Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guanaco 2

Guanaco
Final (23,22,8) Ended 14:00 December 10, 2004

'''Voting has ended. Please do not alter this archived page. Any additional comments may be placed on the Talk page.'''

Guanaco has been an admin for quite some time, but has been asked to reapply for adminship by the arbitration committee.

Throughout his tenure as an admin, Guanaco has followed page protection matters and bans and blocks closely. He has taken action in a number of situations where others have refused to become involved, and while I do not agree with all of his decisions, I applaud both his willingness to make politically difficult choices and his genuine attempts to follow policy and do what is best for the project. I also note that he has been willing to discuss his actions and has refrained from engaging in "block wars" or "page protection wars." In reading through the protection log and block log, he is probably more active overall than any other administrator in these areas. Therefore, it has been almost inevitable that some of his actions would prove controversial.

The exact rationale for the AC's decision to ask Guanaco to reapply for adminship is unclear. Their statement that "Guanaco's actions as an administrator have been consistently controversial" is not particularly illuminative. However, there appear to be two points of contention in the Cantus matter:


 * 1) Guanaco blocked Cantus in error, believing that he had violated 3RR "probation" when in fact his reverts were spaced out enough to be, technically, in compliance with the 3RR.  Guanaco corrected this once he realized his mistake.
 * 2) Cantus evaded the blocks and complained on other administrators' talk pages.  Guanaco reverted these comments, quite possibly without reading them, because they evaded the block.  The proper procedure for disputing a block is to utilize email, either to the admin who placed the block, or other admins, or wikien-l.  True, Guanaco compounded his earlier mistake by reverting these comments, but since he believed his block was appropriate and justified, I can sympathize with his actions.

I believe that Guanaco is a significant asset to the project. While these minor matters are regrettable, they are hardly grounds for asking him to step down as an administrator. I nominate Guanaco for renewal of his adminship and give him my heartfelt support.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not taking a position on this matter, but for the record, The ArbCom is requiring Guanaco to reapply. UC's wording "asked" implied optional, in which case this shouldn't be here. ArbCom: "Guanaco is required to reapply for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Guanaco will retain his admin powers unless/until his re-application is rejected." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:25, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''I accept this nomination. I was inactive through November, but I am now editing more frequently. Guanaco 23:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)''

Support


 * 1) The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Continued support. -- Netoholic @ 14:40, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
 * 3) Certainly. Everyking 14:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Also continued support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:05, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong support. Andre ( talk )A| 15:36, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Support.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:58, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. &mdash;AlanBarrett 17:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. 172 18:49, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. -Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 21:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. ugen64 23:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Tuf-Kat 06:29, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Dittaeva 20:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Acegikmo1 03:08, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC). Guanaco has made some mistakes, but he's open to discussion and acts in good faith.
 * 14) YES--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @  )---^-- ]] 12:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Ejrrjs 16:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Support giving wide leeway to administrator discretion, which I believe Guanaco has still fallen within the realm of. Snowspinner 19:55, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) But try to use a bit more care in making decisions.  &rarr;I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo&larr;   (talk)  06:33, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * I have been asked to explain further under the comments section (kudos to Ambi for doing it so diplomatically I didn't know which side she represented) . I think it might be better to explain it here.  Basically, I have seen a lot of good work from Guanaco.  The main controversial action I remember him doing was unbanning Michael.  Though this was undoubtedly overstepping the lines of suitable behaviour, I don't think it warrants desysopping &mdash; even if the experiment had been an abysmal failure. Thus is my position until something else comes up.  However, if you have another action of his you think would cause me to reconsider, please bring it to my attention. Guanaco, I admonish you to, if only as a thank you to those who voted to retain you as an admin, to exercise a great deal of restraint in using your admin powers.  Your unilateral and other such dubious actions are a problem that needs to be dealt with.  &rarr;I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo&larr;   (talk)  04:32, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
 * 1) Of course. I am refraining from commenting on what I think of this vote. Danny 13:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Support.  I tend to disagree with most of Guanaco's positions, but I am also dismayed that this vote is even taking place.  +sj  +  03:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Rhobite 21:31, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) He's not a bad guy. We're all human, humans make mistakes, even if he really is bit of a rouge admin, I won't name names, but there are far worse out there. GeneralPatton 06:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Rmhermen 03:36, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Try to lay low and use some restraint for a while.   – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)   15:04, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Has repeatedly done dubious things in regard to admin powers, and has often been recalcitrant when asked about them. He may have once been a fine admin, but in the last few months, he's become a rogue admin. Ambi 14:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * For those of us trying to make a decision, that's not very helpful. Specific instances would be nice.   &rarr;I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo&larr;   (talk)  06:33, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * This comment was posted simultaneously with your Support vote above. If you're challenging someone's vote, say so. It's disingenuous to claim you're "trying to make a decision." Cribcage 06:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Not enough activity lately (18 edits in all of November). Gzornenplatz 15:33, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with being an admin? Dori | Talk 03:05, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Gzornenplatz, that's like asking for someone to be desysopped because they had only 20 edits in November. Now, 20 edits in one year is something different... ugen64 23:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In the case of any other nominee, that absence would spell disaster. I don't treat Guanaco as "any other nominee" myself, but it doesn't seem unreasonable. It's hardly basis for contesting a vote. Cribcage 06:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I regret having to agree with everything Ambi says. Furthermore, I believe that admins who are willing to take unilateral actions&mdash;actions which may or may not be in accord with the will of the community&mdash;should be ready to explain themselves and discuss their reasonings when the inevitable questions arise. If their actions are repeatedly challenged, they should stop. Guanaco did not, to my knowledge, show himself to be open to discussion of his controversial actions, nor did he stop after several challenges from other users. This kind of rash unilateralism in the use of sysop abilities is unsuitable, to say the least. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 18:58, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Plenty of sysops perform such activities - it's called "speedy deletion." People have challenged us, does that mean we should stop deleting articles with content like "Jello Fruit Snacks roxor." ? ugen64 23:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion of those sorts of nonsense articles is well-supported by current policies and is almost entirely uncontroversial. The same cannot truthfully be said of Guanaco's many blocks, unblocks, protections, unprotections, edits of protected articles, and rollbacks. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 10:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Criticism of Guanaco has hardly been limited to "the Cantus matter." He frequently abused his privileges, and acted with disdain toward community consensus. He makes no effort to "play well with others," and the ArbCom decision should be considered carefully. The mistake of his original election should not be repeated. Cribcage 16:58, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * For the rest of who do not know much of this, could you provide some examples? J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 18:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * He's right - this is most certainly not just about this matter. He's unblocked users who there was consensus to block (such as impersonators), misused blocking powers in other ways, he's unprotected pages without the slightest regard for what was going on on talk, causing edit wars to unnecessarily restart - and that's just what I can remember off the top of my head. Whenver he's approached about any of this, it's almost always met with either a curt and rude response, or none at all. See this RfC. To my knowledge, there's also been another three RfCs (a record?) - but I'm having trouble following the trail of deleted pages. This dispute was really just the icing on the cake - it's fairly typical of Guanaco's behaviour to race around rollbacking comments on other users talk pages before he'd even checked if they were indeed correct, giving the impression of covering his tracks, and then being curt, rude or nonresponsive when later approached about the legitimacy of his edits. Ambi 01:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Citing "a record number of RFCs" is not sufficient. Gzornenplatz has had only 1 RFC, therefore is he less controversial than Guanaco? Proteus has had an RFC, does that mean he did anything wrong? ugen64 23:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) * User:Cribcage seems to be a voting sock puppet. I normally would not say that directly, but their contribs are something special. -- Netoholic @ 06:10, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * 2) **You're not the first to make that rude allegation, and you won't be the first not to apologize. I'm not anonymous. Five minutes on Google will locate my name, address, and telephone number. Can you say the same? Cribcage 06:27, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Ambi's assessment of the situation is quite true, I find. I can't support a history of conflict like that. Mike H 01:26, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) No. Admins should act with consensus and be held to a higher standard. We value all editors, but I don't believe this one should have sysop powers. Cool Hand Luke  01:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) I now oppose after Guanaco's inexplicable unblocking of HistoryBuffEr. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 14:37, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * I unblocked HistoryBuffEr's IP addresses simply because they should not have been blocked in the first place. HistoryBuffEr was blocked for exceeding three reverts to an article. The person(s) responsible for User:HistoryBuffEr are not banned. The IP addresses did not continue the revert war, nor did they engage in behavior that is cause for a block (see blocking policy). Blocks are not equivalent to bans.
 * If you had any sense of decorum or respect for community consensus, you'd refrain from using admin privileges pending the result of this vote. Cribcage 04:34, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "Guanaco will retain his admin powers unless/until his re-application is rejected." And a group of seven arbitrators is not exactly "communuity consensus". Guanaco
 * (1) It's customary for users to sign comments. (2) The fact that the ArbCom chose not to directly strip you of adminship doesn't negate the obvious implications of their ordering this vote. (3) There's no need to argue about community consensus. You're watching it happen on this page. Let's wait and see. Cribcage 05:15, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * (1) I forgot to sign. (2) What implications? If they wanted me not to use sysop powers, they would have desysopped me. (3) I see no consensus. (4) You can find wrong in anything and everything, so this will be my last comment in response to you on this nomination. Guanaco 18:54, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I have to oppose to this nomination.Arminius 05:05, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) M7it 17:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak oppose. I don't get his need to unprotect user pages, which leads me to not trust him. There are better things to be doing as an admin. I think it might be a good idea to have all admins re-apply after a certain period, but I don't like that Guanaco is the only one having to do so. I don't feel like reading all the ArbCom matter, but if they felt he needs to reapply, they might as well just deadmin and let it be that. Dori | Talk 02:59, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Sorry, Guanaco. I think you're generally a good guy.  But your unprotecting of user pages gets on my nerves.  And your unblocking of Historybuffer's IPs was out-of-line, in my opinion.  I agree with Cribcage that you shouldn't be using your admin powers during this vote.  Also, your banter with Neutrality and Cribcage above is, I don't know, unsavory.   BLANKFAZE  | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 06:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC
 * 6) Oppose, agree with Ambi.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 08:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) I cannot in good faith support for continued adminship someone who believes that blocked users should feel free to evade their blocks by anonymous editing, and who even goes so far as to hinder other administrators attempting to enforce the block. Proteus (Talk) 19:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Cannot support unilateral actions and do not believe admins should have "leeway": that's a licence for roguery.Dr Zen 01:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Not the worst admin we have, but that said, we need to de-admin people who don't show wisdom in the use of their powers. It may not happen in order of merit, but it has to start somewhere. Here's to precident. Shane King 02:37, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose: Guanaco seems to be a blazing loose cannon. Giano 15:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose, reluctantly, since I am not an admin and don't feel it's necessarily appropriate for me to vote against an admin, but I really feel strongly that admin powers, any and all of them, should be reserved for folks who are to a great extent beyond reproach, and who take pains to accurately assess and follow consensus. I wouldn't oppose renomination if it seems suitable at a later date. Pedant 00:56, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose CheeseDreams 19:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. Deb 18:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose - community confidence not there. Charles Matthews 20:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) * So, just because many other people are opposing, you're going to throw in your vote because that's how you interpret the communities wishes? The "Abilene paradox" comes to mind.  I encourage everyone to vote based on their own determination of Guanaco's value as an admin, not what they think others are thinking. -- Netoholic @ 22:33, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)
 * 16) **Imagine! Groupthink driving decisions at Wikipedia! That'll never do.Dr Zen 03:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) **It's a perfectly valid and sensible reason for opposing. Charles feels that admins should have the confidence of a great majority of the community in order to be effective. Obviously that confidence is not there. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 02:29, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) **If we're questioning motives, let's examine the eagerness of Guanaco's supporters (yourself included) to challenge Oppose votes, often rudely. I see no such trend in the Support section. I disagree with his supporters, but I respect their votes. It's too bad you can't do the same. Cribcage 07:40, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) ***I respect your votes. Perhaps it's because we feel very strongly in our support of Guanaco...? ugen64 01:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) ****That's reasonable. Maybe it's time for all involved to call a truce. There's barely a day left, anyway. Whatever the bureaucrats decide, this vote will end and we'll all cooperate as members of one community. And so far, we've built a heck of an encyclopedia. Cribcage 01:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) Christmas comes early this year.  A. D. Hair 02:24, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral
 * [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 14:37, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Um... I know very little about Guanaco, but I have seen him unblock users, who should have remained block, for no appearent reason, and I found his placing RickK on Vandalism in Progress to have been extremely strange, since RickK was clearly following policy with regard to (then) hard-banned user Michael. func (talk) 21:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Er, but I've also noticed him doing a lot for wikipedia, especially on RC patrol, which is why I can't vote either way. func (talk) 21:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree with Func. Lst27 ( t a l k )  02:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I feel that the point has been made and that stripping adminship in addition is senseless, but I am only aware of a few of the cases of disputed behavior, so I'm not confident enough to support. Sorry. Very Verily  07:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) David Cannon 09:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC). I wish there was a fourth option. I am opposed to desysoping Guanaco, just yet.  At the same time, I think the misgivings that many have about some of his actions are justified.  Rather than revoke his admin privileges outright, I would prefer to put him on probation for 3 months and see how he goes.  In the absence of that option, however, I'm voting neutral.
 * 4) I don't have an opinion about Guanaco yet. There are certainly several users whose opinions I trust voting "oppose", but no one has yet provided any difs or other solid evidence to convince me.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   12:55, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Cyrius|&#9998; 13:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) -- What David Cannon said. There's a lot of weirdness going on with Guanaco.
 * 6) Weak oppose. Not a problem user but not quite sysop material either --Chris 73 Talk 02:48, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) What Chris 73 and VeryVerily said. Johnleemk | Talk 17:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * Neutral: [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 14:37, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Totally offtopic and irrelevant, but... do you enjoy recursive silliness like that, Neutrality? :) -Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 16:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * My humble opinion is that this User could avoid using the special sysop features unless for urgent matters. As anybody can see in Protection_log, this is not the case. --M7it 21:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)