Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Llamadog903 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Final (5/13/4); Withdrawn by WjBscribe at 01:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Llamadog903 (talk · contribs) - I am an editor with good faith and I feel knowledgeable enough to become an administrator. The Llama! (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a RfA a few years ago. I failed miserably. Now I think I am ready to become an administrator. I sometimes make mistakes but they are always in good faith and I try to fix them, and always learn from them.

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to take part in WP:AIV and WP:CSD mostly but other duties if I see someone is needed for them.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I have created a few articles and edited a bunch, but I think my most useful contributions are Wikipedia Maintenance which is why I wish to become an administrator so I can be more helpful in that area.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have not been in any serious conflicts but when I have been in a conflict I have worked it out with the other user by either standing my ground if I feel I am right or apologizing for being wrong.

Additional question from BigHairRef

4. Regarding WP:CONSENSUS, when required to judge consensus, what weight do you give to a "Support/Oppose per X" or a similar !vote (X being another user who has !voted) without further explanation; assuming that the reason that X gave was not obviously applicable and the only likely reasoning?::A: I have a hard time understanding the the question, but I would probably disregard X's !vote seeing that it isn't obviously applicable

I'll try and rephrase as more than one person has mentioned they are confused. When a person uses a !vote merely to concur with another user would you attribute more, less or the same weight to their !vote towards consensus than if they had explained their reasoning? This is assuming that the reason given by the first user is not the only reasonable opinion, i.e. at an AfD a clear candidate for deletion as a Non-notable person, because no sources can be found and lack of sources to back up notability is the only sensible reason for deletion. Feel free to answer in the same way or change your answer as you wish.

A:I think my answer upholds

Optional question from Keepscases

5. Why doesn't your signature match your user name? Do you feel this does, or will, cause any confusion?

A:I just have that because I think it makes a nice signature. I don't feel it causes any confusion. If you or anyone else thinks it might leave me a message, and I will happily change it!

Optional question from xenocidic

6. As an administrator, you will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. You'll come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. And you will sometimes be tasked with considering unblock requests from the users you block. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond.

A:I reviewed those pages and I think I can deal with troublesomes users fairly well. I am very willing to block people who vandalize or harass, and foul language doesn't bother me.

How would you respond to their request to be unblocked? –xenocidic (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See Llamadog903's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Llamadog903: Llamadog903 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Llamadog903 before commenting.

1. Weak Support I have done a pretty good look at Llamadog's CSD related edits and I could find only a few questionable edits. (Among the questionable edits is warning a user of a speedy deletion when no deletion is taking place, nominating a borderline A7, and a borderline A1). Which is very impressive considering how many of his edits I checked. Nevertheless the complete lack of talk space edits implies that he is not been involved with content creation and conflict resolution, which worries me greatly. Without creating content and "fighting" for its merits with other editors I don't think you can really understand what wikipedia is about, and specifically what a user feels like when an article he worked hard on is being deleted. I believe his lack of conflicts he refers to in Q3 is a reflection of this. My weak support is based on his answer to Q1, and the implication that he will limit himself to areas where he is knowledgeable. Jon513 (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Q4 is retarded. Anyways, you've been here since 2006, so I'd hazard a guess that you probably know more about how the encyclopedia works than the majority of those opposing. Supporting per the fact that you've been here for two years and haven't managed to get banned. Naerii 19:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Eatpeaches (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   — Eatpeaches (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. –xenocidic (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Weak Support Your experience is good, but you really had short answers to questions.--LAAFan 21:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. At least moral support to encourage the candidate who seems well intentioned. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. You're off to a good start, but some more experience is needed, especially in the Wikipedia namespace. You have 10 reports to AIV, so that's good. You also do some good work in the mainspace. So, so far so good, but I need to see some more experience before I can accurately assess your knowledge of policies and procedures on Wikipedia. Also, please try to use edit summaries more often as they are very helpful in letting other editors know what you're doing and/or why you are doing it. Useight (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose per Q4.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 17:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I must say that, like the candidate, I did not understand the formulation of Q4 either, even after re-reading it several times. Nsk92 (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose for now. I like where you're going in your Wikipedia career but I think you need a bit more time to hone your skills. Your lack of experience is evident in your inability to answer Q4 as it was asked. If you were to spend a few months at WP:AFD and WP:RFA discussions, you'd be very familiar with the dilemma posed by that question. Give it some time, participate is some (a lot!) more discussions and you may get quite a few support votes the next time around. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Weak Oppose per Useight. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose per Useight. It would be a good idea to turn on automatic edit summaries in your preferences. Good luck! GlassCobra 18:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose - Useight has said it best, however, allow me to strongly recommend branching out in the project namespace) (beyond AIV, try WP:UAA, WP:RFPP, WP:HD, WP:AN, and WP:ANI discussions. Put yourself up for an editor review to glean feedback from you compatriots. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose Per Useight and the answer to Q4. I must also say, and this is not why I am opposing, but you might want to try to use edit summaries, it is helpful. America69 (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose but with moral support - You need a little more time here doing active work which in admin areas before I can support.  Asenine  19:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose Sorry, but 48 edits in the project space doesn't prove to me that you have enough experience. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose You say your main work will be in AIV and CSD, areas where you have little to no experience. Try to use edit summaries more. Your answers to questions were short and vague. You might want to consider expanding. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Strong Oppose with moral support: You have very little experience in AIV and CSD, you've got a non-existant edit summary usage (you have a 1% for major edits, WAY too low. 90% is fine.), and you've had 2 socks vote on your RFA already (as far as i've seen). You've also just crossed the 1000 edit mark, and for two years on the project you should have much more. As an admin, you'd be expected to be alot more active. I recommend withdrawing per WP:SNOW, you're just over 1000 but this doesn't have much of a chance. I'd recommend making at least 5000 mainspace edits, participate in about 100AfD's, as many RfA's as you want (they're fantastic for gaining experience), and to be a lot more active. I can't support here, but i hope we see you soon again! Sorry! Metagraph comment 22:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do not oppose the candidate based on the socks that have trolled this RFA. I'm fairly certain they're completely unrelated. I realize you have other reasons, but consider striking the part about the socks, that's unnecessary feeding. –xenocidic (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Good point, I had a whole thing on the trust issues it brings up, but it appears I wrote over it. Now that I look at it, it just seems like a coincidence. Metagraph comment 22:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is indeed. I've been dealing with this situation for the better part of the afternoon and it's looking more and more like a garden variety troll - I suspect with no connection to the candidate. –xenocidic (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13. Oppose per Useight. I'm sorry, but 1000 edits are just not enough for someone running for adminship. Also, try to use edit summaries more. I suggest trying again in several months. LittleMountain5 23:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral: Answers to above questions are too short and vague to give me much sense of the person. I'd appreciate some elaboration and some examples of the maintenance edits or article-creation edits, etc., that candidate believes to be among his best. Some examples of errors or poor judgment would help, too, to demonstrate an editor who's conscious of his weaknesses and limits. This is the sort of thing that question #3 tries to get at, but candidate's answer didn't say very much. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral with moral support per Koji. I can't oppose, though. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 17:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral: I didn't see any large problems, but I felt unsure because of the short answers, especially to Q4, which I felt was very important, but the nominee did not give me a satisfactory answer. On the other hand, I'm providing strong moral support (I love any users who dedicate their time to vandalism reversion). Leonard^(Bloom) 19:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral I respect your eagerness to be of further assistance to Wikipedia. At this time, though, I might recommend waiting a few months and getting further involved in other areas of the site. You are on the right track -- you're just running a bit early. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2008 (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.