Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guanaco 3

Guanaco

Vote here (26/3/4) ending 22:33, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

It's been three months since Guanaco lost his admin status in what was, quite frankly, a misguided debacle masquerading as a referendum. In those three months, Guanaco has avoided edit wars and generally acted like a model user. I think it's time to offer him his mop and his bucket back, as I think he's learned his lesson. Snowspinner 22:33, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I (once again) gratefully accept this nomination. I hope the community will forgive my past mistakes. Guanaco 23:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Snowspinner 22:34, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
2. Welcome back! Neutrality^talk 22:38, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
3. Shanes 23:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
4. gadfium 23:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
5. Everyking 23:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
6. 'bout time. Grutness|^hello? 23:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
7. Of course. -- Netoholic @ 00:42, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
8. Yep. Nadavspi | talk 00:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
9. Refdoc 00:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
10. Supported then, still support now. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:45, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
11. I retain my support of him. ugen64 04:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
12. --Millosh 05:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) Guanaco is very reliable person. (I am cooperating with him at another project.) I don't see any reason why not to give him admin privileges. (And my English is not so good :) )
13. Support, on looking back in history at how Guanaco lost his adminship I can only compare it to a penis panic. silsor 06:09, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
14. Support as before. Rhobite 07:05, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
15. Golbez 08:00, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
16. Yes. User:Anárion/sig 08:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
17. yes Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 10:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
18. I definately support Snowspinner's nomination. Mark Richards 11:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
19. Support, I believe he's learned from his mistake. Rje 19:08, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. James F. (talk) 21:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
21. That Guanaco was able to accept the removal of his admin status speaks well of him. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
22. Hard worker, can be trusted with privileges IMO. JFW | T@lk 22:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
23. Definitely. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
25. Support, and furthermore support - David Gerard 23:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
26. Support Fixed term de-opping would have been fairer in my opinion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. A.D.H. (t&m) 00:56, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) In an RFA vote, the key (and to some, the only) question is "is this user likely to misuse an elevated privilege level?" Usually, a pristine history of "normal" edits is enough to assure voters that he is not. In this particular case, however, Guanaco was an administrator, the only one to ever have that privilege forcibly revoked, and three months of keeping one's nose clean during normal editing just isn't enough to put my mind at ease.

   No, he wasn't the only Sysop to lose privs forcibly. But never mind. James F. (talk) 21:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2. No.Dr Zen 06:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3. Not only no, but ... well, no. RickK 07:02, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Guanaco was a highly erratic admin, was often recalcitrant when he screwed up, and was a pain to desysop in the first place, in what was a landmark decision. That said, his comments below give me some hope, he hasn't done anything problematic for the last three months, and may well have reformed. I'm not convinced enough to support, but I'm open to the idea that he might have changed. Ambi 11:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2. Maybe. Can "support" voters put forth a more substantial reason why you're supporting now, especially if you previously voted oppose? JuntungWu 13:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3. Still unsure about him. The edit history doesn't show trouble since his de-adminship. However, since d-a he has only ~ 10 edits on user talk pages, ~10 edits on article talk pages, 3 edits on Wikipedia talk pages, etc, including some vandalism reverts and poll votes. Not quite enough for me to make myself a picture. Also, his talk page is blanked, as is User talk:Guanaco/archive. There also seems to be a user controlled bot running under his account. None of these three points validate an objection, but they do not instill confidence either. I will keep on watching this nomination, and may change my vote in the future. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:53, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral for now but leaning towards oppose. ~500 edits, most of which are minor tweaks, since his de-sysopping is not sufficient to inspire confidence that his previous erratic behavior does not continue. Given we have enough fresh, qualified candidates for adminship, I'd prefer supporting them instead. Also seems to be running a bot on his main account (see my question below). jni 10:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Could we have a link to the proceedings where he lost his adminship? -- Chris 73 Talk 23:06, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guanaco. Guanaco 23:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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. I plan on helping with Wikipedia:Media for deletion, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images and Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I'll help clear out vandal and test pages and help to quickly deal with the page move vandal attacks. I don't intend to do much 3RR or arbitration enforcement, unless something extreme comes up (e.g. a revertbot). I'll shy away from the more controversial pages like Wikipedia:Protected page that tend to generate more heat than light. Guanaco

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I proposed Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images back in September 2004, and it blossomed into what is now Wikipedia's way of fixing many of its copyright problems. I have deleted and marked for deletion quite a few junk pages that might have otherwise slipped through Special:Newpages. Recently, I've been contributing original articles and correcting errors. Guanaco

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. Obviously, I must have had some sort of conflict or this nomination wouldn't exist. ;) I was part of several arbitration cases as an admin, and some requests for comment on my actions were posted. In the past, I tended to treat these things as I might a lawsuit and became stressed, but I now realize that they really are "no big deal". I hope to avoid highly controversial actions and situations, but if I am ever again part of anything more than a minor dispute, I will be more open and willing to discuss it. Guanaco

4. Do you have, or ever have had, accounts in en-Wikipedia other than User:Guanaco, User:Guanabot, and User:Guanabot2? If yes, please list the names and detail the purpose of those other accounts (no need to disclose IPs, of course). Do you currently run a bot, or have ever run a bot under your main account? Thanks, jni 10:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any point in disclosing any accounts that I may have created, but I will say that I've never operated a vandal account or vandalized Wikipedia. I run a bot that tracks new pages on my main account and allows me to make changes or post notices, since it just assists me in making what would be manual edits. I use Guanabot for uncontroversial bot edits and Guanabot2 for bot edits that may be disputed. Guanaco 13:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)