but rspeer makes a very valid point. Admins are supposed to be an example of wikipedia to the community at large; as such, admins should at least be able to spell and punctuate properly (I'm not as big of a grammar nazi since we have british, australian, american, etc... grammar rule systems in place here). It is rather hard to take someone seriously when their signature includes "watz sup" as a link to their talk page, and when they are spelling quite atrociously. Sorry Aranda, I'm glad you know you need help, but I just don't feel making you an admin is a good idea at this point.  ALKIVAR™ 08:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are going to oppose someone because of poor grammar, I have to point out that nationalities should be capitalised: British, Australian, American ;) --TimPope 18:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Please re-read my post above Tim; I said I am not a grammar nazi, merely a spelling and punctuation nazi :)  ALKIVAR™ 08:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Proto t c 12:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a reason for your oppose vote, Proto? We're WP:NOT a Democracy here...karmafist 19:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I also dislike votes without a reason, but to be fair you should ask about the 15+ support votes above that also have no reason given. :) Turnstep 21:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. His intention to delete "vanity articles" and the like is worrying when he nominates AFDs like "nn roadcruft d". --SPUI (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, [1] may be a good example of an article he would have wrongly deleted, depending on where one stands on deleting vs. salvaging. --SPUI (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak oppose because of lack of submission to the tyranny of tradition. Aranda is a pretty good editor, and if he were a great editor I'd support regardless, but I'm just pushed over the edge by the poor English. Lord Bob 18:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per SPUI. Jobe6 20:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moderate Oppose. It's taken me part of an afternoon to come to a decision on this one. Unfortunately, I cannot in good faith vote Support. I agree with many of the reasons that have been given in this section. Perhaps it's just me -- I have a penchant for trying to make sure that I am understood and that I understand people -- but the colloquism style that this user chooses to employ in his pages makes me a tad uncomfortable. We hold Admins up with high and mighty standards -- proper grammar and word usage is among those standards, in my mind. My apologies to Aranda and to Karmafist. --Martin Osterman 20:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Martin's comments perfectly summarize my feelings. --NormanEinstein 21:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly I just dont know what to say. My english and grammar has always been poor and I'm starting to think thats its impossible to become a admin because of that.I'm honestly trying to do my best with my bad grammar skills but I just cant fix it good enough. --Aranda 56) 21:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, the more you write, the better your english will get. Looking through your edits, they seem to be mostly reverts and general cleanup stuff, maybe you should just take some time off that and just try to write, add content. Read through your prose again, see what can be omitted and what should be expanded. I really can't believe you when you say your english writing will always be poor. - Hahnchen 23:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I fail to see the relevance - as a non-admin, he can edit just as much, and his grammar/spelling is no less important. However, Aranda hardly needs to have perfect English to roll back vandalism, block a vandal, close an AfD, or speedily delete a nonsense page. If he can be trusted to do those things, that ought to be the end of it. BD2412 T 02:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    But there would be times when he would have to explain why he decided a particular article was nonsense, or why he decided to block a particular user, or why he discounted some of the contributions to an AfD. Templates don't cover the details of particular situations. Perfect English isn't necessary for this but there are times that Aranda56 is very hard to understand. (As RxStrangeLove notes in his vote following this one.) oops, forgot to sign, sorry. This was me at 15:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC). FreplySpang (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I would explain when another user ask me to but in a short, simple, and understandable way --Aranda 56) 17:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense, but the above reply is barely understandable. I'm not making fun of you, but your comments often are difficult to comprehend. —Lifeisunfair 17:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly I don't know what to do. Alot of the stuff I write looks understandable in my opinion but I guess it's not to most.--Aranda 56) 17:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If you started editing and writing content it would help you. Other editors will correct your writing as necessary and you can learn from those edits. Slowly but surely you will notice the mistakes you are making. I suspect one mistake (I make this mistake too) is you don't proof read before you post. Above you wrote "I would explain when does insidents occur when they ask me ", are you really telling us that this looks comprehensible when you reread it? David D. (Talk) 21:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I hate to say this, but this "I also voted delete because I dont know if its exists" kind of bothered me, if someone doesn't "know" about something maybe further research or not voting might be more appropriate. The second to last sentence in the sock explanation (I normally vote the opposite of what annons do unless its something true) is confusing and doesn't show a lot of thought. Good vandal fighter/attitude...a little more focus and I'd love to support next time if this doesn't work out. Rx StrangeLove 06:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Opps my bad english skills again :p. Wow! I acually said that. I really need to work on my english I'm not making any sense --Aranda 56) 06:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I don't have one overwhelming reason but the sum of the comments in this section and the fact that there are so many spelling and grammar errors in his answers to the questions in this RFA leaves me with the distinct impression that Aranda acts quickly and without sufficient attention to the results. I do expect more of an administrator. I'd like to see some improvement before giving him the tools. After reflection, moved to neutral. -- DS1953 07:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Dmn 12:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a reason for your oppose vote, Dmn? We're WP:NOT a Democracy here...karmafist 19:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Aranda56 has been doing good work, and I hope he feels welcome to continue making these valuable contributions, but his problems with communication make me reluctant to give him more power. It's hard to tell how well he thinks things through, because he doesn't explain his thinking clearly. FreplySpang (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. I hate to hold someone's poor English skills against him, but I'm compelled to do so. An administrator must be capable of dealing directly with other users (to discuss his/her administrative actions, explain how the site operates, et cetera). Jorge's relative lack of communication skills would prevent him from properly carrying out these responsibilities. I would be willing to tolerate some typos and misspellings, but Jorge's misused words and unintelligible syntax are likely to confuse (or even offend) fellow editors. —Lifeisunfair 16:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per false accusations of sock puppetry and false reverts of vandalism and general lacking of WP:AGF. Not to mention existence of multiple accounts, self nominations, and this being the 3rd such self nomination. We don't need admins that act like that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. I'm sorry to oppose but there are three reasons I have to do this. Firstly, I have severe misgivings about nominating someone with such bad grammar, as per User:Lifeisunfair above. If Jorge showed even a small inclination to improve this would not be an issue but he seems to wear it like a badge of honor. After freakofnurture had cleaned up some of the bad grammar he changed it back with the following edit summary I like my old version better thanks anyways kept some of your editing though (specifically look at what he did to the section ==What I Do Here== on line 67). At the end of the day this is a resource for the whole world. The lingo that Jorge uses is fine in his neighborhood where all the locals have grown up with the slang but how will users without English as a first language deal with such poorly constructed sentences? Secondly, I am also worried by his reaction to stressful situations. He seems particularly susceptible to baiting from vandals. Will this overreaction happen when he dealing with difficult editors? Thirdly, Jorge seems to want adminship too much. His first two unsuccessful nominations were self noms, the last one being less than one month ago. In my opinion Jorge needs more time to get to know all the ins and outs of editing. He spends a lot of time fighting vandals and that is great, but it is only through editing that he will learn how to collaborate with other editors and learn how to deal with the more subtle differences of opinion that appear when editing pages. David D. (Talk) 21:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: I've explained the quitting insident in quistion number 3 but let me explain to you clearer. I got personaly mad on User:Curps thinking that I had something to do with a sockpuppet incident which wasn't true but I came back a few days later. Also about the my user page I didn't like some of those edits that were added it wasn't my style, but I did understand that some of the edits were helpful and kept them and also I'm willing to learn any help with my grammar as I've learned alot the last few days. And as for the eagerness part of the adminship. Yes I admit that I'm a little eager for adminship and the last self-nom was a bit more than a month ago. --Aranda 56) 21:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't noticed the line 67 part while reverting and I've fixed it --Aranda 56) 21:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great, that is definitely a step in the right direction. I noticed you say you are 17 and bored in the worst school on the planet. This is even more reason for you to start editing content. Pick some areas that interest you and start creating articles. Start doing some research on the internet. Learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff with regard to source material. Try checking out text books and using those to help you improve articles. All of this will help you do better in school, not just grammar but knowledge too. When you leave school you will find that the experiences you gain from editing content at wikipedia will be far more important to your intellectual development than fighting vandals. Try it out I have confidence you can do it well because you have the one thing that critical for success, enthusiasm. I will not change my vote for now but would definitely be more supportive if you show improvement with regard to adding content to the encyclopedia. Please don't let these comments deflate your enthusiasm, that is your best asset. David D. (Talk) 22:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I, too, noticed Aranda summarily reverted my edits to his his user page. While I do admit I might have gotten a little carried away with the layout, I was only trying to improve the image he presents himself to other users, in an effort to support his nomination. I had planned to vote support until I read the inappropriate edit summary referenced in my neutral vote. While I refuse to edit war with a user over his own page, or oppose him outright on such grounds, this event does confirm my lack of support for Aranda's nomination. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reverted all the edits at first as I didn't like some edits that were in my page like ==The suspiscious vandals go to prison! ==, and the overload of WoW templates. But I did kept most of the edits though eventunally. --Aranda 56 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, although somewhat reluctantly. For one thing, it still seems a little soon after he nominated and withdrew himself from two previous RfAs, the last only a few weeks ago. I'm not horribly concerned about the spelling and grammar (as he says on his talk page, he attends the "worst school on earth", so that may be the cause of it! :), but I do expect a little more care to be taken. If he were a non-native speaker of English that would be one thing, but the mistakes show either a knowing willingness to not use proper English (such as the talk page, which would be fine if it was confined there), or they show he does not want to spend the time to improve things. Looking over his edit summaries ("uptated", "sppedy delete", "acually") I can only surmise it is the latter, as you manage to spell these words correctly at other times. The spelling and grammar alone would not make me vote delete, but the fact that on the one hand you seem to want the adminship badly, but on the other can't be bothered to take a little extra time to write things properly (especially on important pages such as this very AfD), combined with some of the other concerns voiced above, makes me vote oppose at this time. Turnstep 03:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that sometimes I type too fast especially while using edit summarys, but honestly I try to do my best too learn proper english. I just recently copyedited the best I can to my abilty my whole RFA with the advice some users gave me in this RFA and in IRC in which I nevered learned before. By the way my last RFA was a month ago ;). --Aranda 56) 04:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose based on the language skills seen no only in past edits, but on this RfA... basic sentence structure frequently gets mangled. This is not what we should be putting forward as one of our Admins. AKMask 03:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose English Wikipedia does NOT need another emotionally unstable admin. Sorry, kid! Probert 03:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that comment breaks civility. Would you like to have someone call you 'sonny' or 'boy'? --Syrthiss 03:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been called worse! =) Probert 03:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That's no surprise. Nice cheap shot and your vote should be discarded.--MONGO 06:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, gee, should it? Give it your best shot! =) Probert 09:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't understand that comment, yes I have quitted once and came back before after getting mad over a comment, but I would never do that silly stuff again and I'm not emotionally unstable as far as I know :p --Aranda 56 04:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. We don't need more admins, and if we did, I doubt we would need ones with poor English. Our admins should be impeccable - we have 600,000 editors to choose from, and I see no reason why we should nominate those who aren't the very best. 202.58.85.8 07:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued WP:POINT violations. --Orioane 08:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Too soon after last self nom, aslo quitting because of a comment is very questionable in admin behavior. What if you got into a dispute of somesort, would you user your powers to win? I can't be certain fromt he asnwers given. Cobra 07:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose for now. Not enough time since last RFA.Gateman1997 20:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Not yet, maybe later. Mike Twynham 08:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. I am so sorry, but I oppose for now. Geneviève 21:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose for the time being. Keep at the vandal-whacking and take a shot writing some articles. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral, because of Bad English....I mean because of poor writing on wikipedia, as in "Im" instead of "I'm", etc. Quentin Pierce 02:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral: Text on a wikipedia page can always be changed later, to clean up grammar, spelling, etc. Unfortunately, edit summaries like the one on Recruitment seem to be permanant, though I am likely guilty of the same things, so I cannot justify opposing solely on those grounds. I would support if the incident mentioned by Rspeer had been less recent. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral for the time being. I'm less concerned about grammar and more concerned about wrongly attributing contributions as vandalism. Silensor 00:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral : I have no opinion on this user as an admin in general. I would like to point out that bad grammar and spelling is not so important to an encyclopedia as it is to a dictionary. In an encyclopedia it's more important to get the facts right, than it is to get the spelling of those facts right. :-P Kim Bruning 07:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. Good potential. Will support in a month or two, after concerns raised by oppose votes can be addressed by Jaranda. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. I don't have one overwhelming reason but the sum of the comments in the "Oppose" section and the fact that there are so many spelling and grammar errors in his answers to the questions in this RFA leaves me with the distinct impression that Aranda acts quickly and without sufficient attention to the results. I do expect more of an administrator. I'd prefer to see some improvement before giving him the tools. I think that in the situations that administrators often encounter, being able to express themselves clearly and with authority is critical to resolving the situation. In those situations, poor writing can lead to misunderstanding, a lack of credibility or both. If he gets the tools, I would hope that he realizes that with his level of writing skills, he should leave those situations to admins who are better equipped to handle them and he should concentrate on those functions where the ability to express oneself clearly and credibly to another user is less critical. -- DS1953 19:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Allow me to clarify my comments a bit, so I make my position pertinent. As an administrator, I am aware that one has other duties besides simply working on articles. If I were simply basing my decision off of this, I'd give him a thumbs-up and tell him to go for it. HOWEVER... Admins are often called to mediate (whether they want to or not) and work side by side with the community using their tools to help better Wikipedia as a whole. It's like an actual paying job, in a sense. If a visitor comes to a company and sees people dressed nicely, then their view of that company is likely positive and improved. If they see people dressed sloppily, they're not as likely to think as positively. Using a common phrase, "A good first impression is everything". Our admins do tend to act as the first impression for people who either a) join Wikipedia or b) are new to Wiki and are dealing with Administators for the first time, be it in resolving a problem or working with the user. It is for these reasons that I made my vote. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned or eccentric, but this is what I see. If you have questions or anything, please feel free to ask! --Martin Osterman 04:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You do got a point but even with my bad grammmar I still could meditate and will do those types of things when Im called upon. I understand and read english perfectly as I only have bad grammar and spelling skills in which I learned some since this RFA has started. Ex:whould to would I learned that in my RFA. I would still forfill those types of duties and Im going to try to make the best for Wikipedia as possible --Aranda 56) 04:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't call into question your ability. I have little doubt that you have the ability to mediate disputes or do other Admin-related duties. While I may sound vain, one of the things that I am most concerned with in an administrator is image. When you enter the workforce and apply for a job, particularly a high-paying well-to-do job, the interviewer is going to be quite concerned with how you dress, how you talk, and how you act. If you do not impress upon him/her that you know how to do these three tasks well, then you will likely not get the job, even if you are very qualified for it. If you go see a lawyer, you expect the lawyer to look as professional as they should be, because their image is supposed to reflect the professionalism we attribute to someone who spends so much time learning the law of the land. If we are entrusting administrators to have greater tasks, thereby causing the community to observe and view them more than before, then don't we want them to put their best foot forward so the community (and thereby the world) can see how professional they are? I mean you no disrespect -- these are just my concerns and issues. --Martin Osterman 04:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My view on all the spelling and grammar oppose votes. I know that this is a encyclopedia and I know that its obvious that you need grammar and good english wrting skills for it. As most users might have noticed, my grammar and spelling skills are not very good and I'm willing to learn as I'm still trying to get rid of how I type here in wiki like for example you= u. I know most users like perfect or near pefect english when voting in a RFA or make exceptions when english is not his or her first language. There are many of those users out there and most of them have done an exceptional job cleaning out wikipedia from vandalism, etc. But I dont know why I have to be opposed for bad english skills. I could do the same stuff that all regular admins do. Its probaly true that I cant help with spelling mistakes and stuff but I still could revert vandalism, delete a nonsense page, settle a dispute between two users. This is the free encyclopedia not the he's not good in his english oppose vote. People don't need admin powers to write a article. Adminship is mostly about respect and honor and helping clean up some of the hardest tasks not fixing typos. That is my view of this. I wont be back in this RFA unless they are any new quistions for me to answer. Thanks for listening --Aranda 56) 08:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling is no reason to vote oppose unless it is deliberate which it is not I would recommend a spell checker to solve this problem. "Work smarder and not harder and be careful of yor speling. " murphy's laws --Adam1213 Talk + 23:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poor spelling isn't the only issue. Some of Jorge's comments are incomprehensible. When users question his administrative actions (blocks, rollbacks, protections, deletions, vote closures, et cetera), how will he communicate with them? —Lifeisunfair 00:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling and grammar are pretty important things in today's world. See my above comments for my comparison, so I don't repeat myself. :) --Martin Osterman 04:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will try my best to communicate with those users --Aranda 56) 00:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm.. suddenly accounts with onlly a few edits within months suddenly appear to oppose.... Also spelling.. this isn't about editingship, but adminship, where spelling is not really much relevant. (I'm not even a native english speaker) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I'm suspectious on a couple of votes in there. 2 of the users that opposed has less than 100 edits when they opposed and another one has less than 100 edits also. And 2 other users barely has 100 edits but haven't edited in a long time, oppose me rather rapidly and left. Too suspectious. --Aranda 56 23:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the past week, I suspect strongly that Adminship is about to become a more public job than it has before. That is the primary reason for my Oppose vote. It's not just spelling, though, but grammar as well. As for the accounts suddenly popping up -- I can't really say; I, myself, only started (sporadically) voting for RfAs about a month ago. --Martin Osterman 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you do got a point. But about those users suddenly popping up is rather suspectious. Both of those users last edit was October 11th, their userpage style is the same, and they haven't edited another RFA or any other page after that so it's way too suspectious. --Aranda 56 23:26, 8 December 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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I would mostly be closing AFDs in which I normally do already, but the delete button would be nice for vanity articles etc. I would also clear out the AFD backlog very often. The rollback button will be very nice as well as my internet connection wont read the godlight-mode script and I had do the reverting manually. I would also use the block power very wisely to deal with vandals.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have create several articles. Some good like Manny Mota and 2005 Sanriku Japan Earthquake, some stubby like Paola Rey and some just plain bad like List of Sports Flops. I also normally do cleanup sports articles and articles on rap artists. And I am currently trying to make the Steve Nash article into a featured article but with my bad grammar skils its hard.
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 have been in a couple of conflects before and I admit I've reacted quite bad over them. One example was during the Mexican G vandal spree in which the vandal was using the same AOL ips that I use, and Curps thought I might have been connected with it and I became quite upset over it and quitted for 4 days, blanking my user page and all that stuff not that long ago but I should've known better so please forgive me in that insident. I also got into a couple of edit wars with SPUI when he was closing AFDs with out a valid reason and I've reverted it. But other than that and a few isolated conflects with vandals nothing else really.
4. If you look at my opposition, I object very strongly to two edits you have made in the past 24 hours: you made an accusation of sock-puppetry that is apparently unfounded, and you referred to a good-faith contribution as vandalism. How do you justify these edits? rspeer 20:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit that the vandalism revert was a mistake but everyone does makes mistakes but I don't understand the first one about the newbie biting. I would never bite newbies and all those annon users who voted keep in that AFD, in my opinion were socks and it's also unusual that a user first edit was a sockpupperty filled afd like the one in the game afd. I also voted delete because I dont know if it's verifiable. --Aranda 56) 20:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's circular reasoning - that the new users are socks because the afd is filled with sockpuppetry. You're spreading a misconception that leads to hostility toward new users. So I must oppose your adminship, because it's my opinion that this promotes newbie-biting (I've retracted an overly harsh comment where I equated it to newbie-biting itself). Note that I'm not opposing you because you voted delete and I voted keep - that would be really petty and pointless! You can vote anything you want. rspeer 04:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will never, never, bite newbies that's my honest word. Look I just dont want to start a conflect with you, but I never said that the new users were socks in the first place in that AFD or in my responce. I've said that they could be socks giving the timing of that AFD. --Aranda 56) 05:22, 3 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Aranda56_3&oldid=1089910864"