Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 2 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yamaguchi先生 (talk | contribs) at 00:56, 22 March 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:56, 22 March 2006 by Yamaguchi先生 (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Carnildo

(35/24/3) ending 21:58, 27 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. (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 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). BDAbramson 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 23:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, shouldn't have lost it. — Mar. 21, '06 <freakofnurxture|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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Forgive (but don't forget), anyone can make mistakes. Prodego 03:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support, he was desysopped for defending freedom of expression, I have to support him. -lethe 03:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support - I believe in redemption. --Khoikhoi 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. 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)
  22. Support per Gmaxwell. Needs adminship for his invaluable image work. ×Meegs 04:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. 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)
  24. Support. It's time for a second chance. --TantalumTelluride 05:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. Per above, jacoplane 05:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support Very helpful to the project - cohesion 06:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. 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)
  28. Support for work on image copyright issue. --Rob 07:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. Lupo 08:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. 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)
  31. Support per Gmaxwell. --Siva1979 14:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. --Sean Black 15:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. -- DS1953 17:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support Disagree with his actions which led to him being desysopped, but a far bigger asset as an admin than as not. --pgk 18:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  35. 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)
  36. Support -- SmthManly / / 00:18, 22 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)
  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 00:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Not yet. Ëvilphoenix 00:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Too soon.Voice-of-All 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 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 03:48, 21 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 Misplaced Pages. joturner 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. 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)
  12. Oppose: Abusing blocking privilege is too dangerous. Better wait for some time to regain trust.--Jusjih 03:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose: Not after blatant admin abuse. akendall(talk) 03:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. 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)
  15. Oppose Due to the incidents and issues mentioned above. Gizza 08:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. 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 ) For that I was without warning indefinitely banned for "hate speech" 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)
    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 .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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 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)
  17. We all remember Carnildo's ghastly behavior. Too soon to forgive and forget. Hence, oppose. --Ghirla 11:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. 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)
  19. 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)
  20. OpposeFrom 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)
  21. Oppose per above, too soon. Weatherman90 15:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose: As per above. --Bhadani 16:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. 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)
  24. Oppose not yet.  Grue  19:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose, agree with Grue. Jonathunder 21:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. 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).
  27. 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)
  28. 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)

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 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 22:37, 21 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 11:53, 21 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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:Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.
  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 Misplaced Pages, and blocking Giano and El C was unwarranted, as they had not actively engaged in banning people.