Meta:Requests for adminship/LlamaAl

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

LlamaAl[edit]

Dear all, I would like to nominate LlamaAl for Meta adminship. He is an active member of the SWMT and a sysop on the Spanish Wikipedia. Here on Meta, he does maintenance edits and fairly often reverts vandals and spambots and tags their pages for speedy deletion. I think it would be beneficial to us and to him if he were an admin in order to deal with these. --MF-W 00:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate acceptance: I accept this nomination. Thanks, MF-W. LlamaAl (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to admit that back in November of 2012 I had a vague knowledge of English Wikipedia policies. After that block for sockpuppetry, I read the relevant pages and became interested in other wikis, like the Spanish Wikipedia. Since then, I have taken Wikimedia projects more seriously and have never repeated those mistakes.
  • That strange incident was a personal matter between me and the other user, which fortunately finished on good terms. On the other hand, the above issue is not related to Meta-Wiki (Wikipedia is very different from Meta, as the former is a virtual collaborative encyclopedia while the latter is a Wikimedia coordination project). Besides, I hold sysop rights on three WMF public wikis and have never misused them, so there's no indication that I will overstep my functions here on Meta, if elected. Regards, LlamaAl (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what happened from your perspective, and how you view the first incident now? --Rschen7754 public (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. During that time, I was feeling uncomfortable in the MMA project and wanted some UFC-related articles to be kept. Then I thought it could be possible to accomplish that objective by creating a new account and using it to support a point of view in a request for deletion. Now I see that incident as very naive of me, product of my ignorance at that moment. LlamaAl (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Policies are, as far as I am concerned, less important than trust, and that does apply globally. A year ago, you were blatantly lying on a CheckUser investigation, telling the enwiki community it had been your siter. This, and the fact that you used two accounts on an RfD to let it seem as if various persons were supporting your point of view, must surely already then have been clear that it was abusive, even without knowledge of policies? I have doubts in your capacity to intervene as an administrator, which I doubt your admin experience at mediawikiwiki or eswikiquote has given you, and on eswiki you have been an admin for only a month. This also keeping in mind the difference between these four projects. When electing an admin on meta, I would like to be able to trust him when supporting, but a user that only a year ago said "The Miufus account was created by my sister, who sold it to me for one dollar" and only sees it now as "very naive of me, product of my ignorance at that moment" won't have my support, for the time being. Savhñ 09:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that in a request for permissions, the candidate's trustworthiness is as or more important than their knowledge of policies. In November of 2012, as I state before, I did not take Wikipedia in a serious way, something which has radically changed.
For the other side, I would like to know why you doubt in my "capacity to intervene as an administrator". You do not expose any argument and I am interested in knowing the reasons in order to become a better contributor. LlamaAl (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I personally dissaprove that a user blocked about a year ago now has the ability to block people himself. Having gone through 4 RfA's in about 5 months doesn't give you much experience, and it wasn't that long ago that I told you that you should stop following Leitoxx, which could have easily been interpretated as wikihounding. Whilst it is understandable to oppose on places where you're involved, I feel this pursuit was unnecesary, and an admin should be able to judge when a right is not going to be granted. ([2],[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] ...) This is also why I found the strange incident above interesting, on which you declined to comment further, claiming Meta and enwiki were completely different projects (as if we didn't know that already). Trust, however, depends on the person, and is IMO independent of the project. As for a recent example, this discussion (already pointed out to you on your talk page by Ganímedes) is a clear example of how a sysop should not act. In total, the article was created twice, once by the user and once by the IP. You, however, had only indef soft-blocked him at first (after the account had created the article) due to his innapropiate nick, but then hardblocked him, inmediately removing his talk page access, when the IP created the article for the second time, despite the user had indicated he was willing to learn. This arrogant comment about "opportunities" is utterly inapropiate, since he got the opportunity once blocked, but not really and then it was too late (?). It is true that after being pointed to it you corrected your attitude, but this was less than a week ago. Considering your past, you should be aware of en:WP:BITE. This, and possibly other things, frankly don't inspire much confidence in your three WMF public wikis' admin experience. This is a further expansion on why I doubt of your capacities to take decisions as an admin, even though the relatively recent socking incident and reaction on it was for me enough not to support this request, concerned with trust. My apologies for my extended explanation, Savhñ 22:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, is okay. As for Leitoxx, I have stopped "following" him months ago. I can say that I have a good relationship with him and have helped him in many ways. And as for the DayToWork incident, some other users agree that it was a correct block. Thanks for your explanation. LlamaAl (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support To be honest, even in light of the sockpuppetry issue above, I do not believe that LlamaAl will misuse their administrator access if given. Sock puppetry usually is a serious issue however only if consistent. If a user learns from sanctions, there is no good from dragging them on. So unless someone can point out that this user has more than one account which is not legitimate, I am supporting him. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we refuse to give them admin access to clean up spam bots and allow them to do SWMT work at this wiki, yet we openly give them GR? Seriously? Also 'advanced right' are sysop on this wiki but GR and such are not? Right... As I said, I see no reason to oppose them and would willingly listen if people actually have real complaints besides 'socked once and learned' John F. Lewis (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think GR (which is rollback) can be put on the same level as sysop on a wiki, especially a wiki that manages several global components. --Rschen7754 00:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree with John Lewis, but you are correct. Meta admins can blacklist all links or titles, insert malicious code on the portals, etc., in addition to the normal things admins can abuse. GR is relatively harmless. Either way, I don't think LlamaAl will do this again. Are they opposing for punitive or preventative reasons? He's learned from his mistakes. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as withdrawn
--M/ (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_adminship/LlamaAl&oldid=7050261"