Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jaranda (reconfirmation)

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

Jaranda

FINAL (82/17/3); Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have dealt with a number of conflects in the past. My main conflect was the banned user Blu Aavark, (I'm not sure about the spelling but many users know who I'm talking about) who started to harrass me and in the chaos I temporarly lost the password for my account for about a month. I didn't treat that case so good. I also did some dumb admin mistakes before including some conterversal blocks and AFD closes but I learned from those mistakes. A recent conterversal block I did was of former admin Gurch, who I saw disrupting Gracenotes RFA, but I blocked him after he stopped so I made a mistake there. I also had several conflects in IRC, but I was normally immature when I logged on and it's mainly my fault. I'm not active in IRC anymore but I am avaliable there if someone needs to talk to me.

4. You hold the record of the most RFAs with seven, but only three are listed in the "RfAs for this user:" box. Would you please clarify this? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Five of them was with my old user name Aranda56, here are the links

^{wat's sup} 18:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

5. What do you think about Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• See Jaranda's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Jaranda:
  talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi
  )

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

Discussion

• Is this even necessary? My understanding was that admins who quit under non-controversial circumstances could just go to
  here, or the ArbCom, or maybe even #wikimedia-stewards, to request their adminship back, with no need for another RfA. Moreschi ^Talk 07:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • (edit conflict)No, it is not necessary, however this user is voluntarily going through RfA again to make sure they are still trusted. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to clarify, when I ran for admin a second time it was before the modern system of re-sysopping people who voluntarily resigned. I asked a b'crat if I needed an RFA and he indicated he wasn't comfortable promoting without one. --W.marsh 18:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Sure, I'll support you for reconfirmation. Why not just email ArbCom? Keegan^talk 03:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Arbcom has nothing to do with this though, it was my own opinion. Thanks anyways :)

   ^{wat's sup} 03:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I just wanted to be clear: you choose reconfirmation when you could just email ArbCom or post to the B'crat's board to be resysopped. Keegan^talk 03:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Support - was an admin before, why not now? Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, if you're active again, then you should be able to get your admin status back as well without much trouble. Voluntarily going through RfA is quite reassuring as well. --
   talk 03:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Support. Jaranda changes his mind faster and more often than anyone I've known, but there is no reason not to give him the buttons back. -- DS1953 ^talk 03:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - Better than ever. Dfrg.msc 03:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Support this rather pointless exercise :) Majorly (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Support Jaranda, maybe you should take breaks more often. --MichaelLinnear 03:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. It took him something like six or seven tries, but when Jaranda finally became an administrator he was one of the better and more productive ones around from what I saw. I'm happy to support this for the eighth time. :-)
   masterka 03:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
8. Support-Hmm....user goes through RFA again to get their tools back, when all they probably had to do was post 2 lines on the bureaucrat noticeboard. :) Anyway, you were a great admin and I'm sure you'll continue to be. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 03:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support, but this time hold onto the tools! No big deal, after all. Andre (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. Good job actually taking this seriously and not just using it as a "hey look, everyone likes me!" stunt. -Amarkov moo! 03:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Very Weak Support. He's a valuable contributor, but his RfA statement is one of the sloppiest I've seen recently. It's riddled with misspellings and other issues. Jaranda, it's hard to take your request seriously when it's fraught with errors. Majoreditor 04:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    His typos come from a physical disability. Keegan^talk 04:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry about that, I do have an issue with grammar and spelling my entire life, and I did fail a RFA because of it. I do depend alot on a special spell and grammar checker that I use on my desktop computer but I don't have it with me as I am staying in the FIU dorms and the computer I'm using now doesn't even have access to Microsoft Word so there is nothing I can do about it. I did learned alot with my spelling and grammar thanks to wikipedia though, just see my edits from 2005 :). Thanks

    ^{wat's sup} 04:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Please keep this to yourself, but I too run just about all my posts through Microsoft Word's spelling and grammar checker before I post. I even go so far as to use the grammar checker's grammar and style setting. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12. Support Was a good admin before and I think that they can be so again. (aeropagitica) 04:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Given my past interactions, I'll readily support, but I hope that Jaranda would be clearer in explaining his actions, like in this case, where the action was allowable per
    WP:SNOW, but the given explanation made the action of dubious and ambiguous "legality" (for lack of a better word). —Kurykh 05:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
14. Support There is no reason to not give him back the tools...add a flamethrower just for doing the right thing and seeking community input on the matter.--MONGO 07:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    But flamethrowers incite flame wars! :) Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

15. Ok, but...Moreschi ^Talk 07:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Welcome back. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support, of course and welcome back. =) Terence 08:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oh most definitely! :)
    talk] 09:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
19. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --
    Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
20. Don't need reconfirmation. Got desysopped on personal request, in uncontroversial circumstances. No reason to deny adminship. --Dark Falls ^talk 10:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Rlevse 12:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - Welcome Back...--Cometstyles 13:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support I appreciate your desire to do it this way even though you didn't have to. It shows you understand that community support is important. JodyB _talk 13:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. He wanted to relive RfA again. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support no reason not to. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 13:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support, just don't quit again :) Wizardman 15:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mind striking the neutral just below? Just increases clarity. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

27. Support, welcome back. Next time you get smoe burnout, just walk away or just don't use your tools, don't bother with the de-bit'ing! — xaosflux ^Talk 15:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Apparenly the candidate wants the full support of the community before he gets it back, which I don't mind supporting him for.
    (Ni!) 15:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
29. Support... —Anas ^talk? 15:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support with absolutely no hesitation. ElinorD (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Very strong support Jaranda has always done excellent work here. Acalamari 16:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Strong support as always. :) I also don't think this is necessary, as I believe the respect for the candidate is universal. Xoloz 16:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. RFA is not a vote, but heck, it's decided anyway. I vote for Jaranda. :) Shalom ^Hello 16:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support with even less hesitation than ElinorD :D —AldeBaer (c) 16:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support, of course. While it's probably not necessary to go through this step (see Moreschi's comment above) I can understand sometimes wanting the reassurance of a reconfirmation. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Reconfirmation says a lot about his character. –
    Steel 17:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
37. Support Anyone that chooses to go through RFA again is the sort of loony we need! GDonato (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support - Normally, I look for trustworthiness. In this case, consensus in his last RfA established that Jaranda had trustworthiness. Under these odd circumstances, I think it appropriate to look for untrustworthiness. Jaranda is not untrustworthy and the tools should be restored to him. Also, his willingness to go through RfA rather than some other route to get the tools shows a lot of character. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Strong Support A great editor, and a great admin. Good to have you back, Jaranda. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. This does seem a bit unnecessary, but Jaranda is to be commended for wanting to "double check" with the community before going ahead and using the buttons. Good on him for doing so, and he certainly has my trust. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 18:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Absolutely yes. My long experience with J has been nothing short of a pleasant experience, and his admin actions have been unquestionably in th best interests of our project. Phaedriel - 19:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support per above, seems like the time is right Modernist 20:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - About time... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. (edit conflict) Definate support, if you are voluntarily going through RfA again then you obviously aren't going to do anything bad - if you were, you would have just asked a crat, and had it done privately :) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Great contribs, good answers, doesn't look like they'll abuse the tools...no way i can oppose. Ganfon 00:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support of course. But I hope that you don't really mean it when you say that you aren't going to be very active in the future. :-) Húsönd 00:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Total support - excellent strong and hard-working editor. Helps a lot with backlogs (see all those deletes) and also keeps sticking to the mission of writing more and staying in touch with the average guy who writes articles. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. We love you J. Even thhough you're a bit much sometimes... most of the time. -- Y not? 00:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. BigDT does raise some legitimate concerns, most of which I share. However, I also feel that that "vote" overlooked what I believe to be the motivating factor behind this RfA, and that is to ensure that the Wikipedia community really does support the re-granting of admin tools to Jaranda. Admittedly, the "volatility," if you will, of Jaranda's admin career (sysopped, de-sysopped, sysopped again, ad infinitum) is a bit of a concern, but it's not like God kills a kitten for every time an admin is promoted. All in all, this RfA demonstrates to me that Jaranda is, at heart, a cooperative and agreeable soon-to-be (again) admin. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. IMO there is nothing wrong with being inactive and still holding the mop. In fact, many admins who have left Wikipedia or are otherwise inactive still hold the mop, as shown
    ll302 01:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
51. Support. Get back to the mopping, we need it. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. RFA cliche #1? >Radiant< 08:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support - All contact was positive, good record as an admin, constructive criticism. All traits that an admin should have. (Although I do agree with BigDT below)Cool Blue^{talk to me} 14:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support (although, with all the other business pending on RfA/RfB, I would prefer that this pro forma exercise had been dispensed with). Newyorkbrad 14:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Peacent 16:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Time for the mop! Politics rule 17:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. Worth another try. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Has been an excellent admin in the past, and there is no reason to suppose will not be again. But please learn to spell!! --
    ^"talk" 00:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
59. Support: Easy call. If you need to take a break again, just don't bother with the desysop request! —Wknight94 (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support I know this guy and he'd a good admin (again) Corpx 03:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. Weak Support. Although I urge Jaranda to take heed of Everyking's concerns, I don't think they're serious enough to merit an oppose. Walton^talk 09:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support, why not? AW 10:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. You are on of the friendliest and supporting users I have ever seen, how could I not support you. Qst 19:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support He should be admin now anyways, nothing overly-controversial. Plus, he had the balls to go through a meaningless RFA when he could just as easily taken the cheap way out and just e-mail ArbCom and get it back. That is what we should actually want from admins who give up their adminship to begin with. — Moe ε 00:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
65. Suppose Jaranda gave up the bit without being under a dark cloud (or however ArbCom put it) so should be able to ask for it back. On the other hand, blocking Gurch didn't show great judgement and saying that blocking a respected editor can be used to calm people down makes me a little jumpy. That almost never works and generally ends up in a giant pie fight at ANI. I don't think cool down blocks should ever be attempted, at least not without raising it up the flag pole first.
    RxS 02:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
66. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support, overall good user. Everyking's concerns below also concern me, too. The erratic behavior, constantly leaving and returning to the project, are worrying. The "role model" comment above is odd. However, this is a good-faith user with a lot of dedication to the encyclopedia, and one controversial AFD closure (the only one linked so far) is not enough to convince me Jaranda would misuse the tools, were he granted them again. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. Yes, no problems here, even if he is a bit erratic, he is unlikely to misuse the tools. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. I remember you from a year ago and I am assuming you are still the same trustworthy and dedicated person. However I am really starting to have doubts as back then you were going back and forth on whether you want to be a janitor or not. I think you are treating the mop as a big deal - which it shouldn't be. But still, I have seen only good things from you so I have to give you my weak support.--
    Konstable 10:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
70. Support Get to work! *whipping noise*
    Dagomar 04:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
71. Support --Tbeatty 16:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support -- you were a good admin before, no evidence that you wouldn't continue to be so. -- MisterHand 19:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support -- Let me say that I am not sure what to think of the opposes below. No one edits here for a salary or under contract. People have lives outside this interesting project. Give him the tools - again. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave ~ Infrangible 04:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support and welcome back. ck lostsword•T•C 11:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support the reasons given in the oppose section don't concern me enough. Jaranda has been a good admin and won't misuse the tools. --Aude (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support. · jersyko talk 20:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support again. I've always liked Jaranda, and he nominated me on my RfA a while back. The quits and returns should stop though. It would be better just to lie low and take a break or copyedit for a few days than to request desysopping and leave. It disrupts the community a bit. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support. Idont Havaname makes some good points above. Great editor though, and no reason for you not to be re-mopped. IronGargoyle 07:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support. -- Karl Meier 07:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support - Overall looks good. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support You were a good admin, and I believe you will be again.old windy bear 21:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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

   I respect and understand your oppose vote, the main reason why I wanted to go back to RFA is to check if I was trusted especially after I did what I think it is some conterversal actions. Of course I could have asked a b-crat to resyrop me, but already went though this twice, and I felt if I did it again, I would be seriously abusing my tools. Thanks

   ^{wat's sup} 01:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

2. Strongly oppose: highly erratic; constantly leaves and returns. Also has a record of poor decision-making, has deleted content despite AfDs in favor of keeping. Everyking 04:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   For clarification, The AFD he is talking about is the superpowers AFD in which the

   ^{wat's sup} 05:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Do you think a person who leaves and returns as often as yourself really has the level of commitment necessary to hold a position of responsibility? If you want to take breaks, fine, but publicly quitting and requesting desysopping is something that indicates finality, a firm decision that you no longer want to participate on Wikipedia. Ex-Wikipedian Jaranda was obviously not committed to Wikipedia, so why should I think Wikipedian Jaranda is? Everyking 06:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I ask you Everyking, I have left Wikipedia and every site possible simultaneously, multiple times and I am an admin on YTMND wiki and a admin and bureaucrat on the Pro Wrestling Wikia, does that mean I'm less dedicated just because I leave for an indefinite period on Wikipedia? Just because someone has real life obligations to uphold doesn't mean they are incompetent to hold a position, whatever may be. Jaranda returned, and that should be enough in terms of commitment. — Moe ε 00:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   You missed my point entirely. I would never expect someone to favor Wikipedia over their real-life obligations. But why can't a person take breaks, or reduce activity level, without publicly announcing one's departure from the project and requesting desysopping? I think that indicates finality and a lack of commitment to the project—one assumes, from looking at such dramatic gestures, that he did not intend to return, that he considered himself done with Wikipedia forever. He can show commitment again, of course, by working as a normal editor for a few months (without any dramatic departures in the meantime). Everyking 03:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   One of the three times I committed desyropping was because I was been massively harrassed, and I lost the password for this account for a couple of weeks so it wasn't my fault. The other time was about 2 months after I became an admin, and now this time, and that is because I was inactive for several months, and I requested desyropping. I am committed to wikipedia. I prefer this than myspace or facebook, in which most of my friends spend hours doing nothing. I'm the only person I know in real life that works in this site. I will always be for the best of wikipedia, and that's why I decided to go to RFA again. Of course I still have a life outside wikipedia though, and I'm not online as much as most people because of that, and I still won't be. I hope you understand.

   ^{wat's sup} 06:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I have to say, looking at the AfD cited above, I don't disagree with Jaranda's closure. As a strong

   WP:OR concerns outweighed the weight of numbers. Walton^talk 09:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Actually Walton, RfA is a discussion - see the header "Discussion" under which I'm making this edit now. Also, you are discussing this RfA right this moment. Majorly (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose. I'm genuinely dubious of someone who cannot make up their mind about whether they want to be an admin or not. I was thinking about staying uninvolved or making a neutral comment until I saw this edit from today. If this is genuinely this candidate's view about what deserves a block rather than a caution, or reflects his attitude about how to diffuse a situation when two editors are angry at one another, I don't want him to have the tools. Sorry. Bucketsofg 20:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   The two users were in a fit fest, and normally a block of a respected editor is used to calm down in my opinion. Qst was warned about it before he made that comment, and it does break

   ^{wat's sup} 20:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I think you would have shown better judgment by saying out of it all together. Sorry. (In any case, as I said, you're indecision about your adminship generally sits very badly with me.) Bucketsofg 20:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I went inactive for over three months and removed the tools on myself because I didn't want to become an inactive admin with the tools, as this is a possible highjack with and I was a firm supporter that all admins that become inactive for a while should have the tools removed and then if they become active again, they could always have them back. When I became a normal user again, I was planning to leave the project once and for all, and I created another account

   ^{wat's sup} 21:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I'm not convinced, sorry. But I am clearly one of only a handful of opposes, and my guess is that you'll soon be back at work as an admin. If I might leave you with a word of advice: don't forget that the best edits and blocks that you'll ever make are the ones that you don't make. Bucketsofg 21:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. oppose. Wikipedia doesn't need more controversial administrators in the mold of MONGO or SlimVirgin. User:Argyriou (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Explain to me why I'm conterversal, so I can learn.

   ^{wat's sup}

   You said you considered MONGO and SlimVirgin role models. I consider them very poor role models, as they are constantly getting involved in controversy over their actions and manner. If you're going to be like them, I don't want you to have admin tools. User:Argyriou (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not like them though, and I don't deal with what they do. I consider them as role models because they went through alot of abuse and survived it.

   ^{wat's sup} 22:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

5. Oppose per my reasoning in Jaranda2; your temperment is unstable, you mention as role models people I would not support for admin, either, and you resigned in a fit of pique. Sorry, still don't have my confidence. -- nae'blis 03:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I personally doubt most people understand the reasons why I became inactive recently. I do have the temperment for this job, but I been having personal issues lately that only a few people here in wikipedia knows. The only times I left the project since I became an admin was in August for stupid reason, October after being harrassed, January when my mother became mentally ill again and now she is in a assistance living facilty dying of heart failure, and the main reason I became in active in March is that I became homeless as my mother couldn't pay the rent because she was in a mental hospital, and had to move in with a friend. I hope everyone understands. Thanks

   ^{wat's sup} 02:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

6. No. I have nothing against your abilities as an admin, but I'm getting sick of this game you play where you storm off and come back again and again... How many more times do you plan on having yourself desysopped? How many more times are you going to quit for good, eh? And despite your own feelings on the matter, you can just ask any old crat for your bit back, yet you waste the community's time with this exercise. This is not an RFA, but simply a cry for approval, for validation... you were a good admin, so stop wasting our time, stop playing this game, ask for your tools back, and get back to work. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose per Nae'blis and for "normally a block of a respected editor is used to calm down in my opinion"; this is not a good option, in my opinion. --John 19:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I mean about that if a user has been warned about it, and keeps on doing the illigal editing, like 3RR, then the block is used as a last opinion to calm down. I rather will find ways to end the conflect. I'm not a good explainer of things. Thanks

   ^{wat's sup} 02:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

8. Oppose, too unstable (quit, return, quit, return, quit, return, ad nauseum), too concerned with the opinion of others. This unnecessary RFA is a case in point.
   ╦ 15:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. Oppose This is tiring Jaranda. You keep quitting over and over again, citing stress or a variety of other issues. It happened several times before you first became an admin (particularly after failed RfAs; December 2005, February 2006, March 2006, May 2006...) and it has happened a couple of times since then (June 2007, early 2007 [January? April?], October 2006, August 2006). You're not the only person in the world who falls on troubled times, but if you can't handle being an admin or stress in general, perhaps it is better if you not have the admin tools. This makes your eighth RfA, and I'm dismayed that you neglected to put five of your previous RfAs (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aranda56, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aranda56 2, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aranda56 3, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aranda56 4, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aranda56 5) in the box above where it shows previous RfAs. -- tariqabjotu 17:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   See question 4 as I listed those RFAs there, the box automatically listed I could handle being an admin again, June 2006 was a wikibreak from my arm surgery, never quited, October 2006 was because I was being harassed by two users and I lost the password of my account in the process and I had to contact AOL, and early 2007 was when my mother got mentally ill, non of them quitting. The only times I "quitted" was in August 2006 for a couple of weeks, and June when I became inactive, and regained interest in the project again. Please I'm begging to everyone don't use my personal reasons to get opposed for. This is seriously sick and tiring. I rather get opposed for any bad admin actions I did, rather than my wikibreaks recently because of my personal problems. This isn't fair.

   ^{wat's sup} 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Per advise from

   ^{wat's sup} 21:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Kindly identify the bad faith oppose votes rather bad faith comments not approving your reconfirmation. Assuming good faith is one of the significant presumption of wikipedia. --Bhadani (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   He didn't say there were any bad faith oppose votes. He said there had been nine good faith oppose votes. And at the time he said that,[1] there had been exactly nine oppose votes. So I read it as a statement that all the oppose votes had been good faith. ElinorD (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes. I agree that both are arithmatically correct! And, I do presume that he does not believe that any subsequent "votes" are bad faith votes. --Bhadani (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose - For wasting the community's time for a meaningless pat on the back. If you act like an idiot, it doesn't matter if you were "reconfirmed" or not. pschemp | talk 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    When I created this RFA, I though I was conversational so I decided to check if I was trustworthy for the tools from the community after I saw several former admins doing the same thing, I never meant to act like an idiot.

    ^{wat's sup} 22:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    You mean controversial, right? We're all conversational :) And you are not controversial.

    ╦ 08:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

11. Definite oppose I want calm administrators cleaning up after this community. Bec-Thorn-Berry 07:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose as above. Anwar 14:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose per Everyking and Jeff above also not sure about the contacting AOL comment regarding password.Dureo 15:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose: Nothing personal - I just want that he should be spared off the stress of administrating wikipedia (as revealed by the some of the comments) which may adversely affect his real life work. --Bhadani (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose The concerns raised by the opposers above are, in my opinion, far too much for me to be able to support this RfA—arf! 00:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose — You contradict yourself too much.[2]
    Matthew 00:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
17. Oppose Can no longer support this. Jaranda seems way too desperate to be an admin again, and per Matthew, I cannot see how he treats AfDs, contradicting yourself every sentence is not helpful in an admin candidate. Majorly (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm missing something. Can you explain what the contradiction is? -Amarkov moo! 01:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He says it's not a vote. Then he calls it a vote. Then he opposes the candidate for thinking it's a vote, whilst calling it a vote, and then refers to his oppose as a vote! :) Majorly (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    People take the vote way too literally... just because someone says "my vote" doesn't mean they think a process is a strict numerical vote. Usually it's pretty obvious from context, but there's occasionally someone who just has to take the v-word literally. --W.marsh 01:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I meant that the user votes per above so many times that I don't know if he had the experience for AFDs, again I'm bad in telling, but that won't affect the way I use my tools.

    ^{wat's sup} 01:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

    ]

I'm a bit reluctant to give the tools to someone who keeps quitting and requesting desysopping over and over. Granted, you've been an admin before, so I'll probably change this. Wizardman 03:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't quitted in over six months though and the last time I requested desyropping was in the Blu Aabark (sp) fiaco back in October. The other time I asked for desyropping was when my senior year of high school started and I needed to try to consertrate on that instead of wikipedia, but that failed obviously :p. I created this RFA to see if I'm trusted with the tools. Thanks

^{wat's sup} 03:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thought it was longer than that. Okay, nevermind. Wizardman 15:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral. Jorge, I think you are (were, I guess) a fantastic admin, and I'm glad to see you've regained interest. But as a RFA-less resysopped admin, I have to say I wish you hadn't run this RFA. The current system is designed to minimize drama and unnecessary wiki-angst--let's keep it that way if we can.
   Chick Bowen 03:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Neutral - I'll support if the candidate promises to be more stable in his status on Wikipedia - there's no need to desysop yourself everytime you need to focus on real life; it's called a wikibreak banner. This page has been a waste of time in the long run; asking for your tools back should have been done prior. In any case, you're a great editor/past-admin & once you reply, I'll support or oppose. Cheers, Spawn Man
3. Neutral - After reading most of this discussion (phew!) I just want to ask Jaranda to make sure that this is absolutely what he wants before diving into it for the nth time. History can sometimes be the best indicator of the future, so I ask that you simply try to recall exactly why it was you gave up the reins as it were. You've given up on it out of frustration in the past, is that something you are sure won't happen again in the future? You've given up on it due to time-constraints in the past, are you better able to manage your time today? You've given it up due to real life situations, and you now report that your mother is in a terminal state. I just want to be sure that if the worst happens, you won't have a need to withdraw yet again - for your own benefit as well as the project. You owe it to yourself to be sure too. - RPIRED 01:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   If the worst happens, I hope it doesn't, I just take a wikibreak, I won't desyrop myself ever again, except for recall.

   ^{wat's sup} 01:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.