Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3

Carnildo[edit]

Final (40/4/2) ending 01:33 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Carnildo (talk · contribs) - Carnildo is a very courteous and friendly user who has helped out newbies. He has about 5,000 edits which is much more than most of us, including myself. He's been here for... 19 months (since January 2004). He has been seen at featured articles, such as Autism. There is no reason this person should not be an admin. Abduct him onto the adminShip! --Redwolf24 01:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I accept. --Carnildo 07:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. SUPPORT! Redwolf24 01:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support Excellent editor, strong adminship candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:01, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support He can be a bit confrentational, but I've found him to be friendly. Does an insane amount of work at VfD and is probably the major person making sure the copyright status on images in the featured articles checks out. Also, I thought he already was one... --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support! Support! Support!  Denelson83  06:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Merovingian (t) (c) 07:19, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Has strong views on picture use policy (often seen on FAC) which can seem confrontational, but which ultimately benefit the project by encouraging people to find acceptable images. Support. David | Talk 08:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Martin (Bluemoose) 08:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support! more image policing! dab (ᛏ) 11:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support Darn, I have to use that phrase again: "He's not one already‽‽ Bratschetalk 5 pillars 14:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Mild mannered support. Too much yelling in here. :-) Dragons flight 14:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support -Vsmith 23:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. RFA cliche #1. Radiant_>|< 23:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. -Splash 01:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support He helped me, so I figured i'd return the favor. I look forward to his contributions as an admin. Karmafist 06:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. --Kbdank71 14:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, we need more people willing to take a stand on image use. --Spangineer (háblame) 15:47, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  17. BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-14 16:07
  18. Robert McClenon 17:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Fire Star 03:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. He's got his head screwed on. We seldom see eye to eye but I don't think sysops should be an army of chums. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Friendly, level-headed user with strong knowledge of Wikipedia procedures. --Deathphoenix 06:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support – does great work in FAC, FLC. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:51, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  23. David Gerard 11:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. VfD record speaks for itself. --Scimitar parley 13:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. How did this fellow get passed over? Ingoolemo talk 22:36, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
  26. Support - obviously. --Celestianpower hab 23:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support this fine candidate. Antandrus (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Jonathunder 01:28, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
  30. Support Great editor. D. J. Bracey (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, good work. feydey 08:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Thryduulf 12:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Proto t c 15:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Very good candidate. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:44, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support, ITHWOA. FreplySpang (talk) 18:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support. -- Norvy (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Enthusiastic support <crowd cheering>YEAAAAAHHHHH!!!!</crowd cheering>  ALKIVAR™ 23:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Always a welcome addition to any debate at VfD, where he participates frequently. Although I can understand the POV of some editors that he is confrontational, I see it more as straightforwardness. I have yet to see an action on Carnildo's part that I feel is over the line. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - he does a good job in keeping me in check at every single FAC I submit. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Aggressive and confrontational. My dealings with him have been filled with animosity. Everyking 02:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me also note the disturbing quote he has on his user page: "Perfection is achieved not when there is no more to add, but when there is no more to take away". Is this a good philosophy for a Wikipedia editor to have, let alone an admin? Everyking 10:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyking, personally I'm kind of glad you're involved in the edits of the Ashlee article since you obviously have a different POV than the mold of wikipedians on the article, and coming from my edits on Microsoft I realize how frustrating this can be. However, I think you really should take a couple days off and reconsider this. For one thing, the quote you mention is actually pretty good, as at least for me it means "Perfection is achieved when no one wants to remove any more blantantly POV stuff from an article", although I'm sure some take it differently. Also, I really don't think carnildo would use his tools to abuse a situation, such as the Ashlee Simpson wars. For one thing, as an outsider to the ashlee simpson thing it seems there's a lot of contention on all sides and very few seem "innocent" in that case. --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 11:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I take it to mean that articles should be "short and sweet". If I'm wrong he can correct me. And as for the content dispute, I actually I don't think I have an particularly unusual POV there, but that doesn't have much to do with his nomination anyway. Everyking 11:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    And note that after several days there has been no correction. What does that tell you? Everyking 08:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose too confrontational, too power hungry. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 02:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Boothy has been identified as using multiple vandal sockpuppets and has been temporarily blocked. It's safe to say his votes no longer count. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 15:50
    Do not strike out any non-anon's votes. It is up to the bureaucrats to consider the validity of votes at promotion time. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Socks, but not vandals. Everyking 18:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I don't mind confrontational editors but I do mind those who make a fetish of deletionism and those who have personal definitions of "vandalism". Given that you are asking to be empowered with the tools to delete articles and block vandals, these are important issues. Grace Note 01:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. My only encounters with this user have been his blunt objections to nearly all FACs over image copyright status. While this is all well and good, he tends to angrily defend his position when people who don't know this is usual argue about fair use. I am interested to see what else he has to contribute to Wikipedia, and how he deals with users first-hand. Harro5 03:52, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • A somewhat confrontational approach doesn't bother me; he's been around a while and probably merits the mop and bucket. One part of his response puzzles me and I'd like clarification before voting: in the phrase an actual conflict going on, as opposed to a drive-by editing, what does the term "drive-by editing" refer to? --Tony SidawayTalk 13:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      By a "drive-by editing", I mean someone, usually an anon, who makes a controversial/highly POV/factually incorrect edit to an article, then vanishes from Wikipedia. It's usually pointless to try to get a discussion going in such a case. A recent example of this would be this edit to M1 Abrams --Carnildo 05:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. Changing my vote. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Voting neutral for the same reasons as Harro5. I don't expect him to misuse admin power in this regard, but stubbornness is troubling. --malathion talk 07:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • In regards to objecting to FAC articles: I've checked, and I'm objecting to just under half of them for image copyright problems. I'm trying to deal with the copyright status issues in less-confrontational environments like Peer Review, but it's hard when the first I see of the article is a FAC posting. --Carnildo 07:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I disagreed with Carnhildo over the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hatshepsut and while I found his postion frustrating, I found him neither rude nor aggressive. Persistent, stubborn; maybe. The Hatshepsut nomination failed by the way, and it should not have because it supasses the criteria of many existing feautured articles; but its not Carnildo's fault he was the only person who bothered to vote. The voter turn out at FAC is deplorable for most nominations. None of his actions, in my experience with him, consitute reasons for opposing the nomination. -JCarriker 09:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, you can see Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Autism to see how I handled the issue. Anyway, I kind of agree with everything he said on the page (not his opinions that we shouldn't use fair use but that you could probably find quite a few). (the rest is OT) Also, I actually looked at Hatshepsut quite a few times during its nomination process... it has some issues that are difficult to describe, besides the fact that I think its too short for the subject, plus you had a good comment of the FAC. "She is regarded variously" this doesn't make sense, what do you mean by "variously"? Things like that which make it flow erratically at times. Anyway, its late but I will say that a lot of people like me probably looked at the article and didn't have time to describe what it needed, so they didn't bother to vote. Hope that helps. --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to make it clear that the theme of my post is: that Carnhildo postions on FACs may step on a few toes, including mine, but that is not a legitmate reason for opposing him—which seems to be the primary reason for oppostion to his nomination—when he is only trying to make Wikipedia a better place. I'd vote, but I have little experience with his edits. If the vote gets close, I will vote support though. - JCarriker 11:57, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I decided to withdraw my opposition. It occurred to me I hate the politics in Wikipedia and the more politics this place encounters, the worse it becomes. Plus, in fairness to Carnildo, my objection was only a minor one. I stand by my assertion that rules and regulations are going to do more harm than good unless we can foster a co-operative spirit based on understanding. Cedars 10:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Vandalism rollback, mostly. I'd also do some work on the less-controversial deletion pages: IFD and copyright problems.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. List of Medal of Honor recipients: I turned it from a short, mostly-unorganized list into its current form: a list of links to nearly all the articles on Medal of Honor recipients. M1 Abrams: I expanded it from an infobox and a brief history to something closely resembling the current form. Sometime in the next week or two, I'm going to try to get it up to featured status. Battle of the Windmill: I felt it sad that we had an article on a fictional battle by that name, but not on the battle that was part of the Upper Canada Rebellion, so I fixed the problem.
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. As Everyking alludes to, I was involved in the Ashlee Simpson wars. More recently, I've been involved in conflicts over Matrix scheme and Charles Taze Russell.
Once it becomes obvious that there's an actual conflict going on, as opposed to a drive-by editing, I try to take the conflict to the appropriate talk page. This isn't always possible: if the other person isn't willing to use the talk page, or if they are unwilling to explain their point beyond repetitions of "You're wrong", there's not much you can do beyond requesting page protection or waiting for a 3RR violation.
(For the record, I still believe that an unexplained revert of a good-faith edit constitutes vandalism.)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Carnildo&oldid=1022503469"