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

Final (101/26/10) ended 02:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Jaranda (talk · contribs) – Jaranda (IRC Aranda56) has been around for a while (and has had an RfA in the past) and is well suited for adminship. Meeting *FA, excellent Vandal Fighting history and more, it is my honour to nominate Jaranda for adminship. I've had assurances that Jaranda will stick this one on regardless of the outcome, so as I say why not, I've had nothing but legit admin action requests on IRC. Tawker 23:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd like to co-nom. Jaranda is now suitable to be an admin and many of the concerns from his previous RfAs have been answered. SushiGeek 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, hopefully three months is enough time, Thank You. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update I need to leave wikipedia for about an month because of serious health concerns, please see my userpage for extra details. I want my RFA to run it's remaining course. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support - as nominator -- Tawker 23:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support as co-nominator. SushiGeek 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support --Ixfd64 00:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support Eluchil404 01:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Pepsidrinka supports. 01:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support joshbuddy, talk 01:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support per nom. Mike _{(T C)} 01:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} per nom.
9. Support --Shizane 01:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support buddy don't break a sweat with WP - as per Jesus, only the sinless should stone the sinful. Rama's Arrow 02:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Haven't-we-been-here-before support. ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Naconkantari 02:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. Leaving aside his many excellent contributions, which are out of the question and speak for themselves, I wish to put the accent on his patience, his resilience and admirable will to overcome many stressing situations. His integrity is to be commended, and has shown a love for this project that I deeply admire. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 03:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Strong support. --Rory096 03:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support I thought he was already an admin. —Khoikhoi 03:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. And hopefully you learned by now, there is no need, when you get stressed out, to "quit" or "delete my page", or "withdraw my nomination" or any of that. If you feel stressed a bit at some point, just take a short wikivacation saying later that you were busy in real life or wanted some time to think or something like that. That is to say no need for dramatic jestures. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I've learned, thank you Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17. Support --Jay(Reply) 03:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Strong Support per nom. G.He 03:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support seems like a good editor who would most likely benefit from the extra tools hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Great editor. Will be a definite asset with the tools. Only needs to calm down a bit. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 03:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support per above (and per below when there are more supports.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 03:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. Obviously dedicated to the project. I believe he has made significant progress in improving both his communication skills -- grammar, spelling -- and his handling of wikistress in recent months. I'm a little hesitant -- the block button can be can be a stressful tool to wield (or I think it should be, anyway) but I think it is time. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Strongly.--MONGO 05:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. YES! Finally, I think I can support. NSLE 05:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support I see nothing in the posts by RX Strangelove's oppose to go that way. Not really that big of a concern and those seem to be legit edits. We can't leave a comment for every edit, Jaranda has nearly 1,600 user talk edits so that seems pretty good. Yanksox ^(talk) 05:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. Definitely. Jaranda's always struck me as a very good editor, with a level head and good contributions. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support per above. Great user. DarthVader 06:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support He is a good editor and I have no doubt that he will put admin tools to good use.--Dakota ~ 07:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Strong Support. It's about friggin' time. This editor's been through RfA four six times before (I found the last one before when I did a search specifically to find out why this editor wasn't an admin.) And I still felt they deserved another chance. Not only productive, but appears to have a greatly improved temperament. Grandmasterka 07:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support, per Grandmasterka Will (message me!) 10:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Merovingian {T C @} 10:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support, has long been a contributor to our community in many ways. Would make a good admin, I think. --Improv 13:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Absolute Support. Was waiting for a chance to ask the candidate if I could nominate. Werdna (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support per nom. -- Chris Lester ^talk 14:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - 14th time lucky? - Hahnchen 14:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support: Why not? --Bhadani 15:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support Tim! 17:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support, long time contributor. Will be a great admin. Afonso Silva 17:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Strong support would make a wonderful admin -- Where 17:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Weak support seems like a good user and I like the comment on not wasting time in question 2. However, I was honestly a bit surprised to see his native-English-speaker userbox because his writing frequently includes minor spelling and grammar errors. (Ironically, one previous RfA ended in "no consicious, because of communicaton and spelling concerns, in which I dealt with.") Maybe try a browser-integrated spell checker? Opabinia regalis 18:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Strong Support for opposing cruft. - Kookykman|(t)e 19:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Strong Support What his (slight) faults, Jaranda has never failed to display kindness and a willingness to discuss with fellow editors. He has ample experience and a firm grasp of policy. The complaints against him do not reflect qualities that lead one to become a bad administrator. He should have been approved long, long ago. Xoloz 19:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support, get it over with. — Jun. 24, '06 [20:04] <freak|>
45. Support the "I quit" stuff is a little bothersome, but there's no reason to suspect it would make him abuse admin tools. It's not like he started vandalizing articles or making personal attacks during any of the incidents, he just said he was leaving. Other than that one blemish on his record, he's a great contributer and Wikipedian, and should be an admin if he wants to be. --W.marsh 21:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. Good experiences interacting with this user. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support, per nomination --Mhking 22:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. supportBenon 22:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Strong Support; yet another "I thought ____ was already an Admin!". — Deckiller 00:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support, be chilled and ease into the post. Deizio talk 02:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Changing to Weak oppose. Deizio talk 00:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

50. Support, has shown himself very capable over the years. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 07:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support strong devotion to project, good judgement ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 10:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support, without reservation. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 11:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support, no reason not to. — getcrunk what?! 15:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support, as always. He's done a lot of great work here in a variety of areas, and I think he'd really help us out in the admin ranks. Having just rollback isn't good enough for frequent RC patrollers. The block button is also needed; sometimes a block just needs to be given ASAP, and not being able to find an available admin to do it can be quite stressful, even though we have many active admins. I like his answers to the questions too. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Strongest support - great user. Absolutely Fabulous. Wonderful. Give him the mop! —Celestianpower ^háblame 17:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Strong support - I am wondering how contributors like Jaranda took this long to become an admin. Deserved. -- Szvest 18:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}[reply]
58. Support: The work's the thing. I see frustration in the past, but I don't see flailing or striking out in frustration. The people who say, "I'd as soon leave" are better than the ones who say, "I'll get you for that." Geogre 18:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support You're not an admin?! Well, let's make you one. Thistheman 20:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support I haven't seen any edits in the last few months that concern me; seems like he has addressed many of the concerns voiced in previous RFAs. I trust that he'll use the tools judiciously. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support one of the easiest votes I have made. Joelito (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. A kind and helpful user. I'm sure he can be trusted with the tools. AnnH ♫ 21:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Changed to Support from Oppose. After careful thought, and reading some of the more constructive supportive comments, I feel I will change my vote. I think that more good will come from Jorge being an admin. He seems to genuinely care about the community. I am still worried about the outburst when he gets stressed. Jorge, you really do need to count to ten or take a step back from these situations. You also have to learn not to take comments too personally. People can be cruel online and say things they would never say in real life. You must look at such nastiness and let it be like water off a ducks back. If this RfA passes please do continue to seek advice from your fellow admins as you seem to be doing at present. You still have much to learn (as we all do). Please, never use the delete or block tools as an emotional weapon. If you are emotionally involved you should ask another admin to deal with the situation. This is true for all admins, but due to your tendancy to get stressed now and then, you should always ask yourself "am I too involved to be impartial". Good luck and happy editing. David D. (Talk) 21:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support, seems to have gained enough experience to be admin-worthy now. JYolkowski // talk 00:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support Excellent Wikipedian. Will do a good job with admin tools. In the beginning, do not hesitate to ask for second opinions if you have any doubts. FloNight ^talk 01:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. I could've sworn I'd already voted Support like less than an hour after this RfA went up. :P ~Kylu (u|t) 04:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support I hope you do it this time.  Grue  11:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. Jude (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support per beak below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support. haz (user talk) 18:21, 26 June 2006

    Support Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 18:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple vote Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

73. Support. bd2412 T 22:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Strong support The issues with stress do appear to have declined since the last RFAs, and I'm sure everyone agrees that RFAs are stressful for those involved, whether they want it to be or not :). The most important matter is that Jaranda has experience and can be trusted and there is no doubt in my mind that Jaranda will not abuse the tools in any way. Cowman109^Talk 03:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support DVD+ R/W 04:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support -- would have been admin a long time ago if you didn't keep backing out --T-rex 18:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support a bit concerned with Wikistress... Jaranda: please prove us wrong an if you ever get too stressed, just as for help. It is a big responsibility, hope you thread with caution. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support per nom. Crazynas 21:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support - If he ever decides to leave, then we lose an admin. No harm done. If he stays, what I think, then we gain a good admin. Garion96 ^(talk) 23:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support For the reasons stated above. Mr. Turcotte^talk 00:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
81. OKAY, LYKE A DAMN STRONG SASQUATCHIAN SUPPORT! Great user, great vandal fighter, we'll help him through the stress Sasquatch t|c 01:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support Good user. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
83. I'll give you a chance support. Your remark in the "Comments" section shows passion for the project, and has convinced me. Kimchi.sg 03:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
84. It's about damn time. --Cyde↔Weys 04:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support - meet my criteria. abakharev 04:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
86. Big support. This is a very good user and he should have been made admin long ago. Coffee 11:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support Joe I 14:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support based off answers to my questions.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 14:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support GrasslandT 03:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support --Nearly Headless Nick 09:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support. I am happy that this user will be able to handle the potential stress of adminship, per my question. — FireFox 10:17, 29 June '06
92. Support as in other times. Syrthiss 13:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support, and no, I'm not mad at you for the minor league baseball thing. If anything, the baseball conflict has shown me that he's open to discussion and is willing to discuss changing things instead of simply ignoring what's established, which is important. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support Andy _t 16:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support. I've flip-flopped in my head a few times on the question of Jaranda's RfA and have settled in the affirmative. His perks outweigh his drawbacks, and I admit there are a few. I feel he has learned from the past and will catch himself before using the buttons in a knee-jerk fashion. No one is perfect, and Jaranda seems rather self-actualizing about his editing flaws, which have been discussed at length below. I think this process has cemented his resolve to serve the 'pedia as a fine sysop. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 18:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support per nominator. Polonium 18:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support hopefully when he gets stressed he will consider puttin up a wikibreak template and take a break :). RN 23:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support per nom &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support seen this person around plenty, very good user. good luck --Alhutch 22:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
100. 100th Support, hard working editor with large amounts of great contributions--TBCTaLk?!? 02:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support because I too share similar fates with you. I think someone opposed me on one of my RFA's before because quote: "same problem as Jaranda". Hope this fixes things. :) — The King of Kings 02:28 July 01 '06

Oppose

1. Having read comments below from the candidate himself, I am a little bit concerned at the apparent over-sensitiveness of this user. I don't think he'll benefit Wikipedia as an admin in the long run. Chacor 04:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   ^{User's 26th edit. SushiGeek 04:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

   How does that affect anything? I've mad good edits. Chacor 04:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I find it peculiar that you'd find RfA after only making 26 edits. SushiGeek 04:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I saw a link on someone's talk page. Surely the number of edits I've made has no difference on my right to post my thoughts? Chacor 04:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, dear Chacor, you must admit it is unusual to see a user so new voicing his opinion on RfA, as it is to see him moving pages and editing templates with such familiarity. Out of plain curiosity, which user's talk page are you referring to? Because at this very moment, only Cactus.man's links to this RfA (and that, by transcluding Dragons flight's RFA summary). Best regards, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 04:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I have prior experience in editing at other Wikis, not related to Wikipedia. Plus, I found out about adminship reading a talk page of a Tropical cyclone admin, Titoxd. Not this adminship in question. Chacor 05:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   That explains it all. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity, and welcome to en.wiki, Chacor :) Phædriel ♥ tell me - 13:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose Although it has been months since this user's last RfA, he has withdrawn and declared "I quit" so many times, I can't trust this user to appropriately handle the additional stress administrators have to face. joturner 20:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh gimmie a break, if he quits, we lose one administrator, its not like he's going to raise hell with the buttons! -- Tawker 20:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm getting that oppose vote as no one can have a second chance, which isn't really fair in general, I don't mind though. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   This isn't your second chance, Jaranda; this is your seventh chance. I voted neutral in your last RfA, but because you withdrew and "quit" in that RfA as well, I'm voting oppose this time. Perhaps in the future (if, of course, this RfA doesn't pass). joturner 21:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose per above. Too many conflicts/acting out per answers below. --JJay 22:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose change to support, see comments above. Jorge has grown and developed as a wikipedia editor in the last nine months. I am still worried by his obsession with becoming an admin. I have lost count of how many RfA he has done and he always seems to come back here too soon. On April 2nd, after his last RfA, he said "I'm not going to try again until longer, August 21st at the earlist,". This would have been all well and good, but, as usual, he speaks sense and then his actions do not follow that up. On top of this, the amount of stress this user seems to get from editing here is very worrying from the perspective of his own sanity and from the perspective of what he may do with the extra powers. How do i know that Jorge will not make unwarranted blocks or page deletions when he is under stress? Will he have the sense to step back? I don't know, but from the repeated melodramas that are a recurring theme i just don't feel comfortable voting support. I want to reiterate that Jorges editing has improved massively since he arrived and he is an EXCELLENT editor.

   So what will make me vote support? I would like to see emotional maturity; no tantrums or blow ups. As i mentioned in the link above, back in April.

   "Almost all the oppose votes [from last RfA] were due to the melodrama. Your English, vandal work and work on starting new sporting articles are all excellent and you are so much more rounded than the newbie from six months ago. In that context, you are clearly ready to be an excellent admin. BUT, next time you choose to write something dramatic don't hit save, hit delete. Count to 10 or something, but don't post it on wikipedia. Please."

   But since then we have seen more melodrama. I'm really sorry to vote oppose as i know Jorge wants this badly. But I have to be consistent with my gut feelings. David D. (Talk) 22:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   That was back in early April, my last RFA was in late March, I feel that 3 months is enough time. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Here are a few questions.

   1) So why did you say August 21st?

   2) Why have you decided to leave wikipedia at least twice since then? This does not seem to be in keeping with a user who sould be an administrator.

   3) Why do you think you would be a good administrator when you do not seem to handle the stress here very well?

   4) Do you think being an adminsistrator would make your time here more or less stressful?

   Some of the answers to 2 have been touched on below but these are the four things that i find the most troublesome with regard to this RfA. David D. (Talk) 22:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I personally emailed David D with the response because of privacy issues. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose per above Mexcellent 23:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose (changed from Neutral) after some deliberation. -- Миборовский 05:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose per numerous threats to quit WP. I am sorry. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose for the number of spelling and grammar mistakes. Sir Studieselot 15:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose. I'm really sorry. I really want to support, but I just can't. An administrator should not only display familiarity with the conventions and policies, but also an ability to authoritatively and intelligibly communicate them. Imagine a newcomer going to an esteemed Admin for help, only to have the Admin reply with the following language: "A lot of time which I could have spent with my friends and stuff instead goes to wikipedia and I don't like that" and "I could handle wikistress easily, but I do need time for myself as well, my grades even went down some, I always used RFA as an excuse to leaving, but that was a deadly mistake." And this is just the surface. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sorry, the stress and impatience seems a bit over the top...considering the number of times you've threatened to quite Wikipedia etc. An admin needs to be reliable, perhaps another few months in which you don't have any of the stress booms. Again...sorry, I can imagine that you really want Adminship considering how often you've tried... Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose. Two reasons. One, anyone who gets heavily involved in Wikipedia Review for any reason other than trolling the trolls probably doesn't have the maturity to be an admin: it implies you take the wrong things seriously. Two, the stuff about "editing too much" and "getting stressed" does not show you in a good light at all: it implies you treat Wikipedia like a dirty sekrit, which is not a good approach. Grace Note 07:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Two wrongs don't make a right. Trolling trolls makes you a troll. NSLE 10:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, how horrible! Can I get a cream for it? Grace Note 10:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   This is one that I do have to comment against. Even though I do got an account in the wikipedia review and occationally comment, I'm against that site and I don't endorse them, in fact I probaly got placed in hivemind for being the only one there defending SlimVirgin from attacks which made Brandt mad, but I don't care as I do think that attacking a fellow contributer who always edits in good faith is just plain wrong and that's the sacrifice I have to make. Also I do love wikipedia, that why I still edit the site. The problem is that I do have personal matters and a life to deal with as well, I can't be around wikipedia all the time. I hope you and everyone else understand. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Make that three reasons. I don't like being bickered with when I oppose an RfA, particularly when I suspect that the bickerer hasn't really read what I wrote. And Jaranda, I have to say, "defending" editors in Wikipedia Review is precisely the kind of thing I am opposing you for. I don't think "how very noble". I think "how stupid to go to the trolls' own board to feed them"! Grace Note 09:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   WP:CIV. NSLE 10:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   That was perfectly civil. I think we should have a WP:Passive-aggressive for use when editors brandish policies as weapons. It's not actually very kind in itself, dude. Grace Note 10:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   While I disagree entirely with Grace Note's agressive attitude towards you, and while none of this rises to the level of an oppose vote, I would like to concur with him/her in saying that while defending another editor on WR is incredibly noble and does show incredible strength of character, it does generally amount to feeding the trolls on their own soil. Let the WR folks have their insults over there - nobody's forcing anybody to read them, you're not going to solve anything by defending her, and we're better off having them over there than having to deal with them here. Werdna (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I think Grace Note makes excellent points. However, as usual, the aggressive tone makes any reasonable person prickle and want to ignore the content. If s/he has a point to make, can s/he please do it in a calmer manner? It will lend more weight to the words. David D. (Talk) 15:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm perfectly calm. You and I probably have a different idea of what a "reasonable" person is. For me, someone who feels it's appropriate to hand out mumsy, passive-aggressive lectures wouldn't fit the definition. Still, each to their own.Grace Note 10:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Yea right, so being aggressive is the better route? Your in the face style just alienates people and serves no constructive purpose. David D. (Talk) 15:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose. I would normally just not vote in an RFA if I didn't support the candidate, but Jaranda has (in my own opinion) made a mockery of this process by walking in and out of it as he sees fit. This is, regrettably, an awful attitude for an administrator to have on Wikipedia. There aren't many criteria I set for candidates, but at least having some respect for the position and the voting community which grants access to it is required. Harro5 09:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with you in that, I have made mockery of RFA before, but I learned from my mistakes. I do have great respect for the position of RFA, and the voting community, I just get stressed out with RFA and I'm trying my best to work that. Thank you for your excellent advise. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose Not the right sort of attitude for an admin in my opinion. I would happily change my vote to support if the user say spends another year on Wikipedia without threatening to leave (again). --Wisden17 17:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose changed from neutral (see below). Underwhelmed by response to Grace Note above. Pete.Hurd 18:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Delete, unfortunately this user does not seem to have the temperment for adminship. Would support after 6 stable months here. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Vote moved to Oppose after heavy lobbying by Joturner. :) -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ouch; that's a bit harsh. Does he really deserve to be deleted? Can you at least settle with a merge? joturner 19:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, alright, but just this once...you caught me on a good bad day... -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose, not mature enough. He needs more time. Zamaq 20:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User has six edits, including several test ones 64.12.116.74 20:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Struck per newness per Linuxbeak's "go ahead" -- Tawker 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    On-hold vote pending confirmation Oppose - does not seem ready. Bubba ditto 22:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am restoring this vote that was misplaced. Is there a rule that a vote in the wrong place should be removed altogether? David D. (Talk) 23:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong place / user's contribs Special:Contributions/Bubba_ditto lead me to think that that was a misplaced / non informed vote hence I just struck it -- Tawker 23:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    OK I thought your edit may have been a mistake. Maybe we should wait for Bubba_ditto to confirm if it was informed or not? David D. (Talk) 23:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I mentioned on his talk page that his vote is pending. This seems to be the interaction that led this user here. It seems innocent enough, although you are correct the user has few edits, but they don't seem to be suspicious. David D. (Talk) 23:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14. Oppose This user really needs to sort out their priorities regarding their personal and online lives. Someone who lets their friendships and grades suffer due to editing should ask themselves what they are trying to achieve/avoid by editing on Wikipedia. Admin status won't mean a reduction in pressure as it opens you up for enquiry from all users and you will be held to account for your decisions. Someone who "panics a lot" and lets their grades go down doesn't demonstrate a level-headed character and calm in the face of opposition and may be wont to a) make bad decisions and b) beat themselves up about it. You'd be better off avoiding admin duties for the timebeing and concentrating on improving your grades and friendships, returning when you have a better sense of perspective.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Weak oppose, was willing to overlook a lot here, but after coming across this assertion (of adminship: "...even though I'm not one nor want to be one".) I have to oppose. The admin coaching program is where potential admins are "groomed" (their words not mine), and those involved should show that being an admin on one of the most consulted reference works in history is to be taken seriously. Yes, a person can change their mind but it should have been addressed before accepting a nomination. Deizio talk 00:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hm, I seriously forgot about the admin coaching thing, but that was an edit for more than six months ago, so it's rather old. I'm going to change it if that's ok. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed myself from the list for being uninterested, inactive, and completely forgetting. Thanks for reminding me. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Appreciate the change, but I think you should have been on top of it. It wouldn't have moved me from a rock solid support, but just swayed me from a "benefit of the doubt" support, and with so much to consider in this RfA I don't feel I can remain neutral. Also inactive, fine but uninterested? Admin coaching is a great idea and something any admin or experienced user should be enthusiatic about, even if they don't have the time to participate themselves. Deizio talk 01:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is that I personally feel that I would be a horrible admin coach, I don't even know why I signed up for the coaching thing considering my past six months ago. Thanks for the dif Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears you can thank David D. (talk · contribs). Deizio talk 01:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the original link made no sense once Jaranda signed off. i did it to maintain the context of the comment. Hope that was OK? David D. (Talk) 18:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16. Oppose. -lethe ^talk 02:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to see some reasoning here. Werdna (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose I'm not convinced this editor has the ability to cope with the stress that will definitely come once (s)he gets the mop. Kimchi.sg 02:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    All I want is forgiveness with my past, like I said before I could handle the stress of RFA, but it's my personal life what I'm not good in handling. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You left Wikipedia, swearing never to return, less than a month ago. You have done this several times before. It's not about forgiveness of the past, it's about a pattern of behavior. 65.127.231.5 20:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That was a much different case, that was back in late May when I got placed in Daniel Brandt wikipedia hivemind, and I got an harrassing email from someone, I really never left in that situation, more of an thinking case. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you think you will get harassed less often as an admin? Mexcellent 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

    No, but I feel more ready again, when I get an harrasment email, I would just delete it and if I get harrassed in my talk page, I would just ignore it. It's my personal info like address and phone number in which I'm very worried about. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17. Oppose - aeropagitica put it well. FreplySpang 19:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose per aeropagitica, and due to stability concerns. Silensor 20:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose per above.—Perceval 04:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose as per above. – ugen64 05:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose, not just per above (altho, in particular, I do rely on some of the comments made by Journalist, Nobleeagle and (aeropagitica)), but also because of some of the neutral comments and other things I see below. What I see presents some serious concerns and I just don't have that peaceful easy feeling that says that this person should be an admin. Agent 86 06:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose, mostly per aeropagitica. Jaranda has done a lot of great work here, but the problems with stress and persistent levaing are too glaring for me to support right now. Robert 12:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose per Harro5 and aeropagitica. Proto///type 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose; ability to handle stress as an admin is paramount. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 16:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose - Candidate's comments show enthusiasm for Wiki, but the proven instability of character and confused thinking in the comments are a cause for concern. Jaranda deserves praise and support for the commitment shown to Wikipedia, but the stress of Adminship is unnecessary and potentially harmful. Counseling, guidance and advice by a respected Wikipedian might be more appropriate. SilkTork 02:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose; admins need to be able to handle stress well. Ral315 (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username Jaranda
Total edits 13697
Distinct pages edited 8168
Average edits/page 1.677
First edit 20:35, August 20, 2005
 
(main) 6727
Talk 583
User 558
User talk 1612
Image 365
Template 28
Template talk 21
Help 2
Category 17
Wikipedia 3631
Wikipedia talk 151
Portal 2