Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3

message: Does anyone else find it amazing that two editors who only began around the 20th of august have found their way to RFA?  I may have been aytpical in my time at Wikipedia, but I don't think I stumbled upon RFA before 3-4 months after registering.   and ? Syrthiss 01:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends if the Mr. Coffee Shop is from Merrimack, New Hampshire or not :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Taxman agreed. Picaroon9288|ta co 03:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Get off the fence and tell us what you really think ;-) JzG 16:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of my thoughts are on  this WP:AN section. Again, please do not start a threaded conversation bellow my project page comment. El_C 08:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from project page

message: Carnildo was an admin who was caught up in an unfortunate argument for which he was deadmined. Based on statements from members of the arbcom, we believe that this was meant as a temporary measure, a cooling off period, and in that time Carnildo has proved his loyalty and value to the project. While we recognize that there are many users who are opposed to his adminship, we believe that special consideration should be given to the extenuating circumstances of this case and that we should act in the spirit of forgiveness and reconcilliation which is integral to the success of our community.  Carnildo has shown good will to the project despite his desysoping, and continues to contribute. We therefore reinstate Carnildo's adminship, on a probationary basis, for a period of two months, after which his activities will be reviewed by the arbcom. - Taxman Talk 04:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why bother going through this at all then? VegaDark 05:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that's a spectacularly bad idea.  You generate all the ill will from oppose votes, without accomplishing what oppose votes are meant to accomplish.  It's rather discourteous to the body of editors to put a sham RFA in front of them like this.  If they wanted to reinstate adminship, they could have done so without bothering with this.  Friday (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh huh. This could have been done in the first place, preferably with Jimbo's backing, and it might have been okay. Certainly, I would have been okay with it. But allowing a standard RfA to run with far less than the required threshold of support votes at the announced closing time, plus a lot of respected people indicating they still don't trust Carnildo with the tools, and then declaring it "successful" anyway, was a very bad idea in my view. I guess there's nothing we can do about it, but you should know that it causes concern, at least to me. The concern is not assuaged by the probation arrangement. No one doubts that Carnildo can show good behaviour for a defined period of time. Metamagician3000 05:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, now people, Wikipedia is not a democracy (at least this is what I am told). I have seen some things that I do not agree with, but I BITE my tongue. Ouch, that hurt! JungleCat  talk/contrib 05:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I understand the frustration expressed above.  I would have been particularly perturbed if the vote had been running under 50% in favor but that's not the case here.  The vote was 61% in favor.  Consider the bureaucrats as a sort of tie-breaker.  A 'crat could say "Hey, no consensus, no adminship".  Or, as happened here, the 'crat could say "No consensus but the vote is running in favor and we 'crats are also in favor and so consider the 'crat vote to be a tie-breaker."  Put that way, it's not as bad as some people are making it out to be.  --Richard 05:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two months probation period is not long. Then what? You say "it's not as bad as some people are making it out to be". I disagree. JungleCat  talk/contrib 05:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is just ridiculous. Karmafist had about the same percentage in his last RfA, but he wasn't resysopped still. And AFAIK he never did something as stupid as Carnildo did (I mean, while he still was an admin).  Grue  06:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree that this is a joke, and one in particularly poor taste given the damage Carnildo did. What was the point in letting it go through the RFA process again if the intention was to ignore the result if it went against your opinion? Did Carnildo know you intended to push through the result anyway? Is that why he didn't respond to the questions for so long, knowing it was a sham RFA and it didn't matter? Leithp 08:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm another of the bureaucrats, and I don't object to what Taxman, Danny, and Rdsmith4 have done, though I wasn't involved in the promotion decision or discussions they had prior to making it.  I note that the 75-80% threshold is not a substitute for the judgement of the bureaucrats involved in making the promotion, and indeed is an arbitrary figure originally borrowed from the forerunner to AFD with little discussion and adopted at a time when few RFAs were close calls.  I consider the oppose votes based primarily on dislike for Carnildo's work on fair use images to be specious, because Carnildo is working well within settled policy in this area; his excellent work in running orphanbot is hardly legitimate grounds for opposition.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you'd object; you nominated him. For the record, going through the 70 oppose votes, I count only three that explicitly say oppose because of bad bot or oppose for bot misuse. Three opposes hardly makes a difference; if you count those who say oppose because running the bot doesn't need admin tools that figure goes to around 10 or 15 (haven't checked that one myself). That is still very, very iffy. – Chacor 15:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The Arbcom did say if was temporary, read the "sentence" again, he was to be de-admined for two weeks after wich he could re-apply (that was about 6 months ago now), also as far as I can tell all the arbcom members who participated in this debate supported his re-adminship. So I have some difficulty seeing how you can claim this descission somehow overturn or second guess the Arbcom. --Sherool (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a big difference between being able to re-apply afterwards and magically getting the sysop bit back afterwards.  Friday (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What is the likelihood of another pedophile userbox war?  I'd say pretty limited.  The userbox wars saw many otherwise reasonable people doing things of which they should have been ashamed (and generally were, when it all died down).  Carnildo's work on image copyright is good and important, and I for one am happy to see him get is mop and bucket back - it is, after all, supposed to be no big deal.  Rest assured, he will be watched by many people.  But it does raise the question of what to do about recall, periodic re-election and so on.  It is almost impossible to be an active admin without making enemies, some due to grudges over errors of judgment but many more due to the frustration of the unrighteous stopped in their attempts to impose their own agenda.  If you want every admin to remain popular, you're going to need to start being a lot more supportive as a community when admins are tackling POV warriors, because its being isolated against a small but determined group of such tendentious editors which causes many of us to burn out and/or lose it. That is, of course, a discussion for another place... Guy 17:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a mistake to focus entirely on userboxes here—Carnildo's actions were not, as one might recall, actually related to the userbox itself, but rather to the associated block of the editor using it (and the underlying reasons for blocking him in the first place).  The userbox situation may have defused itself, but the underlying issue probably hasn't. Kirill Lokshin 17:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Guy only in one part. Carnildo will be watched by all closely and it wouldn't take much to get him on a notice board. Admins are under the magnifying glass anyway. JungleCat  talk/contrib 17:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion 

message: THIS is consensus?!  I smell a stolen election here.....  whatever....... Juppiter 13:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus?! 

message: There's a well-established expectation that no one will succeed in an RfA with less than 75 per cent, so this really was a surprise. Surprises like that should be avoided if possible. However, let's move on. For future such situations, perhaps there needs to be some mechanism for Arb.Com to routinely review its desysopping decisions after six months, rather than go through a process like this. Metamagician3000 01:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving on at this point is probably the best thing that could happen, but, I don't think "what's done is done" is the right attitude here.  On the contrary, I think that what's done can usually be undone, when the need arises.  If the B'crats had decided among themselves to reverse their decision here, that would have been within their rights, and not at all the end of the world.  Friday (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that this is not without precedent. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sean Black 2, which had more support than this one, but was still short of the usual threshold for promotion. (I could see this coming because of that.) If we want to hold previous admins to a different standard, that's fine, but I would prefer it be expressed as an agreed-upon guideline. RfAs like this one generate too much animosity to be closed like this without such a guideline In My Humble Opinion. Grandmasterka 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good example, and there's a criticial difference between the two.  Most of us would probably agree that it's reasonable to be lenient in the case of someone who voluntarily gave up their sysop bit.  In the case of someone who's sysop bit was removed for cause, the case for such leniency is far less clear.  Obviously, knowing what the standards are would help- any number of people thinking "oppose" in this case probably didn't participate since it looked so unneccessary.  Friday (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good points. Grandmasterka 08:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's done is done