Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Guanaco

+Administrator
Guanaco &mdash; I would like to help keep the Wikibooks project free of spam and other garbage. I have been a sysop on the English Wikipedia since May 15. I also am working on images, and the ability to delete exact duplicates would be very helpful.
 * Support TUF-KAT 08:22, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * User now a sysop. TUF-KAT

-Administrator
 On news of yet another Wikipedia administrator going "rogue" this morning, I strongly susggest we desysop this user. His most recent activities here (last fall) involved a massive use of rollback, which he wasn't willing to either fully explain nor apoligize for.

He was desysoped on en.wikipedia after an arbitration decision, which covered many of the same issues we saw here. He also apparently got into a number of tussles afterward, and eventually disappeared. -- SB_Johnny | talk 14:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * &mdash; I trust the actions of the WP administrators and believe his last actions here raise concern over whether Guanaco can be trusted to use the tools in the best interests of Wikibooks. --dark lama  14:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In the interest of full disclosure, Guanaco has actually been formally desysoped twice, see w:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco and w:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al. --Iamunknown 18:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can someone show me what rollbacks he did? The most recent edits he made look ok to me or am I missing something? Also I don't think that actions on Wikipedia should be held against him - they're separate projects and until he shows bad intentions on this project I think we should let him/her be. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 20:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Guanaco's edits here in October were not malicious. His desysopping at Wikipedia in May of last year should not result in a summary desysopping here. He was not desysopped on Wikipedia for vandalism or for being a "rogue". It was his judgement and communication that was in question, not his intent. I do not see anything to indicate that he has displayed any similar lack of communication or judgement in regard to wikibooks. -- xixtas talk 21:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * - Although I dislike his/her previous edits and bot usage here recently (the last time the user edited), I don't think it's extreme enough to force a de-sysopping. This user can just go through de-sysopping based on inactivity which I figure will happen in October. A warning for this user's previous actions should suffice. -within focus 22:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with xixtas, his behavior at wikipedia is generally not reason to reprimand him here. However, many of our admins do consult wikipedia to look for patterns, especially when it concerns repeat vandals, it's not something that should be disregarded entirely. I will admit that Guanaco's rollback actions, and several of the actions of his bot, were a little suspicious. However, I would attribute that more to his misunderstanding of some of our policies (many of our policies are relatively new, and several of our practices are not codified anywhere). This is justification i think for de-sysoppoing inactive admins who are not familiar with our policies, but it's not cause for a knee-jerk reaction. If there are concerns we can keep an eye on him, but for now I think it's just a matter of mis-communication. I am not against action, but I am also not strongly in favor of it right now. --Whiteknight (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at the contribution history over and over again, and I do admit that I see some things in there that I dont like. He has been essentially absent since January 2006. Between january and july, he made only 11 edits, 3 to his user page that appear to be some kind of strange spam test , 4 edits about a transwiki that added essentially no content (that seems to have been a wikipedia AFD, and not a transwiki according to any wikibooks policy) and a few minor edits . His final edit in July 2006 was a warning to User:Withinfocus about creating stub pages. Problem was, Withinfocus had not created any stub pages. Guanaco never responded to Withinfocus' reply. Starting on 15 October 2006, Guanaco reverted over 100 edits made by User:darklama without any explanation or any provocation. Many of the reverts created broken redirects (which were fixed by darklama's edits). These reverts were on multiple pages, on multiple books. For the record, reverting the edits of another user without proper provocation or explanation was exactly why Guanaco was de-admined twice on wikipedia. Fortunately for us, Darklama choose not to respond in kind with reverts, because given his history it seems Guanaco would have willingly and silently entered into a wheel war with him over it. What is a shame is that we should have brought up the de-adminship much sooner, when this nonsense happened originally. On a side note, Guanaco also operates a bot, User:Guanabot whose actions have been questioned by several wikibookians without any proper explanation from Guanaco. I recommend that we at least disable (remove bot flag and block) the bot until it's proper operation can be verified. Given the evidence, I am also now strongly in support of de-admining guanaco. I don't think that we can trust an admin who refuses to communicate with other wikibookians, who is willing to mass-revert without any discussion, and who leaves messages that are "strange" at best without reply. --Whiteknight (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't remember where it was now and I discovered it many months after the Guanster left that comment, but it turned out I edited a page at one point and made an edit similar to what he described. This was in my early days of editing and I think the page was garbage anyway, but he/she did have some reason for leaving the message. However, it was a cryptic message at best. -within focus 23:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have seen much good that User:Guanaco has done in the past to defend Wikibooks from vandals and perform other acts of service. I agree that the massive reverts seemed to be based on some sort of power struggle that it is unfortunate wasn't explained in some more complete manner here on Wikibooks.  Nor addressed in a larger forum.  Still, even this action doesn't seem to be sufficient to me as an example of a rogue admin that needs to be stripped of his/her admin tools.  I'm curious over how much of this was a spill-over from the events on Wikipedia.  This is strange in many ways as I've seen very good communication with this user in the past, together with lucid and insightful comments on the Staff Lounge.  Just not these "recent" actions.
 * I too, feel that the actions on Wikipedia should not necessarily extend to Wikibooks unless there is a clear problem here as well. Certainly desysopping and even out right user blocks/bans ought to be cause to strongly review the actions of that user here, but it shouldn't be an automatic action by any means.
 * All of this said, it appears as though Guanaco is very inactive at the moment on Wikibooks, and Wikipedia as well. In due time removing admin status strictly on the basis of inactivity, and unless there is a compelling reason for otherwise desysopping this user, I think it would be best to simply let his account fade away as an honorable admin who has gone to other things in his life.  --Rob Horning 07:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Robert & others on here. I see no pressing need to de-sysop this user & I am sure time will provide the means so I am closing this as failed -- Herby talk thyme 08:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The below administrators have been inactive for one year or longer besides a few spare edits. These users (except where noted) have been contacted on their talk page as well as e-mailed if possible to inform them of this process. All users listed below (except where noted) will have their sysop rights removed on 3 Aug 2007 and a consensus decision is not needed; this section is serving to inform the community of their de-adminship. Should a nominated admin come back and contest the nomination, some discussion may occur and the once-admin will be able to re-apply for adminship at a later date.

Two users are in a questionable period of editing and have been listed below. These users also have a large legacy of work here and I'd like to mention them separately. Please say something if you believe their de-adminships are premature or inappropriate. I will not take these as true de-adminships and contact these users until we come to some form of a decision here. Thanks. -within focus 01:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a few reservations about User:Karl Wick, partially because of his status as the founder of this project, but also because he has not be completely inactive on the textbook-l mailing list recently. Now I know that the mailing list is not the same as wiki, and the policy doesnt really account for that kind of participation when we are talking about de-adminships. I also wonder if, considering his stature as the founder of wikibooks, if we could keep him on as an "honorary" admin, along with a few other important people such as Jimbo and Brion Vibber. It's a small hangup, and I wont deny that there is a certain amoung of sentimentality involved in it. It should be worth some kind of consideration as to whether we should honor people who have played an important role in this project (but then again, adminship isn't a badge of honor anyway). --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's sort of what I'm getting at. Karl and Mshonle have done some important work in the past and aren't necessarily inactive depending on how you look at it. -within focus 02:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yay it's this time again. I'll add my usual reservations here about how deadmining should only be used if someone has permanently left the project, done something they shouldn't or asked for their rights to be removed.  However if you're going to go through with this deadmining then I don't see how we should keep Karl and MShonle just because they did something great once.  "Honourary" adminship just stinks of beaurocracy and goes against the democratic and community spirit of Wikibooks and Wiki projects. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 22:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The first user below has certainly left the project. I've asked for the second two to be discussed here since they could be considered somewhat active and have worked here for some time. This should cover your reservations. -within focus 01:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to Xania, I share your concern about honorary adminship just being just another bureaucracy. At the same time, I really feel like there is something that we should do, especially for Karl Wick, that says "we appreciate the work that you have done, and the role that you have played." Of course, it's pretty obvious that adminship is not the correct award for this, but there really isn't anything else. I guess we could give them some barnstars or whatever. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% with User:Xania, if people don't want to remove the status just don't propose the users for removal, once the process is started it should be closed and per what was agreed (jut to keep it clean). I make a point in stating that I also like and think this deadmining stuff is as useful as Xania (but not as vocal about this subject... :)  --Panic 23:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh. I'm with Panic and Xania on this one. -- SB_Johnny | talk 23:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The removal of status was proposed because technically these users are inactive. I made my initial comments because someone might want to challenge this viewpoint based on some additional information. So far no one has made any challenge on that point and so these users will all still have their rights removed. Like always (and always forgotten by some users it seems) this is not the place to discuss your opinion of the policy but how to use the policy. If you'd like to say I "want" to have these users' rights removed then that's fine and their names are obviously here, so let's actually discuss their inactivity and not stray from the enforcement of policy. -within focus 20:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why have my (and others) comments been striken out? You might not feel that this is the appropriate place for discussions about this policy but many will disagree with you.  This is the best place to discuss the policy as it concerns the issues on this page. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 19:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a good place to discuss how to implement the policy, but it is not the place to discuss changes to the policy itself. It's like saying that we should discuss changes to our inclusion criteria on a bookshelf, or discussing changes to the featured book system on the bulletin board. This page has a purpose: The promotion and demotion of admins. Discussions which are offtopic here should be removed, just like offtopic content can be removed from any other page. If anything, Withinfocus is being more courteous then most by simply striking the comments, and not deleting them outright.
 * I don't understand why this is such a sticking point for you, Xania. If people want to change the administrators policy so bad, if it's such an issue that we need to make a big public display about it, then why hasn't a single proposed change been raised on the policy discussion page? Why hasn't the issue been brought up at staff lounge, where prolonged discussion is appropriate?
 * Now as an alternative, we can use this page as a discussion area for the administrators policy, and then host the admin nominations at Actual requests for adminship. Then we could redirect Wikibooks talk:Administrators to point to this page. Of course then, we would have people who wanted to discuss the policy at the new page, which would cause us to have to move the process again and again. If you want to propose changes, do it in the right way, in a place where we have the space and where people are likely to participate in it. But making a scene and being disruptive of the process to try and make a point is never beneficial to anybody, and it is clearly not leading to any changes. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, my comment was about keeping Karl's adminship as an "honorary title" (which seems to me inappropriate), and that was also striken. -- SB_Johnny | PA! 00:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've hopefully clarified this below, but again I just put one big strike around the whole discussion. Your comment was of course considered since the de-adminship continued. I'm not striking policy discussion only and the strikes will leave upon archiving. -within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 12:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The policy for inactivity de-adminship has been around for a little while now and since then all previous discussion of de-adminships has simply been stricken for the temporary period that the Stewards access the page when they look for evidence of the de-adminship. If you look into the archives you will see that no discussion is permanently stricken and just like normal I will remove the strikes before I archive this. I definitely agree with what Whiteknight said about where to discuss policy and this is probably the fourth time you've been reminded here. Currently at the unstable administrators policy we're even discussing the tightening of this inactivity requirement so if you're so against this then it would be wise to make a statement there. Changing the talk system here is a very bad idea in my opinion and I would definitely oppose any "actual adminships" page even though I feel that original suggestion was made rather lightly. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 12:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This policy of de-adminship for inactivity has not been without controversy nor have the individuals noted below been even given a minimum of a chance to dispute this change of status.... as has happened in the past. Striking out this conversation as if it is out of order is IMHO out of order by itself, and getting the stewards to step in here as if this is a settled issue is also something that should not be done.  In every previous situation here on Wikibooks when somebody... anybody was put up for deadminship, a clear "vote" was done for each user, and the "last non-outlying edit" was something that was done informationally and not to explicitly invoke policy for steward action.  To prove this point, I'm nominating Karl Wick for adminship right now, at least to undo the damage.  For crying out loud, using this standard we might as well de-sysop Jimbo as well.  --Rob Horning 07:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * They have 30 days and have been contacted both by user talk page and e-mail if applicable. None have responded. Nothing is out of order as this is a clear-cut procedure and not a vote, thus I struck the previous discussion so that Stewards see simply a clear mention of the de-adminships on the project. This is I think the third time I've done this so I'm surprised by the explosion all of a sudden. I suggest you read up on policy because you are quite out of date. It is absolutely incorrect that "every previous situation" for de-adminship has had a vote since over ten old administrators have been removed under this system. Maybe you missed all this when it was created but it's been about a year or so and we're working on tightening this at the unstable page. If you're so offended, try making a positive contribution on the policy page and not just fighting it in an inappropriate place. Also, yes, Jimbo would be under this policy except he's a Steward and therefore it's a useless operation. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 12:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Seeing as so many people are commenting on this page rather than the appropriate discussion page (whereever that is) I think we can safely say that discussions about deadmining are entirely suitable on this page. Please stop removing comments and objecting to other peoples comments just because you think they're in the wrong place. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 16:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

-Administrator
The below administrators have been inactive for one year or longer besides a few spare edits. These users have been contacted on their talk page as well as e-mailed if possible to inform them of this process. All users listed below will have their sysop rights removed on 8 Oct 2007 and a consensus decision is not needed; this section is serving to inform the community of their de-adminship and no discussion of current policy should occur here and instead at Wikibooks talk:Administrators. Should a nominated admin come back and contest the nomination, some discussion may occur and the once-admin will be able to re-apply for adminship at a later date. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 01:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Request made today. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 18:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ See here for the completed request. This should be archived in a few days. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 17:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Last contribution was October 21 2006 and last administrative action was October 19 2006.

Its been ✅ --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  01:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

+Reviewer
I'm a former admin here (removed for inactivity). I'd like reviewer access so I can screen for vandalism with Huggle. I'm currently most active at en.wikipedia but I'll reply to any messages at my talk page here. Guanaco (discuss • contribs) 04:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you can't be autompromoted because you fail criterion "never been blocked" (you self-blocked as some sort of test many years ago). So there seems nothing to be gained by holding off.  I've promoted you.  If anyone objects, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but meanwhile, you're a reviewer.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 04:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)