Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 2

It amused me that 1/3rd of Carnildo's current opposition has had notices from OrphanBot. --Gmaxwell 23:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably a good percentage of the supporters, too... maybe? I know I have. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The big difference is the number of notices OrphanBot's handed out. According to OrphanBot's logs, seven of the people supporting me got warnings, but only two got more than one.  Seven of the people opposing me got warnings, of whom five got more than one. --Carnildo 00:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are burying your heads in the sand. The reason so many oppose is far easier to work out - and, in most cases, is explained next to the oppose votes.  You'll find no consolation or answers in the direction you are looking. Giano | talk 07:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Giano, it's obvious why some people are opposing this RFA and casting aspersions on their motives hardly helps your case. Leith p 08:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I see this as interesting statistics more than anything else. OrphanBot's handed out warnings of impending image deletion to approximately 16,000 users, so it's not surprising that a number of people who support me have recieved warnings, and that a number of people who oppose me have recieved warnings.  The numbers aren't big enough or different enough to draw any sort of conclusions of bias from. --Carnildo 09:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And now that the final results are in, the sample size is large enough to draw conclusions from. In brief, depending on how you define "OrphanBot had no effect", there is either a 96.4% chance or a 99.9953% chance that my activities with OrphanBot influenced the results, resulting in, on average, either 3.4 or 6.3 extra "oppose" votes, assuming that OrphanBot's activities had no effect on people who did not recieve at least two warnings about image problems. --Carnildo 08:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Exchange from Oppose Section
Originally under Giano's oppose, where I have so marked. Xoloz 13:24, 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 .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 [ 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. [[User:Giano|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)
 * 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)

Why hasn't this been closed?
This RfA was supposed to close about 5 hours ago. What's up? --Mmounties ( Talk )  05:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A bureaucrat has the discretion to extend the RFA if consensus is unclear Cynical 10:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering what is unclear about (64/55/9). Giano | talk 10:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Bureaucrats are volunteers, they do not have set hours of work that they are obligated to be available for the prompt closing of RfAs. If you think we are waiting too long for RfAs to close, then we should have a debate about whether or not we have enough bureaucrats ;-). NoSeptember   talk  12:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * With the exception of close RfAs where post-scheduled closing votes could affect the outcome, is there any harm with an RfA like this one hanging around for another day or two? I don't think there is (it seems to be no big deal), although I'd prefer a close in a timely manner. NoSeptember   talk  16:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)