Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guanaco 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Guanaco

final (65/12/6) ending 04:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Guanaco (talk · contribs) – Guanaco has been nominated for adminship before and he has indicated a continued interest in seeking the position; having worked with him on the Mediation Committee, I feel comfortable nominating him for the position. He has demonstrated a desire to serve Wikipedia in a variety of roles, and I believe he would make a fine administrator. He has my full support, and I hope to see similar support from the Wikipedia Community. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this nomination. —Guanaco 04:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Obviously, as nominator. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 'Support: because administrator privileges should be No Big Deal, right? Swatjester 17:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support and hope this won't be turned into a farce once again. --Irpen 05:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Why not!! Mjal 05:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I trust Essjay's judgment, and after going over the evidence, I believe it is at least six months past the time Guanaco should have been granted adminship. --Aaron 05:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. NSLE (T+C) 05:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I have examined Guanaco's contributions since the last RFA. I find a committed editor working on cleanup, RC patrol, and mediation, including deftly handling some of our most controversial articles. Chick Bowen 06:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, will be an asset to Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per above. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 08:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Wha...? You mean he's not... How can we have a Peruvianllama as an admin and not a Guanaco? Support, and start searching for possible alpacas and vicunas to nominate! Grutness...wha? 09:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support as I did the last two nominations.-gadfium 09:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, very good handling of controversial topics. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 10:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 12:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 14:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support unconditionally.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support -- Good pick. John Reid 18:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Read Guanaco's RFAr, and frankly the desysoping seems a bit harsh. Borisblue 18:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --Jaranda wat's sup 18:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support the birth of the Lama Cabal!! But in seriousness, per Borisblue, the RfAr decision seemed out of line with the evidence they presented. Re-adminship is now overdue. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 19:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support His past is his past and I'm sure he'll make a good administrator. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Wow... looks like there's a lot of editcountits at RfA today! --M@thwiz2020 20:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - --Latinus (talk (el:)) 21:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support should be fine. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per above. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 02:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 06:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support confident that this editor will not abuse admin tools.--MONGO 08:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Guanaco for the first time. Has been doing good work. Bishonen | talk 10:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  30. Support; this user has shown a great maturity in dealings with him on the Mediation Committee. Ral315 (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, work at the Mediation Commitee seems solid, I see no potential for abuse here, and since adminship is no big deal I am happy to support a good contributor who has earned the trust of the community. Hiding talk 16:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. He's been contributing here for as least as long as I have. In all that time he's had his problems here - who hasn't? He also has lots of horrible user boxes on his page! Apart from that nowadays his edits and useful behaviour around the place suggest he is the sort of person who can be trusted with admin tools. Giano | talk 19:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. SuperBowl Sunday Support File:SuperBowlXL.png εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Tony Sidaway 22:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Yes[reply]
  35. Support --Duk 05:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. --TantalumTelluride 05:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-6 06:13
  38. Support, as before. -- Netoholic @ 06:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. I think Guanaco has learned. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support No problems here. Deserves to be an admin. One with Her 07:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, I agree, no problems here. JIP | Talk 07:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. I think Guanaco's paid his dues since desysopping and his behaviour since then has been great. I so no reason not to promote. --Deathphoenix 12:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - why not try assuming a bit of good faith once in a while? Smart, knows his stuff, and I'm sure that people will keep an eye on him, even though they really shouldn't need to. Proto||type 13:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. -- DS1953 talk 16:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support as per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support "Not a big deal." Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support FreplySpang (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support as usual. Rhobite 04:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Ambi 06:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  50. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 08:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support --Jusjih 08:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Whole-hearted support. I believe that at this point, Guanaco would be less likely to abuse admin abilities than most successful nominees. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support trying to see the good in people. pschemp | talk 04:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support.  Grue  06:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. I don't normally vote. This is borderline, and Guanaco most certainly should be an admin. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. I need not a reason. I think Guanaco is a very valued contributor and deserves the role of an admin. --XenoNeon (converse) 19:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Hope you do better this time... Seriously though, you seem to have gotten your act together and I would be bitterly disappointed if the community didn't support your return to adminship. haz (user talk)e 21:23, 9 February 2006
  58. Support BlueGoose 00:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Supportaco. bd2412 T 02:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. I believe that he realises that he has made mistakes, has undertaken not to make them again, and so should be given another chance. --G Rutter 11:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Would clearly be a good admin. Since desysoping seems to be becoming less of a big deal, resysoping should also be less of a big deal. NoSeptember talk 12:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support I believe in second chances and he';s earnede it this time.Gator (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Guettarda 22:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I would be pleased for Guanaco to again become an administrator. Guanaco's adminship was removed as a result of the first arbcom proceeding where there was credible evidence of mistakes made by an administrator. I note that the current remedies being proposed by the AC in this much more egregious case of inappropriate blocks are much more lenient. Guanaco has been active on several other wikis in the meantime and we should welcome him back here. It's clear to me that we need qualified help with a sense of project history. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 02:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. First, lack of familiarity with process (hardly any Wikispace edits other than some RFA/Arb votes and updating the banned user list). Second, inconsistent activity level: while he did a lot of good editing in december, in january his overall participation dropped by half. And third, the cliche answer to the first question isn't convincing. >Radiant< 10:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC) There are too many people here that oppose on grounds of principle, on grounds of ancient history, or apparently out of spite. I do not want anything to do with this, hence I strike my vote. >Radiant< 23:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistent activity level seems a strange reason to oppose an RfA: adminship is not like ArbCom where things grind to a halt if the drone doesn't turn up one day for wikiwork. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 05:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose per Radiant. Additionally, I'm still not keen on re-adminning the de-adminned, and there is nothing truly extraordinary about this case to change my general opinion. Xoloz 16:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I remember when Guanaco was a loose cannon. I'm not interested in finding out if he's got his act together now, we have plenty of suitable admin candidates. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - while Guanaco has my full respect, I'm still not convinced that now is the time to grant him adminship. The past record is sketchy, and I'd like to see some more time before re-applying. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Guanaco's past history of being a cowboy and going off on his own to unblock anybody he feels like it without discussion, and his sordid participation in the User:Michael fiasco, for which I have yet to have received an apology from Michael, and which caused User:Hephaestos to leave Wikipedia. And see previous discussions at [1], [2] and [3] and the RfA at [4]. And this edit is problematic. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I spent countless hours trying to fight Michael when he was banned. I rarely succeeded, and when I did, I also blocked numerous contributors, including Danny. Despite my efforts, Michael was seriously damaging Wikipedia's credibility and Danny often could not edit. Jimbo Wales, Danny, and I came to an agreement that would allow Michael to make a limited number of edits under one account (User:Mike Garcia) if he made factual contributions. This plan has been an overall success.
    Willy on Wheels has since been removed from the list of banned users by other users. I have always supported the blocking of accounts used solely for vandalism or with disruptive names, including derivatives of "on wheels". —Guanaco 23:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Guanaco is already dangerous without admin powers. —Cantus…☎ 02:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind explaining how I am dangerous? —Guanaco 03:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose due mainly to answers to questions. I don't think Guanaco has given either a clear picture of what he wants to do with admin powers if restored (hopefully his attitude to admin powers has changed), nor has he given a clear picture of having changed. Different answers to the 1st & 4th questions would probably have gotten a support vote from me. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 05:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per lack of response to Lethe below. Ambi 06:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. In resysopping the desysopped I think we need to do away with the "no big deal" thing; clearly the deal is, at the least, bigger than it was before (or less not big). We're not short on excellent admin candidates, and I'm not really persuaded by the answers to the questions; there doesn't seem to be a particularly clear appreciation of what it was that got him desysopped before. We don't need to risk a repeat of that given the high rate of truly excellent candidates coming through RfA at present. Charles Stewart puts it quite nicely. -Splashtalk 13:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Splash. --Doc ask? 17:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I'm dissatisfied with responses to questions (or the lack thereof). -lethe talk + 20:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Splash.--Alhutch 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC) No longer opposing because the nominator is trustworthy, and nearly all admin actions are reversible.--Alhutch 04:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I have no reason to forget past behavior in this case. aa v ^ 22:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose due to failure to answer my question; will reconsider if question is answered. Everyking 08:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Imperiousness is not a helpful admin trait. No indication that this has changed.—thames 20:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

  1. Neutral for now. Guanaco has been around for a very long time and knows the system here inside out, however I have a long memory and can remember my frustration at the way he would sometimes take unilateral actions without discussion. Unfortunately I haven't seen as much of him around in recent months, and whereas this is no reason to oppose (everyone should take a wikibreak from time to time) I can't really support because I only know the old Guanaco who had his admin tools removed. -- Francs2000 17:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Was de-adminned before so I'm not keen on re-adminning when there's no process to de-admin bad admins. But, that said, hasn't done anything too bad lately. Hedley 21:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I'm not entirely sure that adminship should be restored here, with the RFA in mind. Stifle 00:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral at this time. There were encouraging things about the past, after all. First, he didn't go crazy and get demoting with a storm of cursing and vandalism. He took the demotion and kept working. Second, his crimes have been repeated, now, by folks who aren't getting demoted (which doesn't lessen them as much as it should shame the people doing them). That said, the propensity to cross the line and, very specifically, to "wheel war" is of utmost concern. Geogre 18:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral His answers to questions trouble me. Stating that other users "attack" him and calling questions "unfair" doesn't evidence strong ability to handle adversity. I'd oppose, but I don't know the guy, and he might be a swell fellow. User:Adrian/zap 02:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. I don't trust Guanaco very much and feel we have much better admin candidates in line but also mostly agree with Geogre's comment above. jni 09:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I anticipate spending time on recent changes dealing with vandalism by rolling back bad edits, deleting junk pages, and blocking persistent vandals. I will also help clean out the copyright and deletion pages.—Guanaco 05:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this answer is not satisfactory, I would be happy to answer further questions about this. —Guanaco 21:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have contributed to several important Wikipedia policy pages, including Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images and Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I have worked to promote NPOV and factual accuracy on some of Wikipedia's most controversial articles, including Westboro Baptist Church, Homosexuality, and George W. Bush. After becoming a mediator in December, I helped settle a heated dispute on Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association. —Guanaco 05:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. The few content disputes I have been a party to were solved by a civil discussion of the matter on a talk page. I have been involved in a few requests for arbitration. Most of these issues could have been resolved more peacefully if everyone, myself included, had been more willing to discuss the situation before acting rashly. —Guanaco 05:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. I see that you've done this in previous RfA, so can you summarize here for those of us who weren't around why you got desysopped? Why would that not happen again?
A. The circumstances are too complicated to adequately summarize this here. Each time I try to summarize the case, various users attack me because I fail to mention certain details, so I am going to link to the request for arbitration. That page has remained unchanged for over a year and links to or contains all the relevant information. —Guanaco 23:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In your last RfA, you described the incident as an unfortunate concurrence of accidents and a vendetta by Cantus which resulted in your demotion. You expressed no regret, and seemed to think you had nothing to feel regret over. The ArbCom on the other hand, described you as "consistently controversial" with your admin powers. Now, I wasn't watching any of your previous RfAs, or the ArbCom case, when they happened, so what I'm looking for here is some reason to believe that you understand why you were demoted, and you have thought about it and come up with a plan to remedy, so that it won't need to happen again. I'm simply not seeing it yet. You providing me with links (which are already here) seems like a pretty unenthusiastic way to have a discussion about your own RfA. -lethe talk + 05:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a history of making controversial decisions, and sometimes my willingness to discuss my actions and/or admit fault was less than ideal. The accidents and subsequent vendetta by Cantus would not have likely resulted in more than a warning by the arbcom if I had had no history of disputes regarding my use of admin powers. —Guanaco 21:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. I see that in a previous RfA, you refused to answer about whether you have additional accounts beyond your two bot accounts. Why did you refuse then, and will you answer now?
A. I do not recall refusing to answer this question, but I will answer it now. I do not regularly edit under any accounts other than User:Guanaco, User:Guanabot, and User:Guanabot2. Other than this, I have created a few doppelganger and test accounts, which I have never used for disruptive edits or sockpuppet voting. —Guanaco 23:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this RfA, you said "I don't see any point in disclosing any accounts that I may have created". I find it pretty odd that you simply do not answer a question on your RfA because you don't see a point to it. I still wonder why you refused. I'm still hoping for an answer to that. Also, is it possible for you to give the account names? -lethe talk + 04:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was some time ago, so I don't fully remember. I was under a lot of stress at the time from all the scrutiny and also personal issues outside of Wikipedia, so I was probably just being unreasonably defensive. User:Guanaco1 and User:Guаnaco are two examples of my accounts. I do not have a complete list, because they are just throwaway accounts not used for editing. —Guanaco 04:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So your previous refusal made me suspect that maybe you had something to hide. These accounts are obviously yours and have no edits. Am I to understand that you have no accounts which are not obviously yours or which have some real edits? -lethe talk + 05:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Asked and answered. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Why do you feel that you have to right the unilaterally unblock persistant vandals?
A. I do not feel this way in general, but there are rare exceptions in which unblocking may be appropriate. I might be able to explain a specific example, but I cannot answer this broad, unfair question. —Guanaco 23:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. In question 3 above, it asks about conflicts and resolutions. Obviously you have a long history with those, but I wonder if you have any very recent examples of conflicts? I'd like to see concrete signs of improvement during heated conflicts.
A. I have not been personally involved in any heated conflicts recently. However, I have served to mediate a heated dispute at Talk:NAMBLA. I have made some unpopular edits to pages such as Template:Infobox Pope, but I avoided escalating the conflict, either by sufficiently explaining my edits or by agreeing to let the other party's version stand. —Guanaco 21:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. What are your views on the importance (or lack thereof) of process? Do you feel admin powers should be used boldly by individuals, without the necessity of prior discussion, even in controversial instances, or should decisions preferably be made at group levels? Everyking 09:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. Process on Wikipedia mainly exists to allow discussion among users so that they may reach a consensus. In some cases, such process is not necessary (e.g. when deleting Goatse images) because the will of the community is obvious. In more controversial instances, bold usage of admin powers without prior input from other users tends to be harmful. This is especially true when deleting images or blocking users, because those powers can easily cause irreparable harm to Wikipedia if misused. —Guanaco 02:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Are you willing to commit to never do wheel warring? I'm willing to forgive your past, but only with explicit confirmation that nothing remotely similar will happen again. And yes, given the past, I believe it is appropriate to apply the strictest definition of wheel warring in this case. - Taxman Talk 15:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. Yes, I prefer to avoid edit wars of all kinds. In most cases (except when dealing with vandalism, blatant hate speech, personal attacks, etc.), I follow the one-revert rule as a matter of habit. I intend to extend this to dealing with other admins. —Guanaco 02:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Guanaco_5&oldid=1082477294"