Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 2: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Tally: (64/52/9) Isn't this the nominator's job? |
HouseBlaster (talk | contribs) |
||
| (54 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
:''See also [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3]]''
:''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[wikipedia:requests for adminship|request for adminship]] that '''did not succeed'''. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>
===[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]]===
'''
{{User|Carnildo}} – This is one of the rare times I'm nominating someone for adminship, but I believe Carnildo deserves it. He's contributed greatly in tackling the problem of unfree and/or incorrectly licenced images, and is overall a great asset to the 'pedia. There was that nasty problem with the pedophile issue, but I believe that one brash mistake in a heated moment is not enough to mar Carnildo's overall worth as an admin. Allowing him to help out with the deletion of unsourced images and the like is a good thing<sup>TM</sup>. (First RfA is [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo|here]].) [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 14:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Line 13 ⟶ 14:
'''Support'''
#I've been waiting for Carnildo to accept and am honored to be able to be the first '''support''' vote; surely he ought to regain his adminship, especially in view of his bot work and his attendant need for sysop privileges. I concur with and in the sentiments of the nominator, but I should say (hoping not to engender more argument on the issue) that I don't think Carnildo's actions vis-à-vis the "pedophile" blocks/bans to have been untoward or improper. Even assuming arguendo that they were, though, surely one oversight oughtn't to disqualify an otherwise excellent Wikipedian. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 21:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
#[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support''' Yeah, is rather quiet for an admin but anyway besides of few wierd blocks I think he does a decent job. And the bots are awesome. And he's helped numerous people with the sticky fair use issues. <small>[[User:RN|Just another star in the night]] <sup
#''NEVER!!!'' Oh, wait, this is ''[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]]'' - well why didn't you just say so... '''STRONG SUPPORT'''. (but, per your response to Q3, Sam does a lot of good here). [[User:
#:<
#'''Strong support'''. His work regarding image copyrights is most invaluable and necessary to the project. -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Run]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<
#'''Support''' per Rune. good user.--[[User:Alhutch|Alhutch]] 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' def [[User:KI|KI]] 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong support'''. —[[User:Guanaco|Guan]][[User talk:Guanaco|aco]] 23:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong Support''' Needs adminship because of his work with images --[[User:Jaranda|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Jaranda|<sup>wat's sup</sup>]] 23:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', shouldn't have lost it. — <small>Mar. 21, '06</small> <
#I re'''support'''ed Karmafist. No reason not to you. [[User:NSLE|NSL]][[
#'''Support''', dealing with copyright issues needs to be done, yet it creates enemies. I respect his work in this area. [[User:NoSeptember|<font color = "green">'''NoSeptember'''</font>]] [[User talk:NoSeptember|<font color = "green"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 00:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. He does great work, and when he was deadmined he behaved with maturity and professionalism and continued to do great work. Obviously, he is far more effective and useful to all of us as an admin. We've demonstrated that we know how to deadmin people when there is a problem, and he's demonstrated consistency and reliability in the face of the difficulties of being human. However you vote, realize that every day Carnildo spends without the mop is at ''our'' expense, not his. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 01:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Line 29 ⟶ 30:
#'''Support''' per Gmaxwell above and answers below. --[[User:MarkSweep|MarkSweep]] <small>[[User talk:MarkSweep|(call me collect)]]</small> 02:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per Xoloz and Gmaxwell. [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] [[User_talk:Kusma|(討論)]] 02:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Forgive (but don't forget), anyone can make mistakes. [[User:Prodego|<
#'''Support''', he was desysopped for defending freedom of expression, I have to support him. -[[User:Lethe/sig|lethe]] <sup>[[User talk:Lethe/sig|talk]] [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +]</sup> 03:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - I believe in redemption. --[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoikhoi]] 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Changed from neutral; addressed my concerns in an unusually pragmatic way above. As I said below, I believe any opposition based on Carnildo's image work to be dangerously wrongheaded. —[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 04:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per Gmaxwell. Needs adminship for his invaluable image work. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 04:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. People are flawed as a matter of course. We all make mistakes, and Carnildo's mistake shouldn't prevent him from returning to adminship. It's not like he couldn't be banned instantly if he broke his promises... right? [[User:Matt Yeager|<b
#'''Support'''. It's time for a second chance. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]][[User:TantalumTelluride/Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">e</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">lluride</span>]] 05:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Per above, <b>[[User:Jacoplane|<
#'''Support''' Very helpful to the project - <font style="color:#137300;">[[User:Cohesion|'''cohesion''']]</font><sup><font style="color:#f98c0d;">[[User_talk:Cohesion|'''t''']]</font></sup> 06:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Arbcom's decision is a double edged sword. From the arbcom page, "For statements he interpreted as hate speech" if he interpreted the statements as hate speech then he may have been right to issue those blocks, HOWEVER that is not to say his interpretation was correct. [[User:Onthost|Mike]] <sub>([[User_talk:Onthost|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Onthost|C]])</sub> [[Image:Star_of_life2.
#:<s>'''Support''' for work on image copyright issue. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 07:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)</s>
#'''Support'''. [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 08:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support''' I see Carnildo's offer to not block anyone for a year is a good faith effort to calm fears and goes further than I think is needed - but with that commitment and the need for a mop to assist Carnildo's efforts on images I am changing my view [[User_talk:Trödel|<
#'''Support''' per Gmaxwell. --<
#--[[User:Sean Black|Sean Black]] [[User_talk:Sean Black|<sup
#'''Support'''. -- [[User:DS1953|DS1953]] [[User_talk:DS1953|<sup
#'''Support''' Disagree with his actions which led to him being desysopped, but a far bigger asset as an admin than as not. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>([[User_talk:Pgk|<
#'''Support''' I have always found this user to be dilligent, polite and mature. Will make a fine admin. [[User:The JPS|The JPS]] 23:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' -- [[User:SmthManly|<
#'''Support''' For his work concerning images and per questions. [[User:Garion96|Garion96]] [[User_talk:Garion96|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 01:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Carnildo has done his time in the stockade. It's time for him to get back to work, suitably chastised. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 02:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Line 58 ⟶ 59:
#'''Support''' per Greg and Kelly. [[User_talk:Robchurch|Rob Church]] 13:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' from past experiences, and per random support votes above. --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 14:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. per Greg and kelly also. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<
#'''Support'''. A close call but as an admin he seems to have done a huge amount of good work. His three blocks seem to have been an anomaly unlikely to repeat itself, especially since he now thinks they were not necessary. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 15:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''That's hot.''' [[User:Mike Halterman|Mike H.]] [[User talk:Mike Halterman|That's hot]] 19:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Line 64 ⟶ 65:
#'''Support'''. [[User:Markalexander100|Mark]][[User talk:Markalexander100|<sup>your words</sup>]] 23:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Wheel war cabal support.''' Seriously, we all make mistakes, and Carnildo is a great editor. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] <small>[[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]</small> 23:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' May the first user without one mistake cast the first stone. [[Image:Flag of Ohio.svg|20px]] [[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[
#'''Support'''; the ArbCom did not intend to lock Carnildo out indefinitely. A valued editor whom has certainly learned his mistake. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] ([[User talk:Ral315|talk]]) 02:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per Kelly. [[User:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah Ewart]] ([[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Talk]]) 02:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong Support''' Impressive number of edits and deletions. I'd say you're perfect for the job. Good Luck though
#'''Support'''. I'm convinced that you would not make the same mistakes you have in the past again, and in every other respect you re certainly admin material. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<
#'''Strong support'''. Carnildo made one error of judgement, he knows he made an error of judgement, and the unforgiving attitude of many Wikipedians is kinda disappointing. He is an experienced and knowledgable administrator. The argument 'how do we know he won't do it again?' is fallacious - not only could you apply the same argument to any prospective first-time administrator, going through this experience will probably guarantee Carnildo will excise better judgement (and other than this incident, his was impeccable). [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none"><span style="text-underline:none"><font color="#007700">Proto</font></span></span>]]<font color="#555555"><b>||</b></font><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none"><span style="text-underline:none"><font color="#007700">type</font></span></span>]]</small> 11:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
#:It's not a matter of an unforgiving attitude being disappointing. Even The Pope does not give forgiveness without some form of sincere expression of regret and comprehension - surprisingly I am not The Pope. Not once has Carnildo contacted or appologised, or even explained personally to any of those he wrongly accused and banned for immagined "hate speech". If he had any integrity and understanding of the responsibilities of an admin he would have tried to build some bridges before he came here. He abused his powers once, and still seems to be blissfully unaware of the gravity with which many people view that abuse. [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 13:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Line 80 ⟶ 81:
#Support,, of course. The arbcom case is not supposed to be a scarlet 'S' forever upon his brow - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 21:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - my concern has been addressed and I'm always in favour of giving a second chance -- [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] 23:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' give this kid a chance. --[[User:RobNY|Rob from NY]] 02:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Not much point now, but support on principle per NSLE. I too resupported Karmafist. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[User:Fang Aili/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User:Fang Aili|ng Aili]] <sup>[[User talk:Fang Aili|<font color="green">說嗎?</font>]]</sup> 16:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
'''Oppose'''
Line 88 ⟶ 91:
#'''Strong oppose'''. Oh sure, let's give him blocking powers; it's not like he'd do something stupid with them, like [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Carnildo's blocks|indefinitely blocking some admins for no good reason]] or something! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]][[User:Kirill Lokshin|hin]] 00:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Sorry, you do great work, but concern over abusing admin tools is the only reason someone should not be given them. When you have abused them there shouldn't be any leniency. If admin tools were really needed to edit here, I'd be more willing to capitulate. If you can't stop, think, and discuss before using them, then just live without them. I appreciate your commitment, but you should have thought about that before you blocked two admins that hadn't done anything yet. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 00:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#:With some additional time and a sincere apology I would support next time. One serious mistake shouldn't blackmark an editor forever. We do however need to send a strong message that abusing admin tools is not acceptable. I do think it's clear an apology and an understanding that what you did was more than just a tiny mistake would have drastically changed the results here. So again, with some time and some effort to mend fences I'll support in the future. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 19:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
#::Do you really think that Taxman? I think apologies and regrets have to come from the heart they cannot be prompted by others, they are emotions - they exist or they do not. Do you want to know something else I think? What are we all still doing here? - Is this nomination ever going to close what a people waiting for? [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 20:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Not yet. [[User:Evilphoenix|Ëvilphoenix]] <sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Evilphoenix|Burn!]]</b></small></sup> 00:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Too soon.'''[[User:Voice of All|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue">-of-</font><font color="black">All</font>]]'''<sup>[[user_talk:Voice_of_All|<font color="blue">T</font>]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All|@]]|[[
#'''Oppose''' [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Carnildo|No Way]]. At least not yet, let a few more months pass before reapplying. [[User:Moe Epsilon|<
# '''Oppose'''. I feel it is too early, considering the circumstances of the desysopping. Will gladly support in a couple of months if no other significant issues show up in between. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong Oppose''' - I'm sorry, absolutely not, and probably never again. —'''
#'''Strong Oppose''' : Past behaviour is the surest predictor of future behaviour. If he's abused admin privileges once, he'll do it again unless something intervenes to change his attitude. There are candidates who fail to get admin privileges on this page despite the fact that they would not abuse those privileges. Why should Carnildo obtain ascendancy over them? - [[User:Richardcavell|Richardcavell]] 02:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#:<
#:::Indeed, so are you saying Jimbo is a censor?--[[User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)|R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)]] 03:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
#:::::I said no such thing, but I probably would agree with such an assessment. I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say that Jimbo practices some censorship. Jimbo has his priorities, and freedom of speech is not on the top of his list. Isn't that obvious? It's OK for him to have different priorities, and it's OK for me to disagree with them. -[[User:Lethe/sig|lethe]] <sup>[[User talk:Lethe/sig|talk]] [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit§ion=new}} +]</sup> 09:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Line 107 ⟶ 112:
#:Thank you Lethe. You have explained the reasoning for the support vote very clearly indeed. [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 11:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Upon further review of February's incident, I have changed my vote. There are editors whose RfAs have been denied despite not going through an ordeal nearly as significant as yours. Although I'd like to forgive you, I simply can't. I must hold you to the same standards as other potential admins, even though you have made great contributions to Wikipedia. [[User:Joturner|joturner]] 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#:<s>'''Oppose''': As a community, we are asked to conclude whether or not a user will abuse admin privilleges - Carnildo has. No matter how good a contributor has been, few are entrusted with the golden privilleges, and even fewer have abused them. The rules that apply to a new nomination do not apply here, for how do I know Carnildo won't do it again.</s> --[[User:Master Jay|'''<
#'''Oppose''': Abusing blocking privilege is too dangerous. Better wait for some time to regain trust.--[[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] 03:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''': Not after blatant admin abuse. [[User:Akendall|<font face="Trebuchet MS">akendall</font>]][[User_talk:Akendall|<sub><font face="Trebuchet MS">(talk)</font></sub>]] 03:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''': Admin privileges should be given to ones whom we can trust. Carnildo had betrayed that trust, and it will be hard to gain it back. [[User:Olorin28|Olorin28]] 04:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Due to the incidents and issues mentioned above. [[User:DaGizza|<b><
# '''oppose''': This is quite a long explanation of oppose, but it is important it is here where it can be seen. I wonder how many of the support votes above are in fact votes not for Carnildo but votes against Jimbo for having the temerity to seize his encyclopedia and instantly de-sysop Carnildo to prevent a possible major scandal in the press. Because lets face it that is what happened. I was one of the three infamous editors who one quiet Sunday evening dared to voice the opinion (my opinion) that paedophiles openly editing was not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. (Full explanation and links here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Statement_by_Giano]) For that I was without warning indefinitely banned for "hate speech" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano_archive_4_%282006%29#Blocked] I've a lot of friends so the ban lasted about 3 minutes, but Carnildo was wheel waring elsewhere on the subject, Jimbo stepped in an instantly de-sysoped him, and the rest is history. Except in all that time Carnildo has not once contacted me, expressed remorse, or even given me explanation of his views. He would not just be a bad admin, he would be dangerous to the project as a whole. That he comes here just a few short weeks later just displays his complete lack of understanding of what an admin should be. Regarding his work with images: there is a widely held misconception on wikipedia that anyone who does seemingly dull work should be rewarded with an adminship -this is not the case. People only do what they enjoy doing. No one is asked to do anything, and anyone who expects thanks and great reward here is living in cloud cuckoo land, the same place I hope this attempt to regain admin powers is firmly sent. Incidentally, I am not an admin, have never wanted to be, and considering the standards of behaviour employed by many of them - see no need to be. [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 08:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#:I have moved a very, very long exchange of views from here to the talk page for clarity. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 13:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC). Yes, and I have moved it right back again. Please do shunt off important facts pertaining to this case to the sidelines. It is important that people evaluating Carnildo's suitability to be an admin have all relevant facts easily at hand. If people don't want the chore of reading the evidence perhaps they should not be passing judgement. [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 18:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Line 135 ⟶ 140:
#'''Oppose''' per above, too soon. [[User:Weatherman90|Weatherman90]] 15:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''': As per above. --[[User:Bhadani|Bhadani]] 16:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Carnildo has demonstrated poor judgement in the past, as extensively documented here, and given the difficulty of de-sysopping people (unless you're Jimbo) I don't think we should be in a hurry to return his admin status. This is too soon. [[User:Leithp|Leith]]
#'''Oppose''' not yet. [[User:Grue|<
#'''Oppose''', agree with Grue. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 21:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''', this is too strange for me. It bothers me deeply that Carnildo a) undertakes to not block anybody for a year, ''but'' b) doesn't seem to think he did anything wrong in the first place: I can't reconcile them. "In hindsight" the blocks of Giano, El C, and Carbonite become "unnecessary" and "unwarranted" (Q4 below)—words that make a trifle of the whole thing. I don't see any expression of regret, let alone remorse, for doing these unnecessary things, so I assume none is felt. If it were like Gmaxwell says, that "We've demonstrated that we know how to deadmin people when there is a problem", then perhaps; but have we? —Of course not. "We"? The community didn't have anything to do with de-adminning Karmafist, BorgHunter, Ashibaka, El C, and Carnildo. One person did that. '"We" ''still'' don't know how to deadmin people when there is a problem, and there was a whopper of a problem with this user. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|ノート]] 23:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC).
Line 145 ⟶ 150:
#'''Oppose'''. Protecting the idea of freedom of speech is an admirable thing to do, but blocking people for something they ''might'' do but have not done is not. [[User:Yamaguchi先生|Yamaguchi先生]] 00:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' At this time, simply still too much controversy.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 02:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' After exhibiting such behavior as the user has, I do not think there is any way the community can ever trust or hand this editor the mop again. -'''[[User:AKMask|<
#'''Oppose'''. I'd have voted to support if Carnildo had apologized, because everyone makes mistakes in the heat of the moment, but I see from Giano's comment above that he didn't apologize. We lost [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]], one of the editors Carnildo blocked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ACarbonite] and who was one of our best editors and admins, because of that situation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACarbonite&diff=38366452&oldid=36506877] [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
#:For the historical record, Carbonite announced his departure and requested voluntary desysopping before he was blocked by Carnildo. The ongoing controversy may have contributed to his leaving, but not the block itself. [[User:NoSeptember|<font color = "green">'''NoSeptember'''</font>]] [[User talk:NoSeptember|<font color = "green"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 14:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
#::Carbonite announced he was leaving [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Carbonite&diff=prev&oldid=38366452] because of the row over the pedophile userbox, then an hour later Carnildo blocked him indefinitely, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ACarbonite] which didn't exactly persuade him to return. As Carbonite said: "When I left, I hadn't yet been blocked by Carnildo for 'hate speech'. This is yet another reason why I see very little reason to consider coming back ..." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carbonite&diff=prev&oldid=38408897] [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
#'''Oppose''', its too early now. Maybe in future. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<
#'''Oppose''' per above. --[[User:Masssiveego|Masssiveego]] 09:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' --[[User:Thumbelina|Thumbelina]] 13:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Line 161 ⟶ 166:
#'''Oppose'''. Too soon. Come back in a month or two. [[User:Aucaman|'''Aucaman''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Aucaman|Talk]]</sup> 02:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong Oppose'''. [[User:Utcursch|utcursch]] | [[User talk:Utcursch|talk]] 06:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Far too soon. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<
#'''Strongest Possible Oppose''' Does not understand the true character of wikipedia and insists on cutting off Wikipedia's nose to spite its face. This type of user, who insists on following the rules, is more destructive than a user that breaks the rules to better the encyclopedia. [[User:OrphanBot|OrphanBot]] sucks, and he knows it. Just wants to enforce it on everyone to feel self-important. No adminship, now or ever, until he gets rid of OrphanBot and begins to show understanding of what Wikipedia is. <font face="Verdana" color="#000000"><sup> [[User:Juppiter|juppiter]] </sup> </font>
#:The above must be the strongest possible nonsense. Notice how this user has received many notices from OrphanBot, so obviously hasn't the ability to source or tag correctly. *dons flame-proof jacket...* [[User:The JPS|The JPS]] 12:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
#:: You like Carnildo. I do not. Your opinion is no more valid than mine. If I've had negative experiences with the user, then I am entitled to an oppose vote. <font face="Verdana" color="#000000"><sup> [[User:Juppiter|juppiter]] </sup> </font>
#'''Oppose!''' --[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] ''[[User talk:Phroziac|♥♥♥♥]]'' 15:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''oppose''' per [[User:Mo0|mo0]] those who lost there adminship thorugh petty wheel warring do not deserve there admin privliges back[[User:Benon|Benon]] 19:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Line 175 ⟶ 180:
#'''Oppose''' and I think this is my first RFA oppose. To be granted adminship barely 6 weeks after being de-sysopped makes a mockery of behaviour standards. Particularly so that he doesn't appear to have acknowledged fault or guilt. -- [[User:Ianbrown|Ian]] ≡ [[User_talk:Ianbrown|talk]] 03:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''OPPOSE MOST STRONGLY'''. The most unsuitable candidate for adminship I have ever voted on. Carnildo is one of the most unhelpful, destructive editors on Wikipedia. I have yet to see him make one ''positive'' contribution to our work as he prefers to snipe and tear down others' work. When one asks him for explanations or tries to address issues he raises he simply ignores others. The fact he has been stripped of adminship only weeks ago shows how wrong this candidacy is. [[User:PedanticallySpeaking|PedanticallySpeaking]] 17:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
#:I can't say I'm surprised here. I've objected to at least six of his featured article candidates, some of them repeatedly, for haveing serious image copyright problems. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 20:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
#::Even now - you just don't get it do you? [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 20:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
#:::I think I get it quite well. Some of the people here are objecting because I was de-adminned. Some are objecting because I blocked you. And at least three of them are objecting becuase of my work with image copyrights. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 05:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
#Per Taxman, above. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 17:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. With the issues raised in the arbcom case I lost trust in Carnildo. I haven't interacted much with him since, but I have seen nothing the has caused me to reevaluate this lack of trust. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 22:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - while Carnildo does good work, the lack of an apology and any contrite feelings makes me think now is not the time. Indefinitely blocking of well-known contributors is a big deal; we can forgive and forget, but the first step in that is recognizing your mistakes. Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <span style="color:brown;">note?</span>]])</small> 22:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''', after thinking about this for a while, there needs to be a great deal of caution when dealing with users who have been desysopped in the past, especially when it occured in a way as spectacular as the way his desysopping happened; and even then, it is still too soon to sufficiently regain the community's trust. Perhaps later. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 02:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
#I agree that some of the broader issues that pertain to the pedo-userbox event are complex. But there are important things about it that are simpler. On February 5th, Carnildo unilaterally banned three veteran users "for hate speech and inciting attacks", because they supported the blocking of individuals describing themselves as pedophiles. It seems that he acted this way out of a concern for protecting the freedom, such as it is, of people to edit and use the features of the encyclopedia without fear of sanction for what "[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war/Evidence#Evidence presented by User:Carnildo|they are (in this case, being pedophiles)]]." <p>I will not say anything about the wisdom of trying to protect the freedom of people to say things by banning some people who simply said things. I am also not interested in here discussing what the encyclopedia's policy on (self-described) pedophile editors ought to be. We are here to consider Carnildo's use of administrative permissions. <p>Carnildo [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AGiano blocked] Giano at 22:41, Feb 5th. He notified Giano of the block two minutes later. In the ArbComm case, [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war/Evidence#Evidence presented by User:Carnildo|he admits]] he "probably shouldn't have blocked Giano", because Giano's opinion didn't "seem quite as extreme as that of the other two", and because as a non-sysop, Giano couldn't possibly have acted to block someone—he had just expressed an opinion that (self-described) pedophiles should not be welcome on Wikipedia. Despite this admission, however, Carnildo has not once, to my knowledge, indicated remorse for what he had done or apologized to Giano. To this day, Giano's talk page has precisely [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree?sort=name&article=User_talk%3AGiano&user=Carnildo&dbname=enwiki_p one edit] by Carnildo—the block notification. Ie, not only was the block placed with no prior attempts at clarification, discussion, or warning, Carnildo has not stopped by to try to discuss the issue with Giano, despite admitting he may have erred. On this RFA, he once more admits that the "blocking Giano and El C was unwarranted". Unfortunately, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Carnildo_2&diff=44880397&oldid=44878826 his statement to Bishonen] suggests a rather extraordinary indifference to the harm he caused. <p>Carnildo's interactions with Carbonite and El C are of a similar quality: sudden bans with no prior discussion or warning, and virtually no meaningful or mature attempts at discussion or conciliation. In trying to look at this through Carnildo's eyes, I can see that the situation with Carbonite is a bit complicated. Carnildo probably sincerely feels that he acted essentially appropriately wrt Carbonite, who unlike El C and Giano had blocked someone for a reason Carnildo sees as wrong. However, this does not excuse the manner in which he banned Carbonite. This misuse of the block permission, and an inconsiderate manner in dealing with those whose views he does not share, is a common thread in Carnildo's actions in this incident. In the light of the preceding, I cannot support this RfA. —''[[User:Encephalon|<span style="font-family:Times;color:navy;cursor:crosshair;">'''Encephalon'''</span>]] 21:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)''
#'''Strong Oppose''' Simply put, Carnildo is a bully. No bully should ever be allowed near Wikipedia, let alone admin tools. Give it a few months, and a change of perspective and this vote total may change though, he's done alot. Heck, I of all people should know how ugly these things are, and how everyone should be given the chance to redeem themselves if they want it. [[User:Karmafist|<span style="color:#4682B4;">Karm</span>]][[WP:ESP|<span style="color:#00FF00;">a</span>]][[User talk:Karmafist|<span style="color:#E32636;">fist</span>]]<sup> '''[[User:Karmafist/manifesto|Save Wikipedia]]'''</sup> 23:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
'''Neutral'''
:<s> I think that users who raise objections based on image copyright status should be ready to reply to the uploaders and to comment possible changes on the image tags. Specially when uploaders politely ask them to do so. I did that with Carnildo, when he raised objections to the copyright status of pictures I uploaded. He said nothing. Therefore, I am neutral in this voting, I hope I'm not being unfair, If someone shows that I am being unfair, I'll change my stance. [[User:Afonso Silva|Afonso Silva]] 23:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)</s>
#'''Neutral'''. I have no qualms about his fine work with images, but it's a little too soon since earlier incidents. — '''[[User:Rebelguys2|Rebelguys2]]''' [[User talk:Rebelguys2|<sup
#: <s>'''Neutral''' - haven't seen enough to convince me yet to support - but have no good reason to vote oppose either (other than the actions that started the RfAr)- so I'll stay <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lukewarm lukewarm] for now and observe </span>[[User_talk:Trödel|<
#: <s>'''Neutral'''. I very much want to support based on Carnildo's image work. I have the strongest possible disagreement with anyone voting oppose on that basis. But I can't support; his blocks were quite awful, and there is a rather casual attitude taken toward them in Q4 below. I do not trust this user with the Block button. —[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 03:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)</s>
#'''Neutral''' because there are strong arguments both for (forgiveness, that you did what you thought was right for the right reasons) and against (a pretty damning ArbCom finding, using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, reapplying too soon). I think you would have been better off waiting a few months to let memories fade, personally. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 11:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Line 188 ⟶ 200:
#'''Neutral'''; it's just too early to make him admin again. Will support if nominated again after a couple of months. - [[User:Paolo Liberatore|Liberatore]]([[User talk:Paolo Liberatore|T]]) 13:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral'''. I might be willing to give him another chance later, but right now it's still too controversial. --[[User:Alan Au|Alan Au]] 22:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral'''. A good user with a rather large spot on his/her record now. Probably needs more time to prove trustworthyness again. [[User:Jedi6|<
#'''Neutral''' (moved vote from oppose) I am for giving people another chance, and Carnildo has a stellar track record before the incident in question, not to mention his work with the images. Nonetheless, a little more time is needed to let this situation cool over. He has my unequivocal support in a future nomination. --[[User:Master Jay|'''<
'''Comments'''
<!-- begin editcount box-->
Line 237 ⟶ 249:
::However, there are a number of tasks that I've done in the past that there aren't presently enough admins doing. [[:Category:Images with unknown copyright status]], for instance, has a one-week backlog.
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either [[{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|this nomination]] or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.''
[[Category:Unsuccessful requests for adminship|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]
| |||