Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guanaco 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Matt Crypto (talk | contribs) at 08:35, 15 March 2005 (oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Guanaco

Vote here (43/19/0) 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)
I've created a poll to discuss the Willy on Wheels issue at Wikipedia talk:Vandalism in progress/Willy on Wheels. Guanaco 17:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Snowspinner 22:34, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Welcome back! Neutralitytalk 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)
  27. I assume good faith. --Ryan! | Talk 03:38, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  28. This is a no brainer. Support. Danny 03:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  29. Good user.--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 22:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support There are some Wikipedians who should learn to forgive... We are humans, we all make mistakes. Squash 03:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support - slightly tentative, but in the absence of a probation option, I'm prepared to give him the chance. I do trust that Guanaco will take note of the reluctance of such respected figures as RickK and Ambi to give their support, and act a little more cautiously from now on. I think he can be trusted. David Cannon 10:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support - can't see why not -- Ferkelparade π 17:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  33. TIMBO (T A L K) 06:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support. Goplat 17:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. While I understand concerns about possible misuses of sysop status, the172/Ed Poor fiasco has shown these as a widespread issue that can only be addressed by continued political oversight. Pwqn 17:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  36. What's the issue with Willy on Wheels? Clearly he ought to be hard-banned. Apparently he isn't. (Is this true?) Guanaco explains that he edited a page to reflect this fact. Maybe the fact ought to be changed, rather than Guanaco chastised. Michael Ward 20:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  37. Acegikmo1 21:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  38. --Bart133 (t) 00:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support. Never should have lost it in the first place. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 04:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  40. Whatever his past transgressions, I strongly consider three months enough time for him to have realised them and resolved to do better. Guanaco has impressed me in the past, and I voted against his de-sysopping for that very reason. [[User:Ingoolemo|User:Ingoolemo/Sig]] 05:43, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  41. Ta bu shi da yu 13:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) One of my last acts as an admin and a contributor on this site. Let them back. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support. I'm a little shocked at the opposing comments, particularly the ones that advocate "making an example" of Guanaco. I for one am pretty impressed that he is taking up the neccessary work to regain the trust of the community; think how much easier it would have been to create a new account from scratch with a clean slate. However, he is taking the harder route, to clear his name in front of the people who originally de-sysopped him, and I find that pretty respectable. This clearly shows that he has an appreciation for the Wikipedia community and policy. I have to support that. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:08, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
    I think the point of some of the people who oppose this, such as me, is that being re-sysopped is apparently not a harder route than creating a new account. If someone (including Guanaco) had created a new account on the day that Guanaco was de-sysopped, and was nominated for adminship on the basis of Guanaco's edits since then, he would not be considered seriously since the edits are too few. It seems fair that a de-sysopped person should be on at most equal (not superior) footing with people who have never been administrators, considering his contributions up to the point of being de-sysopped as at best neutral. It seems people want to consider the history up to the point of de-sysopping as a leg up compared to a normal RFA. But if it was positive pre-history, we wouldn't be here. --BM 16:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:20, Mar 14, 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)
  4. Oppose. A loose cannon for a long stretch -- a few months of keeping one's nose clean isn't enough to make up for that. Still a troll protector [1]; if Guanaco had the power to unblock User:The Recycling Troll he certainly would have done so. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Pray inform me, what exactly did The Recycling Troll do? Other than being a bit annoying on talk channels (and that's a matter of opinion - I find RickK a bit annoying on talk channels), he doesn't seem any worse than User:ClockworkTroll, now an admin... ugen64 00:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I gave away some of my own rights to have him de-admined. —Cantus…☎ 06:40, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Three months is a pretty short time, and the edit history of the last months would hardly have motivated a candidacy. Can Guanaco do more good than bad for Wikipedia as an admin? The answers below may seem tough or cool to some and arrogant to others. In the context of the pre-history, I find the attitude far too arrogant. It worries me that a long list of the more involved Wikipedians great Guanaco back as if this attitude is what we need and wish for. Ruhrjung 22:51, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  7. I was going to vote "neutral" until I checked his contributions and saw his most recent edit [2], which was removing all information on "Willy on Wheels" from the banned users page (it was reverted soon after [3]). I do not want an admin to display this erratic behavior. Carrp | Talk 13:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I removed it because Willy on Wheels is not technically banned. However, I do not think his accounts should be unblocked or that he should be allowed to vandalize Wikipedia. I've explained this on Wikipedia talk:List of banned users, so we can discuss it there if you think he should actually be banned. Guanaco 20:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. 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) No bots in user accounts. Period. JuntungWu 13:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    If you have a problem with my use of the newpages-watching bot on my main account, I will gladly use User:Guanabot2 instead in the future. It isn't a big deal to me either way. Guanaco 20:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I do have a problem with a violation of Wikipedia policy on bots. --JuntungWu 12:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I have permission to run the bot; the bot's edits are good; the account used to run the bot doesn't have a bot flag; each of the bots edits were decided by me. What's the violation? Guanaco 17:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    You have permission to run Guanabot and Guanabot2. Unless I am reading Wikipedia:Bots wrongly, it does not give you permission to run anything from your main user account. JuntungWu 06:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    And no page specifically gives permission to use a browser's find/replace feature to edit, so does that mean such features are not allowed? That page does not prohibit the use of bots on a user's main account. I'm open to discuss this sort of thing, but I cannot forsee every possible objection. Guanaco 23:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. Quite frankly, I'm afraid I can't support. And I'm a little bewildered as to why so many people have changed their vote from just three months ago. Has Guanaco done something terribly worthwhile or noteworthy that I've missed? I am weary of Guanaco's behaviour, and maybe it has changed, maybe not. But as hard as it is to deadmin people around here, I'm not keen on finding out. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:05, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  10. I am not very familiar with Guanaco or his history, so this vote is more based on a general observation. It seems to me that if sysopping is "not a big deal", de-sysopping is. It hardly ever happens; so if an admin so misbehaves as to be required by the AC to go through RFA again, and 22 people oppose it after having had an opportunity to observe the person in action as an administrator, I am not sure that person should ever be an admin again, or if so, it should be after a much longer period of redemption than two or three months and a relatively small number of edits. I wouldn't assume that a person would mature very much in three months; so I would really want to have seen a lot of good edits in stressful situations to feel that trust in him as an admin was again warranted. If the slate was wiped clean after the de-sysop, he should at least show as much good activity as a new user who joined the site that day would be required to have in order to be supported on RFA --- as if, for example, he had simply created a new account and had been working all this time to establish a new persona. That hasn't happened. --BM 12:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. 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) [Vote changed from neutral to oppose; someone who defends User:Willy on Wheels! can be all that bad. jni 16:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)]
    I do not defend Willy on Wheels. I strongly support efforts to block him, and I blocked his accounts when I was an admin. On the other hand, I believe that if the creator(s) of the Willy on Wheels accounts wish to begin contributing to Wikipedia under a different name, they should not have to worry about being blocked for making positive edits. Please read Wikipedia:Banning policy and Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Guanaco 17:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose at this time, because it seems to me Guanaco ought to be willing to demonstrate plenty of actual good activity before expecting his admin privileges back. Mere absence of bad activity, in the sense that, as RickK says, he's hardly done ANYTHING, doesn't give much indication of how he'd use the privileges next time round. Bishonen | Talk 17:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  13. Strongly oppose (moved from neutral). It is now abundantly clear with his attitude towards dealing with The Recycling Troll and even Willy on Wheels that he has not changed in the least. RickK clearly has a point - he needs to actually show a good deal of good behaviour before we trust him again. Ambi 21:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose (moved from neutral). Removing Whilly on Wheels from the list of banned users [4] should have been done in combination with a discussion on the talk page. However, talk page comment was added only [5] after Carrp commented on this when he changed his vote [6]. This seems to be exactly the behavior that got him in trouble last time. (Note: The Whilly on wheels was removed by Guanaco again [7], this time with talk comment [8]).-- Chris 73 Talk 22:52, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. What RickK said. Mrfixter 01:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Sorry, but there are still too many question marks around his previous and recent behaviour for me to support his reinstatement. GeorgeStepanek\talk 21:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. Sorry, Guanaco -- there are some good reasons to have you back, but comments on Wikipedia talk:List of banned users make it clear to me that you are still seriously out of step with the community on what does and doesn't constitute blockable behavior. It might be a good risk to have Guanaco an admin, but the fact that it is a risk, coupled with the fact that we have dozens of excellent admins (and no apparent shortage of good candidates) who are far less risky, make opposition my choice after careful thought. Jwrosenzweig 00:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  18. Questionable judgment, reckless unilateralism, and refusal to admit mistakes are bad enough in an editor. Guanaco's behavior before his desysopping demonstrated why no-one with these traits ought to be trusted with adminship, and I have no confidence (yet) that he won't immediately resume his old behavior. (And the way he tagged this vote for speedy deletion [9] after it turned unfavorable just clinches my doubts.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  19. Three months of very little activity doesn't give a lot to base an opinion on. Recent activity, however, reminds me of the comments from three months ago. Also, as a candidate for adminship, he marked his RfA for speedy deletion instead of withdrawing in the normal fashion. As a former admin, and a current candidate, he surely knows the CSD criteria. Not much has changed -- Sigh... Oppose. SWAdair | Talk 07:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. — Matt Crypto 08:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. I read talk pages before voting on these. This editor's talk page has an "archive" button (which is fine) but that redirects to a note saying "see history". I may change my vote if the talk page is more accessable, but for now I vote nay. Jonathunder 23:25, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

At one time, I got so many messages that I could barely keep track of it all. I can probably find a better way to manage them if you feel that it's too difficult to read my messages. Guanaco 20:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) I've begun copying and pasting old messages to User talk:Guanaco/archive3. Guanaco 15:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Guanaco. Please consider my opposition withdrawn. Jonathunder 06:51, 2005 Mar 14 (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)
    He's hardly done ANYTHING for the last three months. RickK 06:45, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  2. 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)
    Moved to oppose -- Chris 73 Talk 22:52, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)


Comments

Arbcom should have stopped Guanaco from ever becoming an admin again. S/he should remain an example to other rogue admins. Not being an admin is no big thing. There are too many admins already, enough. Guanaco's nominator, arch rogue-admin Snowspinner, is surely enough to set alarm bells ringing. On a separate note, I am amazaed that Neutrality(Never!) and Netoholic are voting the same way. The Rapture is surely not far away now.Titroll 00:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I think we know why this account was created… Guanaco 00:53, 13 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)

For those who think that Guanaco should have his adminship back, please see Wikipedia talk:Vandalism in progress/Willy on Wheels. Guanaco has FREQUENTLY unblocked vandals who he, in his own, personal opinion and against consensus, has decided do not need to be banned. He is now, even though he has not yet gotten his adminship back, trying to get Willy on Wheels, the massive page move vandal, unbanned. RickK 23:00, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

If you want to attack me, at least use facts to do so. This poll is merely an attempt to determine whether there actually is consensus for a ban. I support, and always have supported, efforts to block Willy on Wheels accounts and page move vandals in general. Guanaco 23:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Guanaco_3&oldid=11164998"