Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3|Carnildo]]: rm my comments that are unnecessary to this RfA
Line 72: Line 72:
#'''Support'''. I prefer not to mince words and call the userbox incident a "mistake", as a mistake is something you do accidentally. That was an error in judgement, but one that I don't think the candidate should be held to account for forever. Carnildo does terrific work in copyright, and we need more admins in this area. --<font color="3300FF">[[User:Aguerriero|Aguerriero]] ([[User_talk:Aguerriero|talk]])</font> 13:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I prefer not to mince words and call the userbox incident a "mistake", as a mistake is something you do accidentally. That was an error in judgement, but one that I don't think the candidate should be held to account for forever. Carnildo does terrific work in copyright, and we need more admins in this area. --<font color="3300FF">[[User:Aguerriero|Aguerriero]] ([[User_talk:Aguerriero|talk]])</font> 13:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', per Uninvited Co.'s nom. and the above comments. Most of what comes to mind has been said already. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', per Uninvited Co.'s nom. and the above comments. Most of what comes to mind has been said already. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' (despite my almost ignoring RfA now that's it's gotten so friggin' complicated). At this point, it's pretty much a moral support. I don't agree with his actions that caused him to be desysopped in the first place, but that one thing doesn't mean he should have the sysop flag off permanently. While desysop is a necessary thing, I'm beginning to think that the arbitration committee should be the ones to resysop a desysopped admin. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 13:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' (despite my almost ignoring RfA now that's it's gotten so friggin' complicated). At this point, it's pretty much a moral support. I don't agree with his actions that caused him to be desysopped in the first place, but that one thing doesn't mean he should have the sysop flag off permanently. --[[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] [[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''ʕ''']] 13:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong support'''. --[[User:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 13:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong support'''. --[[User:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 13:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per Siva1979. [[User:Rama's Arrow|<font color="blue">'''Rama's arrow'''</font>]] 14:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per Siva1979. [[User:Rama's Arrow|<font color="blue">'''Rama's arrow'''</font>]] 14:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:30, 29 August 2006

Carnildo

Voice your opinion! Ending 03:52, 2006-09-05 (UTC)

Carnildo (talk · contribs) – Carnildo is a former administrator whose admin status was revoked by the arbitration committee six months ago as a remedy in the matter that came to be known as the Pedophilia userbox wheel war. Carnildo's actions in that matter appear to have been a one-time (albeit egregious) failure of judgement rather than part of an overall pattern. Time has gone by, and in discussing that unfortunate matter with Carnildo, I have concluded that he has learned from that mistake. Just as importantly, he has continued to serve the project, in stark contrast to the other administrator subject to a similar remedy. Carnildo's most recent work has been the important but thankless job of policing fair use image claims. I also note the considerable productivity he has demonstrated in the past using the admin tools. I believe that the project would be best served by granting him adminship once again.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Of course. --Carnildo 03:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Deleting no-source and no-license images and other image CSDs. Undeleting images on the rare occasion where someone provides source or copyright information after the image was deleted. Explaining to people why their no-source or no-license image was deleted (much easier if I can check the deleted image description page to say "You uploaded it on the 7th without any indication of where it was from, it was tagged on the 13th by User:Joe Bloggs, my bot removed it from the article on the 18th, and it was deleted by User:SomeAdmin on the 21st"). Right now, all I can do is point to the image use policy and refer the user to the admin who deleted the image.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: The increased focus on image copyright problems. I can't take all the credit, but there was a definite increase in attention on the subject after I started objecting to the majority of Featured Article candidates as having problems with the images.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Most of the stress I face comes from enforcing the Wikipedia image use policies. Probably the hardest part comes from having to inform users that the hard work they've done to get permission for Wikipedia to use an image isn't good enough: that they need to get the image released under a free license.
Peoples' responses to OrphanBot haven't been much of a problem recently: the people who oppose Wikipedia's image use policies have either figured out that the bot just enforces the policies, so opposing the bot won't change the policy, or they've resorted to petty harassment and vandalism, which deesn't affect either me or the bot.

(Optional) question from Mike Christie (talk)

4. There are some comments below that you have "yet to apologize for [your] actions" with respect to the situation that led to the desysopping. Can you provide diffs (ideally from relatively close to the time of that case) that show your reaction to the ruling, and any communications you made that would shed light on your opinion of your own actions?
Comments
Current tally: (38/14/3)
Support
  1. This is bound to be a controversial RFA, but everyone deserves a chance, so support. – Chacor 03:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per Chacor. «ct» (t|e) 03:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --SB | T 03:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I believe the incident for which he was desysopped was a gross error in judgment. However, I have seen nothing but civil and professional behavior from Carnildo since, even in the face of the great deal of abuse he gets for running OrphanBot. I agree with UninvitedCompany's nomination statement: he does valuable work for which the admin tools would be very useful, and I have no reason to expect any similar lapses in judgment in the future. I am hesitant as a matter of form to voice an opinion in the RfA of someone I had a hand in desysopping, but I would like to state this publicly; desysopping is not intended to be a permanent measure for an otherwise good user who can regain the community's trust, and I think it is not too soon to reextend that trust to Carnildo. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Carnildo is a real asset to the project. No reason for us to go without his admin work for some indefinite longer period of time. Jkelly
  6. I think of myself as rather intolerant of malfeasance, and I was very disappointed at the wheelwarring that transpired during this incident, but I have nothing but admiration for someone who works hard at a thankless task like that carried out by OrphanBot for a very long time with little fanfare, just getting the job done... and for someone who would be brave enough to stand for adminship again, putting themselves in front of the community, in what is sure to be one of the more contentious and unpleasant nominations in some time. That's the sort of attitude we need among admins. Hearty support ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support; one incident does not a person make. Ral315 (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, per Mindspillage and Lar.-gadfium 04:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per Chacor. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 04:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support 90% because of his excellent work in the notoriously thorny area of image deletion and 10% as an anti-hyperbole measure. One instance of bad judgment during an apparently contagious outbreak of bad judgment is not "destroying" anything. Opabinia regalis 04:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I supported him once and I will support him again. Everyone makes mistakes and to condemn a former admin for his past mistakes incessantly would really demoralize any Wikipedian. I acknowledge that he had made mistakes in the past. Does that mean that he will never be able to gain his adminship for the resr of his time being spent in this project. Moreover, he is very, very unlikely to repeat those mistakes. If we disallow a former admin from ever gaining his admin duties because of past mistakes, every administrator in this project will be living in constant fear of erring due to some reasons. Just look at Chacor's (formarly NSLE) past contributions as a case in point. We as Wikipedians must learn to forgive, although I do not necessary mean forget, one's behaviour in this project. Yes, the user's violations of policy is inexcusable, but is it unforgivable? Time is a great healing tool in these cases. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just time that matters. How about remorse? Without it, that's a sign of a likely repeat offence. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I hope it goes through. You deserve a second chance. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support One grave mistake, in an affair in which everybody behaved poorly, does not obliterate an otherwise stellar wiki-career. He deserves the mop, and we'll be better for it. Xoloz 05:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support as per Mindspillage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support --Ixfd64 07:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support per Mindspillage. The returning of his adminship is overdue. OrphanBot is an extremely useful contribution to wikipedia. Great user (barring the silliness back in February). DarthVader 07:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Please get back to work. I would recommend to the opposers to not see adminship too high. I do not require admins to walk on water. I don't think he will abuse the tools. May I remind everybody that stuff is piling at WP:CP? So I would expect opposers to explain what to do to cut down on WP:CP please (or at least do some homework there, thanks). --Ligulem 08:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, we need his help. Kusma (討論) 08:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. He's served his time, has stayed around to help the project, and does good work. Easy decision. --kingboyk 08:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. He's been around for a long time. Mostly Rainy 08:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. I've read through the case at the center of the controversy. It's not pretty, but he/she has certainly been helpful in the past when I've encountered him/her (image related instances). I would like to see him/her have a second chance! InvictaHOG 09:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Because he is deserved as a administrator or sysop of Wikipedia Joseph Solis 09:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Support does invaluable work. Time has passed since his mistake, and has had already to go through the undignified process of desysopping and a failed RFA. The maturity he has demonstrated by responding calmly, and continuing his hard work (some have turned into a vandal, Annakin Skywalker style, for far less). I hope that, like AFD, the quality of comments will be assessed when closing this RFA, rather than merely statistical: many of the oppose votes come from people who have violated copyright, or can not be bothered to follow simple instructions in the upload process. The JPStalk to me 10:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Support should have had it restored last time around. Despite all the controversy and losing admin status, has consistently kept working in a difficult and contentious area, which is ultimately of great benefit to wikipedia. --pgk(talk) 11:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Merovingian - Talk 12:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Carnildo has done invaluable work for Wikipedia. The fact that he has continued to make invaluable contributions to the project after making a terrible mistake, being desysopped and being soundly rejected for re-admining six months ago shows me his commitment to Wikipedia. Given the wheel war incident, there is little doubt that plenty of people will be wathcing his progress and any hint of such behavior would result in immediate action by the commmunity. We have to be prepared to forgive one shameful incident, recognize how much Carnildo has given and has to give and give him the mop back. Gwernol 12:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, per nomination. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Support per Lar, The JPS and Gwernol. In the six months since he was desysoped, Carnildo has shown sound judgement and great dedication to the project. In his response to the parade of nasty comments he gets from inexperience users about OrphanBot, he shows impressive patience and civility. Carnildo will be an even greater asset to the community with admin tools, and I am confident he will not abuse them. ×Meegs 13:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. - Bobet 13:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. I prefer not to mince words and call the userbox incident a "mistake", as a mistake is something you do accidentally. That was an error in judgement, but one that I don't think the candidate should be held to account for forever. Carnildo does terrific work in copyright, and we need more admins in this area. --Aguerriero (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, per Uninvited Co.'s nom. and the above comments. Most of what comes to mind has been said already. Syrthiss 13:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support (despite my almost ignoring RfA now that's it's gotten so friggin' complicated). At this point, it's pretty much a moral support. I don't agree with his actions that caused him to be desysopped in the first place, but that one thing doesn't mean he should have the sysop flag off permanently. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong support. --CharlotteWebb 13:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per Siva1979. Rama's arrow 14:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, I believe in second chances and it has been 6 months.--Andeh 14:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, I think that uninvited's nomination is worth the consideration, and second chances are possible. User learned his lesson? Give him the opportunity to prove it. Bastique▼parler voir 15:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. I'm confident that Carnildo can be trusted with the tools, and I find his behavior after the desysoping instructive: he kept right on working, helping the encyclopedia. I find many of the opposes below ridiculous: people who hate OrphanBot, people who refuse to forgive. I'm prepared to give him a second chance. Furthermore, looking at the supports above, it appears that the Arbitration Committee is prepared to trust him, and that says a lot. Mackensen (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support once again, shouldn't have lost it. Also the troll factor observation by Mackensen is right on the money. —freak(talk) 15:21, Aug. 29, 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support per Mackensen, Uninvited and Mindspillage. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose
  1. From my limited (singular) and spectacularly negative experience: Unrepentant and unremorseful, unpredictable and impuslive, unconciliatory and uncommunicable, unreflective and uncritical, disrespectful and as offensive as any user I've ever met on the wiki. Untrustworthy. If you wish to discuss the above comment with me, please use this RfA's talk page, not my user talk page and not a threaded conversation bellow this. El_C 08:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I've never met nor even seen the candidate before, but after looking at the situation that led to Carnildo being de-sysopped, I don't think that Wikipedia would be better off giving this user any abilities beyond that of a registered user. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you at all aware of his extensive work with images? How much time and effort his bot and his actions have saved? How often he's been instrumental in enforcing our copyright policies? If you were, I highly doubt that you would say that Wikipedia wouldn't be better off with Carnildo as an admin.--SB | T 03:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I snuck a peek at Carnildo's talk page before weighing in, and from that, I was able to see how involved in image maintenence he is (I was also made aware of his bot through his talk page). My opposition is just one man's opinion and I'll stick to it for now, but I appreciate you taking the time out to comment, Sean! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per above. Michael 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strongly Oppose This user's violations of policy are inexcusable. He has yet to apologize for his actions, and frankly his bot is the most destructive thing on this encyclopedia. In addition, he is rude and condescending, the opposite of what an admin should be. juppiter talk #c 03:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, bollocks. I mean, I slip into hyperbole below, but ... bollocks. I gather you've uploaded a few dodgy images in your time and been upset with the response? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 03:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You like Carnildo. I do not. Doesn't mean you have to harass me and belittle my opinions. Kthx. juppiter talk #c
    Oh, I remember you... aren't you the user that vandalised OrphanBot's pages, repeatedly? Then got nasty about it when you got blocked over it and so got your block extended? Perhaps you've improved since then though. I can certainly see why you might not totally agree that this editor does good work. ++Lar: t/c 05:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Who's the one being nasty now? I'm not the one being nominated for adminship here, I don't see why my past is relevant to this topic at all. Anyway, I will not defend my vote anymore... any further discussion on the subject will be ignored by me. juppiter talk #c 06:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (amazed at how low some will stoop)[reply]
    This isn't a vote. It's a search for consensus. I think your past is highly relevant and I'm demonstrating that your standing to comment is badly tainted by your past actions. That's not being nasty... Nasty is vandalising the page of a poor defenseless bot, repeatedly. It's not stooping low either... Stooping low is calling for OTHERS to vandalise the page of that bot after you got blocked for it. Please note: There are a lot of editors I highly respect speaking out against Carnildo's nomination, and their words ought to carry weight with others who haven't made up their minds yet. I'm not sure you are one of them though, unless you've changed greatly. ++Lar: t/c 13:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mark's work with image copyright has been fantastic, and he's a great asset to the project. However, his blocking of Giano, El_C and Carbonite in the paedophilia userbox incident was quite possibly the worst thing that any admin could have done in the circumstances, and he did it without blushing. That sort of unthinking stupidity is quite worrying, and not something I'd like to see in an administrator. Might change to support if he can assure me he doesn't intend to use the blocking tool or, better yet, do anything stupid in future. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 03:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose for bringing Wikipedia the closest it has ever been to total and complete destruction, explicit lack of remorse in the subsequent RfA, and I just don't trust him not to carry on his private war. A justified, preventative emergency desysopping. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I read Kat's support and felt inclined to perhaps support or be neutral, however, I read the Arbcom case and the previous RfA; and my confidence has been completely shattered. Most of my oppose is per Mark and CanadianCaesar, I'm just stunned and can't support. Yanksox 03:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose As per above and my comments from the candidate's previous Rfa. He still demonstrates no remorse, except that he lost his SysOp's mop in the first place. His bravery is actually arrogance. Give him his powers back and he will be even moreso. Besides, no one has yet made a compelling case as to why he really needs the Op Mop to be the number one copyright cop. Especially not with Orphanbot doing most of his grunt work. Adminship is a duty and trust, not a reward. If you want to reward him, give him a cookie or a barnstar. But he has proven himself untrustworthy and simply not worth the risk. See Guanaco for instance.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per above. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong oppose. We are not so hard up for new admins that we must hand the bit back to someone who has yet to show the slightest shred of remorse for the actions that caused him to lose it in the first place. To have merely his word that the incident would not be repeated (although he has not offered even this!) would be insufficient; I am of the opinion that we cannot even consider giving the mop to him again until he acknowledges that his actions were wrong—and not merely because they failed. Kirill Lokshin 09:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong oppose- no image would be safe if this user had admin powers. Astrotrain 10:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What a bizarre comment, Carnildo had admin powers for a long time and we still have lots of images. If you mean images tagged incorrectly got deleted, then that continues regardless of this editor's admin status. If you want images to be "safe", tag them properly and only use fair use within the bounds of the fair use policy. --pgk(talk)
  12. Oppose. I don't trust Carnildo's judgement enough to support returning the admin tools and, as Kirill says, there is no shortage of other, more suitable, candidates. Leithp 12:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Carnildo's works to OrphanBot is awesome, but as for adminship, I don't think so. Good editor really, but I'm sceptical of granting this user tools again. Oppose per Kirill Lokshin and R.D.H Ghost in the Machine. --Terence Ong (T | C) 12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Oppose per Juppiter and the follow up on his vote. Yankee Rajput 13:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are opposing, at least in part, because another user, not even Carnildo, exposed previous abuses relevant to this case? RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 13:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral
  1. Weak Neutral, leaning towards Support. I can't believe people complain about OrphanBot. As for his past problems, he has already tried adminship before, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 2, after being desysop'ed. I would like to see diffs between his second and this request to probe that he is likely to abuse the tools. -- ReyBrujo 03:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral OK, this is a highly-divisive issue and I would lean towards support for a good contributor but for one thing; I cannot see any expression of remorse for the actions that you performed in order to have the admin status stripped from you in the first place. Such an expression doesn't appear here or in your previous attempt to pass the RfA. Is it possible to receive assurances from you that a repeat of this wheel-war event won't happen?  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  08:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I would really like to support, but the candidate hasn't even mentioned what is obviously the central issue here. Shell babelfish 13:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Carnildo_3&oldid=72623233"