Meta:Requests for adminship/LlamaAl

LlamaAl

• LlamaAl (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

  Ending 2 January 2014 00:27 UTC

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)

Candidate acceptance: I accept this nomination. Thanks, MF-W. LlamaAl (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. --MF-W 00:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Rschen7754 00:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I think he would be a great admin. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Érico Wouters ^msg 01:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support MBisanz ^talk 03:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Sure. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Definitely! Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Go for GS and steward instead!--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

  Certainly not. Neither GSs nor stewards are permitted to act like local sysops here on meta, which is what LlamaAl apparently requests. Furthermore, the GS flag doesn't even provide any additional user rights for this project and they are not "elected", but rather recommended to the stewards. Vogone talk 15:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, per the Meta-Steward relationship, stewards are allowed to delete obvious spam/vandalism and block active vandals, which seems to be what LlamaAl mainly wants sysopship for. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, but when it becomes routine to do that stuff massively, it is better to seek local approval for the tasks by gaining local adminship. Stewards are allowed to do countervandalism work here but usually are either also local sysops or use their tools for such cases only sporadically. Especially with some "uncontroversial" actions we've had some problems in the past when stewards did something which looked uncontroversial but actually it was not. However, that does clearly not belong here and is only supposed to be informing. -Barras talk 16:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Support--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 04:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Most active user in our community. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

  I'm wondering what you mean. Some users, e.g. User:verdy_p, are more active than he is. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

  You're right, but in this case I don't mean to compare specific individuals. Thanks for your info. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

  But you are aware of the fact that "most" is a comparative form? :) Vogone talk 04:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

  But you are aware of the fact that "most" is a superlative form? :) PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

  Indeed, you are right. :* Vogone talk 15:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, I'm calling it for my support candidate and don't intend to compare statistically with other users. If it's wrong, I'm apologize and I've crossed out of most word. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sure, and ceteris paribus not unlikely in February, too --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, no problems--Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support --Stryn (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support: had a positive interaction with the candidate at es.wikiquote; very polite and helpful user. DanielTom (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Meno25 (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Trijnstel_talk 15:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Courcelles 20:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• For sure. Mathonius (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Rzuwig^► 19:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Savh, sockpuppetry is a "big crime". --Golden_burg111 21:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --레비Revi 07:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support of course. TCN7JM 07:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose. I can't knowingly support someone who was blocked for sockpuppetry on enwiki. LlamaAl was first active on enwiki, until 31 October 2012, when he was blocked for sockpuppetry for a month, at first claiming it to have been his little sister, later on claiming he had bought the account from his sister. The block was prolonged a few days for "socking with IP". What I probably find even worse is that I believe most of the eswiki community, including myself, is not aware this was the reason he moved to eswiki, and I'd be surprised he would have had so many supports on his (quite recent, only a month ago) RfA over there had this block been known. Even though a year may seem a long time ago for some of us, socking is not done by accident, AFAIK. I would also like to get some explanation on why a quite inactive user decided to come back to post this complaint about LlamaAl on an enwiki admin’s talkpage, after which LlamaAl replied by mail and said he would retire from enwiki. LlamaAl is a nice chap, but having noticed his block (December 2012) for the first of this today and finding this strange incident (May 2013) which was settled privately, I can't support him for adminship on meta. Savh^ñ 13:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)