Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Llama man 2

4.

WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are Veinor's stats on which domains are being added daily, and Heligoland's stats on frequency of link insertion. All stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs. You can have a look at the full counter spam efforts on meta at m:User:Eagle 101/Spam

.

A: I generally don't mind spam as much as vandalism. I don't think the former is as problematic as the latter, as users often stop after being warned about spam and it seems to be less common (though that's not saying much as there are ridiculous amounts of vandalism added to Wikipedia every minute). What I find annoying about someone adding spam is when users do not stop after being warned, and either keep doing it until they're blocked and/or create sockpuppets and keep adding spam. The only reason external links should be used is to give references for something or give the reader more information about the topic. If it doesn't, then I'd get rid of them. I am also opposed to adding youtube, myspace, etc. links to articles; in my opinion, they're not reliable and who knows, maybe someone could be impersonating an article's subject in myspace or other blog.

Optional Question from S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC):[reply]

5. Do you believe it is proper to ask a candidate for RFA their age? Would the age of an RFA candidate affect your decision to vote for them? Should age be at all taken into account when voting for a prospective admin or should the user be judged solely on the quality of their contributions to Wikipedia?

A: No, no, and the latter. There are plenty of 15-year-olds in this world who are more mature than 30-year-olds, and plenty of admins (Arjun01, to name one) under 18 (I hope to be one at some point). An RfA candidate should be judged solely by his or her contributions to Wikipedia. Age != Maturity.

Optional question from Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC):[reply]

6. How are you purposing to change the MediaWiki pages, specifically the recent changes page? Please keep in mind that such changes should only be done following a consensus result, and not per admin's own point of view.

A: For the recent changes page, simply updating the article requests. I wouldn't change the others often, only if a consensus has been reached on a change.

Optional question from llywrch

7. Can you imagine yourself deciding ever taking a day off from Admin duties? Just deciding to let someone else worry about the vandals, troublemakers, and personality disputes in order to spend that entire day simply improving Wikipedia's content? -- llywrch 04:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia, so of course I would help write articles daily. However, I don't think I'd not use the admin tools at all during the course of one day, and if I did, not too often.

General comments

• See Llama man's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Llama man's first RfA from December 2006 Gwernol 18:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. No one beats me. ~ Arjun 18:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support, I trust nominator and user from experiences and above. Cbrown1023 talk 18:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Now I remember who I was going to nom, support. A very rare barnstar from me and you know he's good.--Wizardman 19:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Weak support still not 100% convinced he needs the tools yet, but trust the nom, his editing profile looks well-rounded and this is supposed to be no big deal after all. The Rambling Man 19:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong support. The fact that he was originally blocked as a lowly vandalism-only account and the fact that he has come a long way really inspires me. Anyone can change no matter how bad your past. Hendry1307 19:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Seems to have learned from his previous RfA application. (aeropagitica) 19:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. The kind of incredulous support one makes when they suddenly find out an editor is not an admin, contrary to what they previously thought.
   Yuser31415 20:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
8. Support based on an unproblematic record. By the way, he has 5800 edits (see edit count here. YechielMan 20:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support -Seen this user around on Mario, too bad that it failed GA... but a good user nonetheless. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 20:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support as I did last time. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Early Support. --Slg
    n (page - messages - contribs) 23:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12. Obvious support - trusted user, plenty of experience. I would have supported last time had I noticed the RFA - once someone has some critical mass of edits and has been here a few months, there's enough out there to look through their contributions to see if they are trusted ... and this user has nearly 6000 edits, so that's far more than enough to see that this is a trusted user who would make a great admin. --BigDT 00:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Firm Support Trusted user, even more trusted admin. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support I think you will be a good admin. By the way nice answer to question about age of potential admins (I am 15 hehehe.) Captain panda In vino veritas 04:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support, can't imagine he'll do anything but good with the tools, like the answer to the age question. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support, passes my test. Good luck. Dfrg.msc 05:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. After reviewing the recent contributions... Solid policy knowledge, great writing and maintaining of cruft-prone articles (I don't expect admins to be great content writers but it's a definite bonus.) Very well-balanced and would make a great addition to the admin corps. As for the "only about 1,600 mainspace edits" oppose... Man, I've never said this but that is extremely arbitrary. I had 1390 mainspace edits for my RfA but around 30-40 articles written, and my nominator was and is a vocal advocate of article-writing admins. Quality over quantity!
    masterka 11:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
18. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
19. Support per GrandmasterKa.
    ► 12:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
20. Support good candidate, balanced and experienced. - Anas ^Talk? 12:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support very good user, vandalfighter... FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 16:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support.--Húsönd 19:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Has got my full support: nice answers to questions, good experience plus good edit count, and no indication of incivility. There's just one thing; you're not a actual llama, are you? :-) -- P.B. Pilhet / ☎ 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support I opposed the first RfA, but I think my concerns have been addressed, and I can trust this user with the tools. Nishkid64 21:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Baa! ~
    Review
    )07:06, Tuesday, 13 February '07
26. Support - Watched this user from afar (not in the creepy sense!) & everything seems good... Good luck! Spawn Man 08:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. I don't see any reason why not trust this user. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 22:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support You have addressed our concerns from your last RFA. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support looks good.-- danntm ^T _C 15:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. the wub "?!" 16:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. Thanks for serving. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. weak Support - Replies to questions are satisfactory, and seems all go. There are a few minor issues with this canidate, but I trust in his ability to learn. To me, 2 months is not too soon, thats enough time for him to have learned more about how things work around here. Handing out mops should not be a very big deal, and things like where their contributions have been should play a very minor role. I don't see anything here that would cause me to fail to trust this candidate. Regards ——
    Need help? 20:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
34. Support A trustworthy editor. Prodego ^talk 01:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support —
    ^(talk) 13:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
36. Support. I'm very impressed how someone who started out as a vandal could mature into someone who is well on his way to becoming an admin. NoInsurance (chat?) 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support per my interactions. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support --
    T/C) 06:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
39. Support I haven't seen you around the way I did before your first RfA, but you seem to have been doing good work. Dar-Ape 16:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. SynergeticMaggot 18:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support No reason to believe user will abuse the tools.
    IronDuke 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
42. Support (struck neutral) This is a good user who won't abuse the tools - I don't really think 2 more months would make a huge difference. (Sudden attack of conscience!)
    dzasta 03:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
43. Support
    Ong 恭喜发财 04:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
44. Support. PeaceNT 06:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Mr Llama.
    Sarah 10:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
46. Support — looks fine, although I'd like to see more article work. Then again, perhaps you can stretch this to your advantage by dumping a lot of time into admin duties. — Deckiller 14:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Weak Oppose Sorry but you only have about 1,600 mainspace edits, in my opinion that is not really enough, your excellent at vandal fighting and your work at portals and deletion debates is great but it's just that mainspace edits what makes me oppose, I'd reccommend at least hitting 3,000 mainspace, Good luck.
  addict^{Editor review!} 20:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Wow that is extreme edit countitus, I never interfere with oppose voters but don't you think that that is a little extreme. Most admins who pass RFA don't have that much. ~ Arjun 20:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Why does lack (and you could hardly call that a lack) of participation in mainspace reflect badly on an editor's ability to handle adminship?

  Yuser31415 20:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It doesn't really but of what I've heard off my failed RFA (I only had 611 mainspace edits (don't laugh!!) I was told that most admin candidates had at least 3,000 mainspace.

  addict^{Editor review!} 20:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  3,000 edits not 3,000 mainspace edits is what I'm sure they meant. 3,000 mainspace is quite crazy for a requirement (even I don't have that many).--Wizardman 20:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I'm sorry, but that seems like extreme editcountitis. If you feel those 1,000+ edits haven't been worthwhile, then I could see reason for an oppose, but would you do the same thing to a guy who had 500 mainspace and yet had a fistful of GA and FA's? Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 20:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, not again! :( Tellyaddict, we've recently had a candidate pass with fewer than 1,600 edits in total. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tango. Please don't keep opposing based on edit count, especially when you said you were wrong about it on Firefoxman's RfA (User_talk:Majorly#Comments_on_Firefoxmans_RFA). --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Tellyaddict meant 3,000 total..... or I could be wrong. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Look, I think Tellyaddict just made an honest mistake with his !vote. There's no need for a bunch of people to come here and tell him that he's wrong, when Wizardman has already summed it quite nicely. Go to the user talk page if you must. Nishkid64 23:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry as I said I hate commenting like this, he contacted me on my talk page, the vote is how it is 3,000 mainspace edits. ~ Arjun 00:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm saying he made a mistake (I'm guessing he has) since Tellyaddict said most people told him 3,000 mainspace, instead of 3,000 total. Nishkid64 02:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You shouldn't pay too much attention to edit count. I voted a few days ago against a candidate with 90,000(!) edits. (See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 2)

1. Oppose This candidate's first rfa was just two months ago, it is too soon in my opinion. Needs more article experience, for his answer on Q2 the article he listed as having created does not appear to be sourced. It appears to me that a large portion of his Wikipedia space edits are to sandboxes. His over 800 userpage edits seems quite high to me. Dionyseus 05:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I have more than 200 user page edits, and more than 100 of the most recent ones are working on drafts for articles before they go to mainspace. I don't think you should kill someone just on count alone. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 16:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Dionyseus, your points are well taken but maybe some of us should be using the sandbox more! I know I only started using it in my last 1000 edits or so and the quality of what I've actually added outside the Sandbox is much better as a result. With some exceptions (template tests, etc), my sandbox edits are the same edits I would have made elsewhere -- it's just that the world isn't seeing them until I've gotten them to a higher level of quality. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Good point, I have now striked out the sandbox and userpage edit comment. Dionyseus 06:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Strong Oppose: I shudder to think at what would happen to articles with lots of lists if he got a mop and bucket. And I fear that he may use protection the wrong way if another edit war breaks out because he seemed determined to keep his version of the Mario Party articles. Bowsy 19:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Just to note: I've gotten into content disputes with this user. –

   man 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

3. Oppose: sadly, I must oppose as he wrote "I’m definitely not an article author". In my opinion, we are all here on Wikipedia to write articles (albeit at varying levels). The editors view that he is not an article author concerns me as adminship should not be a big deal, and being a good article editor should come before contributing to meta discussions, cleanup, etc. After all, to clear certain backlogs you don't need admin powers. Please note that this is nothing personal. I just feel we need to get potential admins to get back to basics. Maybe after showing some evidence of serious article editing I will support. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral. Seems a bit too soon since the last one. I still have some reservations, but given the strong show of support by other Wikipedians I won't oppose. – Lantoka (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral, leaning support per Lantoka. Bit too soon since the last RfA - there's no time limit, after all :) Still, you're a good user. I might sit this one out for a while.

   Riana 15:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC) [reply

   ]

   Changed to support.

   dzasta 03:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

   ]

2. Neutral: While my experiences with Llama man have not been good, I cannot penalise him just because of what I have seen, as I know he is a very good contributor to Wikipedia. Henchman 2000 14:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.