Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
PPGMD (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Taxman (talk | contribs)
Promotion
Line 18: Line 18:
Get off the fence and tell us what you ''really'' think ;-) [[User:JzG|JzG]] 16:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Get off the fence and tell us what you ''really'' think ;-) [[User:JzG|JzG]] 16:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
:Some of my thoughts are on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=73313352#Forgiveness_on_Wikipedia this WP:AN section]. Again, please do not start a threaded conversation bellow my project page comment. [[User:El C|El_C]] 08:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
:Some of my thoughts are on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=73313352#Forgiveness_on_Wikipedia this WP:AN section]. Again, please do not start a threaded conversation bellow my project page comment. [[User:El C|El_C]] 08:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

== Promotion ==

Carnildo was an admin who was caught up in an unfortunate argument for which he was deadmined. Based on statements from members of the arbcom, we believe that this was meant as a temporary measure, a cooling off period, and in that time Carnildo has proved his loyalty and value to the project. While we recognize that there are many users who are opposed to his adminship, we believe that special consideration should be given to the extenuating circumstances of this case and that we should act in the spirit of forgiveness and reconcilliation which is integral to the success of our community. Carnildo has shown good will to the project despite his desysoping, and continues to contribute. We therefore reinstate Carnildo's adminship, on a probationary basis, for a period of two months, after which his activities will be reviewed by the arbcom. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 04:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (On behalf of myself, Danny, and Rdsmith4, primary writing credit to Danny :)

Revision as of 04:02, 5 September 2006

Does anyone else find it amazing that two editors who only began around the 20th of august have found their way to RFA? I may have been aytpical in my time at Wikipedia, but I don't think I stumbled upon RFA before 3-4 months after registering. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies (talk · contribs · count) and The Coffee Shop That Smiles Upon The River (talk · contribs · count)? Syrthiss 01:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends if the Mr. Coffee Shop is from Merrimack, New Hampshire or not :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Taxman agreed. Picaroon9288|ta co 03:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a talk with him, if it really is him, which I suspect he is from an email he sent me. – Chacor 06:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His reply seems to suggest he has indeed been using more than one account for RFA voting purposes. – Chacor 03:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another, Just H (talk · contribs · count) just weighed in. Going to check the entire list now. Syrthiss 13:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only other short-term editor (also around 19 aug) is Scobell302 (talk · contribs · count). Syrthiss 13:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12:02, August 17, 2006 Yankee Rajput (Talk | contribs) New user account. I suggest getting a checkuser to check these against Juppiter. --Rory096 01:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my sock, guys, but I think it's pretty sad that every oppose vote is being given such scrutiny. Juppiter 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is curious that a 2-week account is already participating in RFA. Oh, it can be possible. But when there are two or three accounts that had started participating almost in the same date, some people begin tingling. I would not say they are your socks, but some consider your behaviour (which I agree left a lot to be desired with the OrphanBot page) justifies a check. -- ReyBrujo 02:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you could always follow a Wikipedia policy, WP:FAITH, or simply not show a bias and check every user that votes. PPGMD 03:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from project page

Get off the fence and tell us what you really think ;-) JzG 16:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my thoughts are on this WP:AN section. Again, please do not start a threaded conversation bellow my project page comment. El_C 08:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion

Carnildo was an admin who was caught up in an unfortunate argument for which he was deadmined. Based on statements from members of the arbcom, we believe that this was meant as a temporary measure, a cooling off period, and in that time Carnildo has proved his loyalty and value to the project. While we recognize that there are many users who are opposed to his adminship, we believe that special consideration should be given to the extenuating circumstances of this case and that we should act in the spirit of forgiveness and reconcilliation which is integral to the success of our community. Carnildo has shown good will to the project despite his desysoping, and continues to contribute. We therefore reinstate Carnildo's adminship, on a probationary basis, for a period of two months, after which his activities will be reviewed by the arbcom. - Taxman Talk 04:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (On behalf of myself, Danny, and Rdsmith4, primary writing credit to Danny :)[reply]