Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3

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

[edit] Carnildo

Final (65/57/9) ended 23:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo (talk · contribs) – 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^TM. (First RfA is here.) Johnleemk | Talk 14:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Sure! --Carnildo 21:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to the concerns raised by many of the people responding to my RfA, I will not block anyone for at least a year after I get admin privileges. --Carnildo 04:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. 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. Joe 21:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
2. 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. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 22:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
3. NEVER!!! Oh, wait, this is Carnildo - well why didn't you just say so... STRONG SUPPORT. (but, per your response to Q3, Sam does a lot of good here). BD2412 T 22:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

   Support Whatever mistakes you made during last month's incident can most certainly be forgiven. I hope your answer to question four will confirm that. joturner 22:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Strong support. His work regarding image copyrights is most invaluable and necessary to the project. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Support per Rune. good user.--Alhutch 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Support def KI 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong support. —Guanaco 23:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong Support Needs adminship because of his work with images --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Support, shouldn't have lost it. — Mar. 21, '06 [00:20] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
10. I resupported Karmafist. No reason not to you. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:45 UTC (2006-03-21)
11. Support, dealing with copyright issues needs to be done, yet it creates enemies. I respect his work in this area. NoSeptember ^talk 00:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
12. 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. --Gmaxwell 01:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Support The incident that led to his desysopping was an anomaly, and everyone involved behaved badly. I cannot imagine a similarly-charged situation arising again, because everyone has learned lessons from that painful first experience. Otherwise, Carnildo's work is exceptional, and his adminship is clearly a benefit to Wikipedia. Xoloz 01:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. I think the ArbCom decision was fair, but he should have the mop back now.-gadfium 01:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Support per Gmaxwell above and answers below. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Support per Xoloz and Gmaxwell. Kusma (討論) 02:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Support Forgive (but don't forget), anyone can make mistakes. Prodego ^talk 03:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Support, he was desysopped for defending freedom of expression, I have to support him. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Support - I believe in redemption. --Khoikhoi 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
20. 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. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Support per Gmaxwell. Needs adminship for his invaluable image work. ×Meegs 04:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
22. 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? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. It's time for a second chance. --TantalumTelluride 05:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. Per above, jacoplane 05:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
25. Support Very helpful to the project - cohesion^t 06:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
26. 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. Mike _{(T C)} 06:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    Support for work on image copyright issue. --Rob 07:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

27. Support. Lupo 08:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
28. 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 Trödel 12:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
29. Support per Gmaxwell. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
30. --Sean Black ^(talk) 15:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
32. Support Disagree with his actions which led to him being desysopped, but a far bigger asset as an admin than as not. --pgk^(talk) 18:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
33. Support I have always found this user to be dilligent, polite and mature. Will make a fine admin. The JPS 23:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
34. Support -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 00:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
35. Support For his work concerning images and per questions. Garion96 ^(talk) 01:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
36. Support Carnildo has done his time in the stockade. It's time for him to get back to work, suitably chastised. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
37. Strong support. Carnildo is one of our most dedicated image-watchers. The blocking incident was unfortunate, but he shouldn't be permanently desysopped for it. Chick Bowen 04:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Carnildo was one of the best admins Wikipedia had. He understands policy, does the really dirty work, and takes the crap for it. Just look at his talk page and see how calmly he deals with confused (sometimes hostile) uploaders of images. Most admins simply revert anon edits (wow). Wikipedia would be a much better place if half the admins in that oppose list (some of whom have turned quite disrespectful or ferocious when challenged) were as well-informed in policy and as consistently tactful with dealing with stressful situations as Carnildo. --maclean25 07:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

    Very tactful. Anyone still having a problem evaluating Carnildo's powers of judgement may wish to consider the wisdom of his making a comment here [1] at the present time. Some might call it grasping at straws others may feel that even after all that has been said here - he does not appear to comprehend what it is that concerns people here. Giano | talk 08:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

39. Actions which led to his desysopping were bad, but isolated. Did more good than bad during his tenure as admin, and I agree with Kelly on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
40. Support - no reason to oppose. --Ixfd64 09:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
41. Martin 11:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
42. Support per Greg and Kelly. Rob Church 13:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
43. Support from past experiences, and per random support votes above. --Syrthiss 14:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. per Greg and kelly also. pschemp | talk 14:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
45. 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. Haukur 15:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
46. That's hot. Mike H. That's hot 19:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. Per Haukur, I think Carnildo has learned from the mistake. The blocks he made were called an "abuse of admin powers" by the ArbCom, but I think he had legit reasons for blocking right away rather than discussing, and he's adequately explained it. Mangojuice 21:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
48. Support. Mark^{your words} 23:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
49. Wheel war cabal support. Seriously, we all make mistakes, and Carnildo is a great editor. Ashibaka tock 23:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
50. Support May the first user without one mistake cast the first stone. mmeinhart 23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
51. Support; the ArbCom did not intend to lock Carnildo out indefinitely. A valued editor whom has certainly learned his mistake. Ral315 (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
52. Support per Kelly. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
53. Strong Support Impressive number of edits and deletions. I'd say you're perfect for the job. Good Luck though Crna ^t_e^c Gora 04:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
54. 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. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 08:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
55. 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). Proto||type 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. Giano | talk 13:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

    We have no Pope but Jimbo!:) And far as I know, Carnildo hasnt apologized to him either.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

56. Support. He clearly knows he made a mistake the first time around, and it's one I don't think will be repeated. BryanG 22:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
57. 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 01:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
58. Support Based on Carnildo's contributions for the past few weeks, I would like to give this user a second chance. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
59. Support based on his work regarding image copyrights. *drew 09:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
60. Support. No-one's indispensible to Wikipedia, but some are much less dispensible than others; Carnildo is one of the least. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
61. Carnildo was the one person in the "paedophile" dispute who did the right thing. The Arbitration Committee ruling was wrong. He is a great Wikipedian and should have his adminship restored immediately. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
62. Support,, of course. The arbcom case is not supposed to be a scarlet 'S' forever upon his brow - David Gerard 21:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
63. Support - my concern has been addressed and I'm always in favour of giving a second chance -- Tawker 23:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
64. Support give this kid a chance. --Rob from NY 02:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
65. Support. Not much point now, but support on principle per NSLE. I too resupported Karmafist. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 16:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. OPPOSE IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS Let's begin with fact he was desysopped by the Arbcomm for one of the worst cases of wheel warring and displays of poor judgement in Wiki history. All this only weeks ago! Worse, directly or indirectly due to his actions, a number of fine admins were desysopped either temporarily or permanently. Worse still, he refused to admit his mistakes, apologize and step down for them. Though I'm sure he will now, in order to regain the mop. The point is, to his mind he did nothing wrong. Likewise, when he is confronted with complaints about Orphanbot, he ignores them or brushes them off as ignorance of how it works. Or, in the case of Sam Spade below, just the words of cranks. When confronted with his overzealotry in enforcing image copyright policy he takes the road to Nuremburg. He has abused admin powers and shown poor judgement before and he will again. Maybe with a bit more time and a display of sincere contrition on his part, we should forgive and give him another chance. But this is FAR too soon. He has clearly not yet learned his lesson.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

   Er ... orphanbot edits in accordance to our copyright policy, which is Foundation-level "OMG we are 0wnz0r3d" problems if we fuck it up badly enough. You're opposing him for acting per important policy? I don't understand - David Gerard 21:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

   No, clearly you don't. Orphanbot is not the main reason I oppose him. It is his ACTIONS and POOR JUDGEMENT which led to his rightful defrocking by Arbcomm. If he had done the right thing and owned up to his abuse of authority, the vote here would be quite different. Hell, Arbcomm's ruling even might have been otherwise too! Of course we all make mistakes. The important thing is we acknowledge and learn from them. When this is done, forgiveness is justified. But when the arrogance of power and the excuse "I was just following orders/policy" prevents this, the lesson has not been learned. Besides, he doesnt really need the Op Mop, to perform his self-appointed tasks. Especially not with Orphanbot doing most of his grunt work. And he certainly does'nt need to be a Sysop to continue as a contributor. Adminship is a duty and trust, not a reward. If you want to reward him, give him a cookie or a barnstar...but not the mighty mop--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose. Oh sure, let's give him blocking powers; it's not like he'd do something stupid with them, like indefinitely blocking some admins for no good reason or something! Kirill Lokshin 00:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
3. 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. - Taxman ^Talk 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. - Taxman ^Talk 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? Giano | talk 20:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Not yet. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Too soon.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 00:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose No Way. At least not yet, let a few more months pass before reapplying. Moe ε 00:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
7. 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. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Strong Oppose - I'm sorry, absolutely not, and probably never again. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 @ 02:16 (UTC)
9. 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? - Richardcavell 02:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose, censorship is a mortal sin. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Apparently he was the guy defending free speech during this whole debacle, not one of the censors. My mistake. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

   Indeed, so are you saying Jimbo is a censor?--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. -lethe ^{talk +} 09:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

   So how is Jimbo's censorship worse than indefinitely blocking someone for merely expressing their views against a practice which is generally condemned and outlawed throughout the civilized world?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   I never said that what Jimbo did was worse. The fact remains that Carnildo was protecting the freedom of some people whose views are condemned, as you yourself say. The hardest test of one's committment to freedom of expression is your ability to defend that freedom for people you disagree with. If you want to argue that Carnildo's actions were not optimal, I won't disagree. If you think Jimbo's actions were fine, that's reasonable as well. -lethe ^{talk +} 05:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   Carnildo's argument wasn't with Jimbo... tTe issue is far too complex to be box people into neat little 'censor' and 'non-censor' groupings. --Gmaxwell 04:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

   But this is exactly what Lethe is doing.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

   What many people don't seem to understand is that Jimbo MUST have a special position and MUST be allowed to protect himself and the foundation. After all, he is the one who signs on the dotted line and he is also the one who will be sued by people or indicted for illegal or grossly inappropriate content. Frankly, I have the greatest respect for his guts to keep with this project because, you've got to admit, there are a lot of hot heads around. You can call it censorship or anything else you want. Bottom line is he must be able to do what it needed to protect himself and the project. --Mmounties (Talk) 00:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   Yeah, and it's probably true that if for some reason that Jimbo had been replaced by a hardline free-speecher, or didn't go on CNN to spread wikipedia propaganda, or worse, we didn't have such a figurehead at all, wikipedia would have been sued into nonexistence long ago.</sarcasm> I do not agree with you. -lethe ^{talk +} 05:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   Lethe, I am unsure of the point you are attempting to make. However, at the end of the day someone has to have ultimate responsibility for the encyclopedia, and it may as well be Jimbo as he owns it and therefore has unquestionably it's best interests at heart. Occasionally instant decisions have to be taken (although in this case he did consult two or three others). Its is not always possible to be instantaneous by committee......We are writing this encyclopedia for the benefit of the public not ourselves. As an internet community we have to take each other on trust, therefore we must at least start by appearing as trustworthy members of society. Rightly or wrongly for the public to use and wish to contribute the place must appear whiter than white, and inspire trust. By and large the public do not like paedophiles. They do not want to encourage them. They do not trust them. They do not want to mix with them........Carnildo's instant banning without consultation of three editors for "hate speech" for expressing just that view - sent loud and clear the wrong messages, in fact it sent what could be for the encyclopedia very dangerous messages. That he was instantly de-sysoped pending further investigation was the only correct decision. The outcome of the investigation chose to continue that decision. That he should wish, just a few weeks later, to be reinstated as an admin, having shown no sign or even gesture that he appreciates the reputation of the encyclopedia is paramount and his actions were plain wrong demonstrates he is here far too soon. I've read elsewhere here all the talk of free speech - it's not possible to groom children here - feel sorry for them it is not a life-style choice etc. Some people may consider those admirable statement but the vast majority of society does not. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for changing society and airing views considered not only inflammatory but to many people repugnant. Admins are here to ensure the smooth running of the place nothing more. Carnildo has deliberately demonstrated, and defiantly continues to demonstrate ("a few minutes of not being able to edit Wikipedia is worth agonizing over.")that is not his view. Forgive him by all means, (he is quite welcome to be an idealist) but this is too soon for a return, and must remain too soon until he appreciates the gravity and seriousness of his actions to Wikipedia. Giano | talk 09:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   You say "However, at the end of the day someone has to have ultimate responsibility for the encyclopedia, and it may as well be Jimbo". I disagree. I think it would be perfectly possible for a committee (the Foundation, perhaps) to control the wikipedia. I expect this will happen when Jimbo retires or dies in the future. Then you say "Its is not always possible to be instantaneous by committee". This is true. What would have happened if Jimbo had waited a few hours, allowed for discussion? I guess a few more people would have been banned, then an RfC would have gone forward, the arbcom would have ruled, and it would have been settled. The people Carnildo banned were unbanned even without his ban, so actually, exactly what did happen is what would have happened anyway. So I see no evidence to support the idea that we need instantaneous action by Jimbo to resolve disputes. I like our consensus system, and don't see a need to bypass it, and don't agree with people who do so. You say "Jimbo owns [Wikipedia]". This is not true, Wikipedia is maintained by a nonprofit organization and built with the contributions of volunteers. No one owns it. You also say "Jimbo [...] has unquestionably [Wikipedia's] best interests at heart". That's true in a general sense, but he's gone on record as saying that he wants to work to improve Wikipedia's acceptance among academics. To that end, he practices what I consider propaganda, rather than letting the encyclopedia gain acceptance based solely on its own merits. Furthermore, he has adopted a proactive stance about libel, ever since the Siegenthal incident, when in my opinion, no such action is necessary. It is my (possibly naive; IANAL) hope that the general disclaimer protects the Foundation from liability. Finally, he tries to control policy: banning people like Carnildo, telling people that userboxes are unacceptable, when our methods of determining policy through consensus work fine. In short, I view his work: promoting wikipedia in the media, removing libel, and trying to control policy, as completely superfluous. He's a guy doing a job that doesn't need to be done. Finally, (or rather, initially) you say "I am unsure of the point you are attempting to make". Well, actually, I am not now, nor was I before, trying to make a point. I was actually trying to change my vote in an RfA, some people asked me questions about why, and I answered. So in case what you're unsure about the reason for my change, it is this: Carnildo was defending freedom of speech, and as such I want to give him my confidence. I had misinterpreted the synopsis of the affair, which accounts for the mistaken vote. OK, is it clear now? Hope that helps. Edit: I argue above that I don't agree with Jimbo's unilateral actions. Actually, I don't agree with Carnildo's actions either, they were similarly unilateral. -lethe ^{talk +} 11:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   Thank you Lethe. You have explained the reasoning for the support vote very clearly indeed. Giano | talk 11:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

10. 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. joturner 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    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. --Jay(Reply) 03:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

11. Oppose: Abusing blocking privilege is too dangerous. Better wait for some time to regain trust.--Jusjih 03:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose: Not after blatant admin abuse. akendall_(talk) 03:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
13. 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. Olorin28 04:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose Due to the incidents and issues mentioned above. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
15. 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 [2]) For that I was without warning indefinitely banned for "hate speech" [3] 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. 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. 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. Giano | talk 18:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

    You say I "was wheel waring elsewhere on the subject". Could you point out where? My recollection of the event was that I spent the next ten hours or so after you were unblocked several miles away from my computer. --Carnildo 09:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    No sorry it was not you wheel waring that was the others wasn't it. You were instantly de-sysoped just for banning without cause. Glad you can now at last speak to me. Giano | talk 09:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    Giano, he wasn't instantly desysoped. The above makes it sound like he would have done more if he wasn't stopped, but thats clearly not the case. --Gmaxwell 13:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    What he would have done next is thankfully something we shall never know. He was de-sysoped by Jimbo within hours as a direct result of banning me and two others with no justifiable reason [4].At wikipedia speed that is pretty instantaneous. The whole episode was unprecedented, and if people like you do not want the whole mess dragged up again you should have advised him to keep his head down. Not one word of regret or explanation has been received from him. What if I had been a new editor at the time? - it was just his bad luck, and Wikipedia's good fortune he picked on me. As I said I wonder how many votes for Carnildo are in reality votes against Jimbo? Looking at the link herec [[5] I see you pop up to say "Jimbo's made a mistake" and you go on to congratulate Carnildo on his actions. Well Gmaxwell many people here do not share your view, you were wrong then and you are wrong now. Giano | talk 18:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    I really didn't want to respond to you: I can't see anything productive coming out of your hostility here, nor do I understand why you still hold it. But I really must object to your claim support votes here "are in reality votes against Jimbo", I cant speak for anyone else but after posting that I had a long conversation with Jimbo and there remains no disagreement between us. Like any other issue this was a complex an nuanced subject with many possible perspectives. From one perspective we see an action which was obviously right, from another angle we see actions which were in excess haste. The same thing is true of both Carnildo and Jimbo's actions. I don't believe there is any outstanding disagreement between Carnildo and Jimbo, nor should there be, everyone has taken this as a learning experience and moved on. Except perhaps you? We're all here to improve the project, please don't take things so personally. --Gmaxwell 21:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    I'm sorry but I do take being banned for incitement to hate rather personally - funny that isn't it? And as for you here [6] one minute congratulations then later furious back pedalling - I don't think we can take you too seriously, obviously as confused then as you are wrong now. What exactly is it you are moving on from - where did you fit into this sorry episode? Oh yes you had "long conversation with Jimbo" - Why? Are you some form of special administrator - what exactly had the episode to do with you - that make you so able to pontificate on the subject? Giano | talk 22:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    I think Carnildo was plain wrong in blocking you, Carbonite, and El C, but I don't believe he will do it again. While I think Jimbo erred in a number of ways in how he handled this ghastly affair, I do not think he erred in desysoping Carnildo. At the time, it was the right thing to do. I am not in the habit of expressing opinions about people based on the actions of other people altogether (e.g. Jimbo). I respect your decision, and I hope this will be reciprocated. (I know El C doesn't want a discussion thread, so please direct any comments about this to my talk, but while I respect his vote, I am highly offended by the insinuation that I was out to get him in a prosecutorial way. Of all Wikipedians, there are few who I respect more than Carnildo and El C, so it is extremely upsetting to be accused in such harsh words by someone I respect so much.) Johnleemk | Talk 18:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    Well Johnleemk I'm glad you agree Carnildo was a bad administrator so what's changed? I note you think "Jimbo erred in a number of ways " which rather brings us neatly back to my original point - doesn't it? You respect my decision and "hope it will be reciprocated" - what incidentally is your decision? ....To support for adminship someone you admit makes bad decisions? Respect that! what planet are you on?. Regarding El C: You are highly offended! - how dare you be offended over anything concerning this matter? - what has anyone done to offend you? If you had one jot of respect for El C you would not have made this nomination in the first place. You are offended by "harsh words" - you don't know the meaning of the phrase "harsh words" are finding you have been banned bor incitement to hate - try that one morning and see if that offends you! Giano | talk 20:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    I said he made a bad decision. That does not make him a bad admin. We are human. We make mistakes. While I believe Jimbo made mistakes, I think you totally missed the part where I said that Jimbo's mistakes have nothing to do with my opinion about Carnildo. Your decision is the opinion that (I'm not sure which one, pardon) Carnildo is either bad/evil or too prone to making mistakes. I respect that, so please respect my opinion that all he did was an honest mistake. It was stupid, but it was a mistake. You appear to believe that Carnildo did it on purpose; very well, it is not my place to judge your beliefs. And apparently you missed the part whre El C insinuated I was intentionally non-neutral in my actions as a clerk regarding the case. As someone who takes this seriously, I feel I have every right to be just as offended as any of you are. And as I said, what I think of other people has no bearing on what I think of a particular person. What I think of Jimbo or El C is irrelevant when the person in question is neither of them. Johnleemk | Talk 20:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    Dead right, it is not your place to judge my beliefs - they are transparently obvious. Please do not insult editors intelligence by claiming to be neutral - you are the nominator here. You have absolutely no right to be offended by anything thrown at you - you have shown a blatant disregard for the feeling of people unjustly accused of "incitement to hate" - a revolting charge, only marginally more revolting than your pathetic attempts to jump on the bandwagon of whose offended most. You nominating Carnildo is offensive. Giano | talk 20:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    I am the nominator because I believe Carnildo should be an admin now. Furthermore, this is not a zero-sum game. I can respect both Carnildo and El C. You are creating a false dichotomy. (I should also note that this "pathetic attempt" to "jump on the bandwagon" is not new -- I have always held both Carnildo and El C in high regard. That they happened to be on "opposing" sides in the pedo incident is irrelevant to me. Furthermore, I find it amusing that the accusations of bias WRT the arbitration case are coming from the people who the alleged bias would have benefited the most. But that's not relevant to this RfA, is it?) And point out where I have shown "disregard" for people's feelings. If you consider relationships to be zero-sum, don't enforce your worldview on me. Just because you hate X doesn't mean I have to hate him as well in order for us to be on good terms. I already said that Carnildo fucked up big time. What more do you want? Me to punish him for what I view as a terrible mistake but a mistake nonetheless? Make no mistake about it -- if the arbcom had desysoped El C as well, I would have renominated him as surely as I renominated Carnildo. I don't think either of them should be desysoped now; adminship is not a gift to be handed out. It's a tool for improving the encyclopedia, and I believe that an encyclopedia with both Carnildo and El C holding the mop and bucket is a much better one than an encyclopedia with only one or neither of them. If you have any further comments, stop flooding the RfA with this argument going in circles and take it to my talk. Johnleemk | Talk 20:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    This is not "flooding the RfA with this argument going in circles" it is merely explaining to you (who seem unable to grasp it) why those accused by your candidate of "incitement to hate" (something for which he has yet to express any remorse about) feel strongly why he should not be re-given admin powers. Giano | talk 22:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

    Giano please withdraw the acusation that you were unblocked because you have friends. You were not. Indeed I'm not sure I had even heard of you before I pulled the block placed on you. I try to make such descisions based on logic regardless of my relationship with the edit(s) involved.Geni 03:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

    Oh please have no fear, I am not accusing you (who ever you are)of being one of my friends (you are free of the taint) as far as I am concerned I was unblocked by User: Worldtraveller [7] with whom I have had friendly dealings in the past (yes it does happen!) consider yourself exonerated of any such crime. Giano | talk 19:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

    Nether the less the block log shows that I pull your block first[8] (you were is the unusal position of reciving overlaping unblocks). Thus I reject the claim that your unblock was related to who you were friends with. Fruther more you suggest the blocks would not have been pulled if they were placed on new editors. Again I reject that acusation.Geni 23:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

16. We all remember Carnildo's ghastly behavior. Too soon to forgive and forget. Hence, oppose. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose: The wheel war and its aftermath was a serious drain on the community that far overrides any marginal benefits from a successful candidacy at this time. My feeling is that the de-sysopings should have been permanent, or at the the very least for a period of 12 months before any renom. Nothing said on this page convinces me that this user would benefit the community by ever being an admin again. -- JJay 11:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose, I think he needs more time to reflect on this issue. Come back in six months. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Strong Oppose per Bishonen and response. - Mailer Diablo 20:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
19. 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. That clerk-cum-prosecutor (unsuccessful, thankfuly) Johnleemk is the nominator does not surprise me, however. I do not wish to have a conversation thread bellow this; please respect that request and direct any and all comments on my vote elsewhere. El_C 15:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose per above, too soon. Weatherman90 15:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose: As per above. --Bhadani 16:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
22. 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. Leithp 18:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose not yet.  Grue  19:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose, agree with Grue. Jonathunder 21:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
25. 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. Bishonen | ノート 23:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC).

    I imposed a block and made a few hastily-worded statements. The block was reverted within ten minutes, and the statements were mostly ignored. I'd feel regret if the consequences had been more significant, but I don't see how a heated opinion and a few minutes of not being able to edit Wikipedia is worth agonizing over. --Carnildo 01:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

    Ignored? Surely you must be aware of how far from ignored they were by the people they were directed at. One of the people you blocked, El C, was desysopped in consequence of his outraged reaction to your block and your block reason. Another, Giano, as you can see, still feels insulted and upset at the way you described him. There was a human cost. I'm sorry to see you counting only the arithmetic: a few minutes of not being able to edit. Bishonen | ノート 01:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC).

    For the sake of historical accuracy - Jimbo desysopped those admins after conferring with the arbitration committee (those members who were available at that hour; Minspillage, myself, and one or two others I think). So, I think it's unfair to say the community didn't have a say in the matter - their represenatives, the arbcom, did. Raul654 17:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

26. Oppose per all, mainly. Try again in a little while and let the situation that occurred a little while ago neutralize. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
27. 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. Yamaguchi先生 00:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose At this time, simply still too much controversy.--MONGO 02:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
29. 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. -M^ask 02:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
30. 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 Carbonite, one of the editors Carnildo blocked [9] and who was one of our best editors and admins, because of that situation. [10] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

    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. NoSeptember ^talk 14:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

    Carbonite announced he was leaving [11] because of the row over the pedophile userbox, then an hour later Carnildo blocked him indefinitely, [12] 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 ..." [13] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

31. Oppose, its too early now. Maybe in future. --Terence Ong 08:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
32. Oppose per above. --Masssiveego 09:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
33. Oppose --Thumbelina 13:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
34. Oppose per Bishonen. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
35. Strong and Permanent Oppose While I wasn't involved in the wheel warring and such around the previously discussed issue, I agree that the incident came close to permanently harming Wikipedia. As such, it will take a lot of time and supporting evidence for me to ever consider supporting Carnildo to again be an admin.--Alabamaboy 16:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
36. Oppose. The misuse of admin powers was very bad, and I also have deep concerns about past disagreements between us. Everyking 20:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
37. Oppose as above. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
38. Strong Oppose. In my opinion, all of the people who engaged in that petty wheel war and who lost their adminship because of it don't deserve it again. Mo0[talk] 23:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
39. Strong Oppose people who blatantly abuse their admin tools (and do so seriously enough to get desysopped by arbcom, which is IMHO far too slow to desysop abusive admins) should never be trusted with the honour of being an admin again. Cynical 23:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
40. Oppose though I wouldn't say "never" and because people do make mistakes and should be given a second chance if they have proved that they corrected their ways. I'd say an appropriate waiting period would be in order - say, a year. If you show us for a year that you have turned into a person that can be trusted not to lose his head or abuse sysop powers, then I'll vote for you. --Mmounties (Talk) 01:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
41. Oppose. Too soon. Come back in a month or two. Aucaman^Talk 02:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
42. Strong Oppose. utcursch | talk 06:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
43. Oppose. Far too soon. the wub "?!" 13:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
44. 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. 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. ^juppiter bon giorno #c 06:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

    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...* 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. ^juppiter bon giorno #c 17:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

45. Oppose! --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 15:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
46. oppose per mo0 those who lost there adminship thorugh petty wheel warring do not deserve there admin privliges backBenon 19:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose - I'm afraid Carnildo would be too hapy with the delete button, he tagged an image with a fair use rational for speedy and I'm worried he would just delete with no warning -- Tawker 23:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

    I tagged an image that was very similar to Wikipedia's largest group of clear copyvio images: images grabbed from news sources and stuck in articles on current events. And in response to your concern that I'd just delete such images, I haven't. I've always tagged them for speedy deletion to get a second opinion. --Carnildo 23:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

    Seeing Carnildo's response with my concern addressed, I have moved my vote to support. -- Tawker 23:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

47. Oppose. SushiGeek 04:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
48. Oppose. Not a suitable administrator, as I am not myself. --Wetman 04:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
49. Oppose: There are so many issues here, so many that have not been addressed, so many that aren't being acknowledged by this candidate or the (surprisingly and blithely overly supportive) sponsors, that there is absolutely no way to support the candidate. The candidate's unwillingness to address the issues that he brought up, unwillingness to disavow future actions of the sort, and the supporters' pretense that all will be well if we simply close our eyes and say that the ship is well steered and all the sheep are safe, are so off-putting as to make it impossible to support, impossible to engage in dialogue here which should have been entered into elsewhere, or even consider agreeing. No: all is not well. No: it is no harm, no foul. No: the system has not healed itself. No: the candidate hasn't shown any promise to never cause similar crises. Geogre 14:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
50. 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. -- Ian ≡ talk 03:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
51. 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. 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. --Carnildo 20:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

    Even now - you just don't get it do you? 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. --Carnildo 05:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

52. Per Taxman, above. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
53. 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. Thryduulf 22:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
54. 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! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
55. 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
56. 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 "they are (in this case, being pedophiles)."

    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.

    Carnildo blocked Giano at 22:41, Feb 5th. He notified Giano of the block two minutes later. In the ArbComm case, 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 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, his statement to Bishonen suggests a rather extraordinary indifference to the harm he caused.

    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. —Encephalon 21:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

57. 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. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 23:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

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. Afonso Silva 23:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral. I have no qualms about his fine work with images, but it's a little too soon since earlier incidents. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 02:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

   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 lukewarm for now and observe Trödel 03:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC) changed view to support Trödel 12:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

   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. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

2. 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. --kingboyk 11:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral while I thought Carnildo was great when I first got to know him, but as I read over time, maybe Carnildo is better suited to not have the mop. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Too soon after the pedophilia controversy. I am not voting oppose because I was not involved in the controversy myself. JIP | Talk 06:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral Ultimately this is still a human endeavor and mistakes are made. Still it is very soon after the incident.....--Looper5920 07:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral; it's just too early to make him admin again. Will support if nominated again after a couple of months. - Liberatore(T) 13:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral. I might be willing to give him another chance later, but right now it's still too controversial. --Alan Au 22:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral. A good user with a rather large spot on his/her record now. Probably needs more time to prove trustworthyness again. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
9. 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. --Jay(Reply) 21:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 98% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 22:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• See Carnildo's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• A comment I'm going to repeat sans vote on the re-RfAs of everyone the arbcom desysops: I would strongly urge that people would consider their decisions to accept or reject a re-request without holding the arbcom decision against the candidate. That is, suppose the person asking for adminship again had done exactly the same admin actions, but hadn't been taken to arbcom: what would you think about that person retaining admin status? I don't think a second request can be handled fairly otherwise. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  I believe that the arbcom decision counts agains the candidate. He was judged by his peers, and the findings of fact weigh against him heavily. If he had not been subject to arbcom sanction, I would presume him innocent and judge accordingly. - Richardcavell 03:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  You are one of his peers, too. I don't think an arbcom decision should be any more damning than the evidence which led to it. If you have looked for yourself at the evidence that we looked at and think you should oppose, then do so; if you don't, then don't. If we wanted to say "Carnildo is desysopped and may not reapply for 6 months/may never reapply", we would have said that; instead we left it open. These comments are my response to those who complain that arbcom desysoppings unfairly prejudice future RfAs or are equivalent to permanent desysopping; that's not their intent. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  As one of those who feels that an Arbcom desysopping is tantamount to a permanent desysopping in most cases, I would point out that the current RfA culture is to focus on one defect in a candidate and magnify that into a spate of oppose votes. Clearly an Arbcom decision will fit neatly into that culture to deny anyone desysopped from being resysopped. Since many current admins could not succeed in a forced reapplication at RfA, it must be said that it is Arbcom that is making the primary decision of who is and who is not an admin whenever it makes a desysop decision. NoSeptember ^talk 11:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  To be honest, I don't see anything wrong with that. If someone has abused admin tools badly enough to get desysopped by arbcom, why should they get immediately resysopped without so much as apologising for the misconduct? Cynical 19:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Information on applications for readminship: (List of reapplications)
• As I see it, he displayed poor judgement by blocking people who were expressing their opinions on an appropriate talk page (whether the opinions were correct or not is irrelevant). He was deadminned, tried, and sentenced to two weeks further deadminship. He's served that sentence. As far as I'm concerned, that whole incident is over. The question is, given his contributions to Wikipedia before that incident, and since, should he be an admin? My answer to that question is in my vote above.-gadfium 04:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Mindspillage, you are perhaps the most fair-minded and just member still sitting on the Arbcomm. I respect your efforts to try and keep voters' minds open on this and other cases of defrocked admins' reapplications. In this case, though, to answer your request-Even if Arbcomm or Jimbo had taken no action against Carnildo, and Giano had filed an Rfc against him, I would have signed on with Giano. Immediately after the incident, before Arbcomm took any action, I called on Carnildo to apologize and offer his resignation. He did neither. His responses to the questions below show the same callous arrogance and self-righteousness which led him into this situation. It is eerie how many of the the reasons for opposing in Carnildo's original, successful Rfa, were proven correct. If we are to not judge him on his ACTIONS as admin then on what? That GIANO and I agree 100% on this also says something. I very seldom oppose Rfa candidates. I'd rather vote for those few who I feel will make good admins rather than use the brutal math of consensus here, to shoot someone down. That is far too easy, since a single oppose vote is worth 3 supports. Until now, I've only voted oppose 3 times. One of them, I'm proud to say, was Freestylefrappe. I've noticed some interesting parallels in his attitudes and behavior with that of Carnildo--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • With respect, I think this is exactly Mindspillage's point. You are looking at the evidence and forming your own decision without reference to the AC decision. This is commendable. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm glad we are on the same page, more or less. I'm not out to "get" Carnildo. I just don't see where he needs or deserves reinstatement at this point in time (as per my reply to Mr. Gerard above). I agree with you and Mindspillage, each case should be decided on its own merits.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

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. 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 recently? Sam Spade and others who disagree with my use of OrphanBot to remove no-source and no-license images from articles. Most of the time, the people doing the objecting don't know about Wikipedia policy, and it's really quite funny ("Such sabotage is a criminal waste of my time!", "...the site administrators will be immediatly contacted so they can make sure that it never terrorizes again!", etc.) and I simply point out the sections of the image use policy that they've missed when uploading images.

Sam Spade and a few others, however, seem to be objecting to Wikipedia policy, and I'm getting complaints simply because I'm the most visible agent of enforcement. I'm not sure what to do about this, other than to respond to any sensible complaints, ignore the ones that aren't sensible, and insulate my bot against efforts to interfere with it. --Carnildo 21:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Could you please give us your take on what happened during the incident(s) that led to your desysopping? (And of your thoughts on the matter now?) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The timeline of events from my point of view:

1. I'm going through my watchlist, and I check the Administrators' Noticeboard. The first thing I see is Carbonite announcing he had banned someone who he considered to be a pedophile on the grounds of "your kind isn't welcome here", and that he would block anyone else he found that met his criteria for being a pedophile. Giano and El C express vehement agreement.
2. Reading through the ensuing uproar, I find no evidence that any of them stating that they will not follow through on efforts to kick suspected pedophiles off Wikipedia.
3. To prevent any further blocks or harassment of users suspected of being pedophiles, I blocked Carbonite, El C, and Giano indefinitely, with an offer to unblock if they reconsider their views.
4. Since the block is about as controversial as can be, I announce it on the Administrators' Noticeboard, with the intention of unblocking if there's significant objection. The blocks are very quickly undone.
5. As everyone had been unblocked, there was no reason for me to stick around, so I went off to my uncle's house to watch the Superbowl and cool off.
6. At some point, Jimbo steps in, and, in order to stop the wheel wars going on, de-admins the only person involved who has not wheel warred, and who has not been within ten miles of their computer for the past few hours. I find this pretty funny, actually.

In short, what I saw from my point of view was one user announcing that he would engage in a campaign of harassment against other users, and two other users expressing agreement with this, using wording that indicated they would join in.

In hindsight, blocking Carbonite was unneccessary, as he had already left Wikipedia, and blocking Giano and El C was unwarranted, as they had not actively engaged in banning people.

5. What will you, as admin, do for the project that no other admin will do?

Nothing. I'm hardly indispensible to the project.

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. 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.