Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Guanaco

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 06:23, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC).

(Guanaco | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct.

Description:

Treats the list of protected pages as his own personal fiefdom. Unprotects pages, even those that he has never had any discussions on, as if he, and only he, has the right to decide what pages should or should not be blocked, even if they are currently in the middle of edit wars.

Powers misused

Protection (log):

From his Talk page:

Unprotection

Why did you "un-Protect" John Kerry a few hours ago, without notice to all parties discussing it? Please advise. Rex071404 03:49, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When I unprotect something, I am not obligated to notify everyone involved in the dispute. If you want to know when an article is unprotected, use your watchlist. Guan aco 03:53, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Guanaco, may I ask how you came to the decision to unprotect John Kerry? I don't see a request on your user talk, nor in the article talk. Did I miss something? Thanks, Cecropia | Talk 04:34, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A specific request isn't necessary for something to be unprotected. It's anti-wiki to keep articles protected for more than a few days. Guan aco 04:49, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with both these general statements. I just want to make sure you're aware of the specific context here. The protection (and the Request for Comment and the Request for Mediation) came about because of the activities of one specific contributor. With the protection gone, the revert war has begun. Admittedly, nothing very useful was happening while the page was protected. I can't be too critical of your decision to resort to a bad solution (IMO), given that I can't offer any constructive suggestion as to what a good solution might be. :( JamesMLane 06:41, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Guanaco, I know that keeping articles protected is a bad thing, but unprotecting them in the middle of a hefty dispute is madness. 36 hours ago, I think all parties were pretty close to coming to a solution - at least within the next few days. But now, thanks to the article being unprotected too soon, and thus the edit war restarting, it looks like it'll be protected for a fair bit longer. Please take a bit more care with unprotecting articles in future. Ambi 10:09, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Does your unprotecting Zaza mean that you have some intention of dealing with the persistent vandalism to the page? No one has requested in the talk page permission to edit it. The only edits in several months were vandalisms and reversions. I had asked for protection precisely because I was tired of repeatedly reverting the same vandal. As an earlier author of part of the page, I am not the appropriate person to protect it, but frankly I don't want to have to make it my daily duty to protect it from vandalism. -- Jmabel 05:29, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

I'll watchlist it and check every anonymous edit to the page. This vandalism doesn't justify long-term protection. Guan aco 07:39, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Applicable policies

Protection policy: Unprotecting pages on his own without discussion, even those in the middle of an edit war.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute=

Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~~~~):

Ambi 08:19, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) While the diff Rick posted really doesn't support his case, he has a legitimate point here, particularly regarding protections (and indeed on blocking if what he says here is true). I've moved my vote to certification, because of my post on his talk page (see above), and a brief conversation on IRC after he referred to this RfC as "frivolous".
Ambi has not shown that she has worked to resolve this beyond one comment asking me to "take a bit more care with unprotecting articles in future". I have not unprotected any pages since then, so it cannot be said that she failed. She also has not done anything at all involving the reblocking situation. Guan aco 00:49, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
Guanaco, are you intending to address any of our concerns, other than to say you are justified, and promise not to arbitrarily block or unprotect in the future without considering the situation of each page you wish to unprotect, and communicating with the editors involved in the event there is an ongoing dispute among the editors? -- Cecropia | Talk 01:15, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to know that too. I don't think it's proper for an admin to just unprotect a page without checking to see if the editors involved are satisfied with a compromise. Otherwise, it will just lead to more edit warring. We can understand if it was just a one time thing, everyone makes mistakes. Or was the motivation something else? Do you plan on continue to unprotect articles without checking to see if a compromise was agreed upon in the future? If so, I would like to know why. Guanaco, we're attempting to resolve the unprotection dispute through this discussion right now. Shard 01:37, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I was willing to cut Guanaco some slack because I thought it was a case of overzealousness in trying to tidy up Wikipedia, which is not a bad thing; but I believe he should know that a bit more explanation for an unrequested admin action than citing how long the article has been protected is called for: "no discussion on talk page for xx days" or "protected because of active vandal--trying unprotect" or "protected to give revert war time to cool off--trying unprotect." I would be comforted if he explained his blocks (not writing a book, just reveal his thinking) but when he is asked civilly why something was done, the asking editor deserves better than "When I unprotect something, I am not obligated to notify everyone involved in the dispute." and "A specific request isn't necessary for something to be unprotected." This is non-responsive and rude to cite his interpretation of admin powers instead of giving a simple, civil answer. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:47, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I am moving my vote to certification, since Guanaco is not only defending his self-validated behavior, he is arguing with every basis for this action. He seems to mistaking other editors' politeness for a failure to seek compromise. When I saw his unprotect of John Kerry without any explanation I asked for an explanation and received a curt response. A further comment on the issue received no response. I'm not a big believer in RfCs, but I see no affirmative willingness on Guanaco's part to acknowledge that there is a problem, no less refrain from continuing. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:07, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I assume this certification only applies to the unprotection issue. Either way, the unprotection issue should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. We have no unprotection policy that I could have possibly violated. There is no consensus that John Kerry should have been protected, and there is no policy that states that it needed to stay protected. What is this really about? Guan aco 03:21, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
We have virtually no written unprotection policy at all. The unprotection policy has evolved by custom, like most everything else on Wikipedia . More to the point, IMHO, is that you are refusing to acknowledge that it is the community's wishes that are important: "Admin powers are not editor privileges - admins should only act as servants to the user community at large."(Wikipedia:Protection_policy). This latter quote also bears on not responding to a civil user question with answers indicating that you don't have to give an informed reason or notify the active editors why you are taking an unrequested action. Protection is placed for a reason. In the case of an edit war where the editors are trying to work out their differences under the calming influence of protection, they are entitled, within reason, to be allowed to specify when consensus on unprotection is reached. An example of this was on the hotly-disputed Terrorism page, which produced a successful compromise before editing was resumed. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:43, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Guanaco has stated (Comment 2, Reply level 2 [:#::]) that since there is no unprotection policy, he is doing nothing wrong. I disagree, the lack of written rules doesn't mean to disobey any unwritten yet popularly understood ones. My problem exists with There, which has been unprotected several times in the midst of active vandalism, by one Guanaco. The history shows this quite well. Vandal claims victory over sysops repeatedly, and seems to happen usually after one of Guanoco's unprotects. This is incredible, and hard to believe, that these actions would come from an administrator. I, for one, am quite upset. (Please note: the vandal(s) has/have also edited Pepsi to state that Aquafina was really New Jersey Tap Water, and various other things.) --TIB (talk) 01:43, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
Guanaco has just readded the line that the vandal was adding repeatedly, since the beginning of the vandalization (before it started picking up). If this isn't proof, then I don't know what is. I'm fed up with this. --TIB (talk) 04:00, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement (sign with ~~~~):

Angela 20:22, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC) The protection was clearly not stale. Discussion and voting were ongoing on the talk page at the time Guanaco unprotected it and it had to be reprotected a few hours later by Hadal as the edit war continued. If Guanaco had looked at Talk:John Kerry he would have seen the matter was far from being stale. There is absolutely no need to unblock and reblock users just to meet some new guidelines that have been added to the now ridiculous "blocking policy" page. Even if these new rules were really policy, they don't need to apply retroactively to blocks made before such edits. I have asked Guanaco to stop misusing the block log as a means of giving his opinion on why someone was blocked. (Note - these comments relate to the parts of this page that Guanaco has since removed)
I'd also like to know about the unprotection of those pages. I would have certified this myself, but I can't find the links in my attempts to resolve the unprotection issue. When you are given the ability to unprotect something, you have a responsibility to notify everyone about it (such as posting a message on the talk page or anything) otherwise it will just continue the way it was before the protection. Shard 23:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This user is a suspected sock puppet. Look at their contributions. Guan aco 00:11, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
Rick K 06:37, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
What has RickK done to resolve this? A quick look at my talk page and its history will show that he has not done anything beyond asking a question about the blocks and unblocks. After my response, there was no further discussion on these issues. RickK has not shown that he has "tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and [has] failed". Guan aco 00:32, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
Well, if RickK's certification is invalid because it doesn't meet that criterion there are still others who can certify it. Looking at your talk page, there are a few people who genuinely tried to discuss those issues with you and just got plain rudeness. Shard 00:53, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What Ambi said on Guanaco's talk page was correct.--Neutrality 02:53, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Note: This statement moved from endorsement to certification on the grounds that Neutrality is apparently willing to consider the two as equivalent. See [1] and [2]. --Michael Snow 22:36, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This certification is invalid. Neutrality has not made any comments or done anything except on this RfC regarding this dispute. This is far from the "need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed" requirement. Guan aco 00:01, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
I left a note on Neutrality page, asking him to confirm or infirm his position. Asking the person his opinion rather than guessing, seems to me the best thing to do. SweetLittleFluffyThing
It is only invalid until the deadline. Once Neutrality logs on and provides the links it will be valid. Also, if Neutrality can't certify it, there are still others who can. Looking at your talk page and the people endorsing RickK's summary, I can see at least two people who genuinely attempted to resolve the aforementioned protection & blocking dispute through discussion on your talk page. And you were uncooperative to even the discuss the matter with them. Shard 00:17, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The protection and blocking disputes are two different issues. This should be made into two separate RfC pages or one of the issues should be removed. Guan aco 00:54, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

Response

[response to uncertified blocking issue removed]

Guanaco's unprotection of the articles was perfectly justified. The protection of John Kerry was stale, and it was allowing a single stubborn user to prevent any updates to an article about a rapidly changing topic. It should be noted that that user is currently blocked.

Zaza has never been vandalized enough to warrant protection. The most a user has ever vandalized it in a 24 hour period is twice. Vandalism by individuals can be dealt with using blocks, and protection is only necessary if there are persistent and rapid reincarnations.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Guan aco 07:41, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
anthony (see warning) 21:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Cut Guanaco some slack here. The situation on the Kerry page has been chaotic for weeks. Anyone trying to calm things down could've made a mistake. 172 04:46, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

I see no violation of any policies. The protection policy doesn't even discuss unprotection. [view on uncertified blocking issue removed]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

anthony (see warning) 21:47, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.