The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Guanaco

Final (38/24/5) ended 00:56 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Guanaco (talk · contribs) – Guanaco has been an admin before. He was deadminned following an arbcom-mandated reapplication of the sort that the arbcom recently pretty much admitted they should never do again. He was renominated in March, and almost got it. Frankly, he's been in the doghouse too damn long, and it's time to give him his mop and bucket back. Phil Sandifer 20:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this nomination. Guanaco 21:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Extreme nominator support Phil Sandifer 21:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Support, haven't seen Guanaco around much, but the very little I've seen has been good. Plus I believe in second chances. Redwolf24 (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support warmly. Have previously been impressed with Guanaco's admin work and have no doubt he will perform again. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. He has been an admin with no problems in my part of the encyclopedia, to my recollection. --Ancheta Wis 21:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ground floor. --Golbez 21:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support He's been away long enough.Geni 21:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support time to bring back this experienced user.Gator(talk) 22:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I believe people are capable of change as well. Give him another chance. Bahn Mi 22:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --JAranda | watz sup 23:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. support. About time, too. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Mopify every Zig. You know what you doing. Mopify Zig. For great justice. FCYTravis 00:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Support....maybe...yeah okay. Private Butcher 00:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - he has been an excellent admin before, and will no doubt be an excellent admin again. --Ixfd64 01:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Sure. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 01:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, it's about time he was given another chance.-gadfium 05:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support with trepidation. Some people seem to be on a kick to rehabilitate banned users lately. That's nice if it works, but the benefits to the encyclopedia are not all that great when balanced against the potential to dissipate our energies. Rehabilitating former admins strikes me as a much more useful proposition. Based on his comments here, Guanaco has acknowledged and explained his previous conduct in a way that suggests he recognizes the problems with it. I hope therefore that these scenarios will not repeat themselves. --Michael Snow 06:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support --Duk 06:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Support; Guanaco made some mistakes, for which he has apologized, and has promised to work on. He's done a lot of good work both before and after deadminship. Let's not deny him adminship for something that happened nearly a year ago. Ral315 (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, Ral315, it was not "something [impliedly one incident] that happened a year ago." It was a pattern of bad behaviour that went on for about a year before something was finally done about it. Even then, he burned good faith in his last renomination, and he's provided scant evidence in this RfA of anything having changed. Ambi 10:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. David Gerard 15:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. David Remahl 17:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support did he do anything bad as of late?  Grue  21:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Let by-gones be by-gones. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 04:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Acegikmo1 05:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Agree with Snowspinner on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, again. -JCarriker 08:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Izehar 09:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support What he did wasn't even bad. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support -- albeit only moderately. I assume good faith on the part of this user and I'd give him a second chance. However... if events repeat, I won't be as kindly with my vote. --Martin Osterman 14:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Andre (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. We should forget about his past mistakes (he has apologised for them), and move on. --Lst27 (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support There is a lot to read here and after digesting the entire thing I see that I can think of no reason to not assume good faith. MONGO 10:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Tony Sidawayt 10:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support the kind of attitude displayed in the oppose votes below is why I rarely vote on RFAs these days. Forgive and forget, I had one of my old account's userpage vandalized by this user but that was over a year ago! If we can't forgive, then the core values of Wikipedia are comprimised and the vandals will have striked a major victory. NSR (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Before you generalize, notice that many of the oppose votes are based on the fact that Guanaco virtually disappeared after his last RfA. Sustained editing only restarted about two weeks ago. Carbonite | Talk 15:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Unquestionably. One of the old Ronin -long time editor/admin. --Jondel 02:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support warmly, a great Wikipedian he is. Halibutt 07:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support having read comments and assuming good faith--A Y Arktos 20:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per Arktos. Guanaco's answers below seem adequate and sincere and I'm all for second chances. But I can understand that people want to see a few more weeks of problem-free editing so I look forward to supporting again soon :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. I believe in second chances. I can't quantify whether or not he'll do these things again, but Guanaco's responses below strike me as sincere. I don't think that the belief that he will be difficult to de-admin (if necessary) holds water: he was de-adminned once, and the second time will certainly be easier. Give the man back his mop. I, for one, trust in him enough that he will do well with it. It's time to move on: mistakes happen, and it's pointless to keep a man in the mud after an apology and a promise not to do it again. Blackcap | talk 01:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. KHM03 00:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Some comments from previous nominations don't bode well (" A loose cannon for a long stretch", "I do not want an admin to display this erratic behavior", "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", "he needs to actually show a good deal of good behaviour before we trust him again", "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", "as a candidate for adminship, he marked his RfA for speedy deletion instead of withdrawing in the normal fashion", "Has repeatedly done dubious things in regard to admin powers, and has often been recalcitrant when asked about them", "I believe that admins who are willing to take unilateral actions—actions which may or may not be in accord with the will of the community—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" , "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", "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", "Admins should act with consensus and be held to a higher standard", "Guanaco seems to be a blazing loose cannon" - Xed 22:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Are all these comments from previous RFAs? Has he done anything questionable since then? Raven4x4x 00:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they are. Have a look at them - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guanaco and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guanaco2. His last edit (his answer to Question 4) was questionable in that he didn't explain why he attempted to cover up the actions which lead to his de-adminship. Despite having a year to do so, he still hasn't explained why. - Xed 00:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not attempt to cover anything up. I have explained my actions in my answer to question 4. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask them, but please do not accuse me of a cover-up without providing some evidence. Guanaco 00:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Ample evidence of your covering up is at the bottom of this page Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus_vs._Guanaco/Evidence - Xed 00:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said in my answer to question 4, I reverted his edits because he was considered banned at the time. Edits by banned users are to be reverted. Guanaco 00:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly oppose. It concerns me greatly that quite a few of the support votes seem to come from newer users with the attitude of "I don't know him, but oh well, okay". Guanaco wrote the book on abusing adminship; he was the first user to be desysopped by the ArbCom, and was far more regular in his actions (and far more reticent when approached about them) than Stevertigo ever was. I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt last time he came up for re-adminship, but then he went and removed Willy on Wheels from the list of banned users "because he hadn't had an arbitration case." I've seen basically no evidence that he's changed in the slightest, and I'd hate for a repeat of all the time that was wasted in unnecessary disputes because of his actions during his last time as admin. Ambi 01:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]
    That's a bit of an unfair characterization - his argument for removing WoW from the banned user list was that, if someone showed up and began making legitimate edits and we later found out it was Willy, we would not immediately block that account - unlike, say, Wik. This is not an argument that is wholly unreasonable. Phil Sandifer 06:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it seems inaccurate to say that he was the first user to be desysopped by the ArbCom - he was desysopped by an angry lynch mob, because the arbcom screwed up (As evidenced by their backing down and reconsidering the most recent time they threw an admin to the wolves). Phil Sandifer 06:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The committee's decision to reflect the change in community opinion (they were not widely criticised for doing this in Guanaco's case) and drop the forced re-evaluation can hardly be taken as a vindication of the conduct of either Guanaco or Stevertigo. I have little doubt that the alternative would have been to straight desysop Guanaco. Furthermore, I'm not one for grudges; I gave him the benefit of the doubt last time, and he blew it. After that, I wait for evidence that he can be trusted not to waste everyone's time again, and I just haven't seen that here. Ambi 09:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    "Guanaco wrote the book on abusing adminship" is a ridiculous and entirely unhelpful overstatement that I really doubt you could properly support as stated. The AC also acknowledged the throwing his adminship back to a vote (not a "deadminning" as you state it) was a bad idea - David Gerard 15:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)\[reply]
    It was a good idea then. It would be an even better idea now, given the many admins who do little but throw their weight around instead of building an encyclopedia. - Xed 15:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strongly oppose. I agree with Ambi above. User has a history of problems. —Cantus…☎ 02:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Ambi, and per my comments the last two times around. —Charles P. (Mirv) 03:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose we need to be tough on rogue admins imho. I expect to see a clear sustained pattern of excellent behavior before I'd consider voting support.Borisblue 04:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Oppose per Ambi. Rogue admins are an increasing problem, and readminning this editor would send a very bad message. Simply too little to gain, too much to lose. Xoloz 07:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Never Guanaco used to use admin privileges to protect trolls. I'm not interested to find out if he/she has gotten over that. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose due to concerns stated above, particularly Ambi's. Everyking 09:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. oppose per concerns above --Isolani 14:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Changed my vote to oppose because of what I've seen. Private Butcher 16:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. I'm quite willing to vote as if the slate was wiped clean after his last RfA. There's really only been two weeks of consistent editing since his last RfA in March (with sporadic edits in the interim). Given that it's a long, difficult process to deadmin a user, I'm going to need to see a longer period of good editing. Carbonite | Talk 16:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose—Since his last RFA, Guanaco has done nothing to change my opinion. (In fact, it doesn't look like he's done much of anything.) A.D.H. (t&m) 21:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Why should I support a candidate that tried to get his previous nomination speedy deleted and has since then accumulated only very few edits? Too little to gain, too much risk involved letting Guanaco run amok again. We have much better candidates in line waiting for the mop. jni 07:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. I am certainly willing to discount past issues and let bygones be bygones. However, discounting his history, I must note that there's hardly any recent history to judge him by, as he made hardly any edits from april until the end of october. So I oppose for lack of activity. Radiant_>|< 13:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Radiant and others. We seem to have have a nearly endless supply of good admin candidates who have no history of bad actions whatsoever... so why would we re-admin someone whose major claim-to-fame is abusing admin privledges and getting de-adminned for it? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose pretty much per what Radiant said, but also because your characterization of the situation in your answer to question #4 below is pretty far from the mark. You weren't deadminned for blocking Cantus, you were deadminned for consistently controversial use of admin tools. An answer that whitewashed indicates you don't really understand the problem. - Taxman Talk 16:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I would point out that the question called for a description of the events that led up to Guanaco's de-adminship, not the grounds for which he was de-adminned. The distinction is important, I think, because like many Wikipedia editors, Guanaco has a tendency to read things in a literalistic fashion (sometimes excessively so, an aspect that has contributed to past controversies). As a result, while his answer may not address all the issues you think the question should imply, I don't think it is fair to characterize it as a deliberate whitewashing, especially considering that Guanaco has acknowledged the additional controversy in his other comments here. --Michael Snow 19:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits are events. Comments are events. Only after Ambi pointed out there was a lot more going on that was explained in the answer to #4 below, Guanaco explained it a bit more accurately with "I was often rude and dismissive, trying to defend myself as if I were on trial. I caused a significant amount of trouble as an admin, and I apologize." Those events and others representing a pattern of bad behavior are the ones that led up to de-adminship, not what was described in the answer. - Taxman Talk 19:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per reasons given above. With no usable way to de-admin people, I have extreme reservations about giving the tools to those who've been known to abuse them. Friday (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose, disagree with nominator that now is the time. Silensor 23:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. Toughie. Second chances are definitely good. Proven abuse of admin tools definitely bad. So the question seems to be: "would he do it again?". This is hard to judge from recent edits; certainly some good RC patrol in there, but also more reverting than constructing. this edit demonstrates he reverts rather quickly, without reading the full extent of the edit. Tricky. But then my eye catches question 4: De-adminned for reverting one person after 26 hours? Judging from the answer on question 4, Guanaco doesnt seem to have gotten the jist (sp?) of the case against him. And how can you learn from the past, if you dont acknowledge what went wrong? As such, judging from the (admittedly little) information available, the answer to the above question would seem to be: "he might". Hence I oppose. The Minister of War 09:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Radiant. 82.26.164.114 Pilatus 10:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per Radiant. No Account 18:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per Radiant. the wub "?!" 21:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose, previous admins should have a higher bar than regular users, and by that standard, there is just too little to go on at this time. Turnstep 14:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose: agree with Turnstep. If it weren't so hard to get something done about unaccountable admins, it would not be such a big deal, I think. CDThieme 16:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong oppose to anybody who had a hand in the reinstatement of User:Michael into the Wikipedia community. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

From perusing the discussion here and at the first RfAr, it appears that the result was more of his actions afterward (To quote then-Arbitrator Ambi: If it was an honest mistake, as Raul characterises it, then why did Guanaco go to such lengths to cover it up?) and a pattern of "consistently controversial" admin actions. Note that I am not an Arbitrator and that I am not expressing any opinions regarding this RfA. Hope this helps. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 22:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ambi was not an arbitrator at that time. She functioned as more of a prosecutor. I did revert Cantus's posts, but once he had calmed down and stopped spamming, I read one of the notes. Seeing that he was not technically in violation of the ruling, I unblocked Cantus. Guanaco 23:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Though Guanaco is right about my role in the case, he was not desysopped for just one incident. He had, over a series of months, persistently unblocked users who had made nothing but bad-faith edits, unilaterally unprotected pages without regard for whatever was going on in the dispute, and was generally controversial in all his adminship actions. When questioned about his actions, he was - without fail - rude and dismissive (quite similar to the current situation with Stevertigo, except that Guanaco had a longer history of doing it). I was prepared to live and let live during the last re-adminship vote, but he then went and doing the same sort of thing - removing Willy on Wheels from the list of banned users because there hadn't been an arbitration case. I've yet to see any evidence that he's changed, and I'd really hate to have to go through the whole process again. Ambi 01:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My unblocking of these abandoned vandal accounts was intended to make Special:Ipblocklist smaller by clearing out accounts that more than likely would never be reused. In retrospect, this was simply a waste of time with little possible benefit and much potential for controversy. At the time, I saw it as a solution to the ever-increasing problem of a painfully long block list (think George W. Bush x10). My unprotection of those pages was rash, stupid, and dangerous. I should have thoroughly investigated each one before making a decision on whether to unprotect. I was often rude and dismissive, trying to defend myself as if I were on trial. I caused a significant amount of trouble as an admin, and I apologize.
The only claim Ambi has made about my history as an administrator that I do not fully acknowledge is that I was "generally controversial in all my adminship actions". I deleted a large number of articles and files, and my deletions were very rarely disputed. I helped block active vandals and banned users such as User:Paul Vogel and the Vandalbot.
I should never have disputed the ban status of Willy on Wheels. It doesn't matter whether WoW is banned or just blocked, because all his reincarnations will be blocked indefinitely anyway. I caused trouble and wasted people's time, behaving as a troll might. I cannot prove that I have changed in any way. All I can do is admit that I was wrong and try to assure you that I will not repeat my past mistakes. Guanaco 05:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Strong Neutral... don't know which way to go. Ambi and Snowspinner both make excellent points, so I'll take the middleground. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to Redwolf24 -- I can't resist bringing up my heavily unsalted peanuts idea; might it not become a very popular product at the grocery store? As a follow-on to this potential product, lightly unsalted peanuts could then make its debut at the stores. --Ancheta Wis 04:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Ancheta, please clarify your analogy and how it relates at all to this rfa. Karmafist 15:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    He was joking about the idea of being strongly neutral, which appears to be an oxymoron. [[Sam Korn]] 15:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha. You'd better tell Switzerland it's an oxymoron then ;-) Karmafist 04:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Tough one.--Sean|Black 07:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I am also forced to be very neutral. On the one hand, Guanaco has done good work fighting vandalism and working on deletion. I want to assume that he would handle the role well and uncontroversially. On the other hand, he has had significant problems in the past. The majority of the work that he wants to do(other than acutally pushing Alt+D) can be done by all users, so I think it unnecessary to give him these tools. I wouldn't be particularly worried if he were to have them, but I am by no means certain enough to support him. [[Sam Korn]] 15:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Guanaco has given me his word that we won't see a repeat of last time, so in the interests of assuming good faith I'm moving my vote to neutral. Ambi 02:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I cannot in good faith support or oppose. I believe Guanaco means well, but some of the objections raised worry me. Maybe next time. Johnleemk | Talk 12:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I intend to help with RC patrol by rolling back vandalism and blocking vandals as necessary. I will protect pages in cases of extreme vandalism or edit wars and unprotect them when the vandals have settled down or the edit warriors have settled their dispute. The main use of my admin powers will probably be helping with article and image deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, etc. I don't anticipate enforcing arbitration rulings or editing the interface very often.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I try to avoid becoming too attached to my contributions, but I have made significant edits to controversial articles like Westboro Baptist Church and George W. Bush. I have uploaded several images I created, such as Image:Poodle.jpg, and some files created by others, such as Image:WBC protest.jpg.
In the Wikipedia namespace, my most well-known contribution is the possibly unfree images page.
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. I have very rarely been in article content disputes. In these situations, I generally have dealt with it by reverting once or twice, discussing the disputed section on the talk page, and if the situation becomes too stressful, simply leaving the dispute. I have made a few mistakes and engaged in a few debates regarding the blocking and protection policies. In the future, I will discuss matters before (un)blocking a user or (un)protecting a page. Guanaco 21:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Many new users are not familiar with your history. Briefly describe the events that led to your de-admining. Mention anything that you would now handle in a different manner.
A. Cantus had been reverting the clitoris article exactly three times per day. The current blocking policy for violations of WP:3RR did not exist at that time, but there was a revert parole applied to Cantus at that time (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus). If Cantus reverted any page more than three times in 24 hours, he could be banned for up to 24 hours. I checked the history on clitoris. I checked his recent reverts, and he appeared to have reverted the page four times within 24 hours. I blocked him, . Cantus used a few other IP addresses and accounts to spam the village pump and dozens of administrators' user pages with a plea for help. I rolled back the edits as expected for a hard-banned user. Cantus stopped his spamming after being blocked a few times more (I think he was writing to WikiEN-l at that time). Out of curiosity, I read his edit to the village pump. I checked the clitoris history again and found that his fourth edit was about 26 hours after his first. I immediately unblocked Cantus. Cantus requested arbitration. I apologized and requested mediation, but he refused and demanded punishment. Guanaco 23:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. One of the complaints about your previous controversial actions as an administrator was a reluctance to communicate or explain yourself when concerns were raised. What would you do to address this?
A. I recognize that I was often reluctant to explain my actions as an administrator. I now try to be as open as possible with my edits, explaining them whenever I'm questioned and admitting fault when I realize my mistakes. I would avoid being overly defensive of my actions and remember that Wikipedia:Requests for comment, however hostile it may seem, is not a courtroom. Guanaco 05:00, 13 November 2005 (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.
Category