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.
EssjayTalk •
Contact04:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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. --
Aaron05:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Bowen06:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Hidingtalk16:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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 |
talk19:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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. --
Deathphoenix12:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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)e21:23, 9 February 2006
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 Rutter11:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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
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
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.
Xoloz16:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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. Heresiarch19:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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
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". —
Guanaco23:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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. 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. -
Splashtalk13:50, 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.--
Alhutch04:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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. --
Francs200017:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Hedley21:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Geogre18:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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)
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.
jni09:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Comments
Edit summary usage: 90% for major edits and 57% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
Mathbot04:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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:
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.—
Guanaco05:00, 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. —
Guanaco05:00, 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. —
Guanaco23:48, 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. -
lethetalk+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. —
Guanaco21:49, 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. —
Guanaco23:48, 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? -
lethetalk+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. —
Guanaco04:29, 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? -
lethetalk+05:23, 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. —
Guanaco23:48, 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. —
Guanaco21:49, 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?
Everyking09:13, 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. —
Guanaco02:11, 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. -
TaxmanTalk15:35, 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. —
Guanaco02:11, 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.
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.
EssjayTalk •
Contact04:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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. --
Aaron05:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Bowen06:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Hidingtalk16:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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 |
talk19:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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. --
Deathphoenix12:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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)e21:23, 9 February 2006
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 Rutter11:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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
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
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.
Xoloz16:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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. Heresiarch19:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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
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". —
Guanaco23:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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. 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. -
Splashtalk13:50, 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.--
Alhutch04:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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. --
Francs200017:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Hedley21:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Geogre18:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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)
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.
jni09:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Comments
Edit summary usage: 90% for major edits and 57% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
Mathbot04:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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:
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.—
Guanaco05:00, 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. —
Guanaco05:00, 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. —
Guanaco23:48, 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. -
lethetalk+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. —
Guanaco21:49, 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. —
Guanaco23:48, 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? -
lethetalk+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. —
Guanaco04:29, 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? -
lethetalk+05:23, 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. —
Guanaco23:48, 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. —
Guanaco21:49, 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?
Everyking09:13, 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. —
Guanaco02:11, 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. -
TaxmanTalk15:35, 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. —
Guanaco02:11, 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.