Wikipedia:Discussions for adminship/Lar

For reference: Lar stood for adminship (Requests for adminship/Lar) using the regular process and was promoted 8 May 2006.

User:Lar
Nomination started on 10:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC).

Discussion will last for four days after that (until 10:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)).

A straw-poll will last for three days after that (until 10:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)).

, if you accept the nomination, please sign here:

With the understanding that this isn't a REAL nomination (if it passes I will decline to serve at this point as I haven't the necessary experience. But I have high hopes for comments, both positive and negative, being offered as if it were real, because I will benefit from the comments), I accept ++Lar: t/c 12:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Narrative structure
The following section is intended to allow editors unfamiliar with the nominee to make an informed decision regarding promotion. Any editor is welcome to make additions, make changes, or remove items, as long as they are unbiased and verifiable. Harmonious editing is essential, and use of the talk page highly recommended. Please do not sign any comments in this section. Diffs are strongly encouraged, and presentation of items in chronological order is preffered.

Actions of nominee
(Initially written by Lar, Others should feel free to expand/correct/elaborate as needed, Lar will not make further changes, the community will decide where this ends up.)

Lar (Larry Pieniazek) has been editing since 8 June 2005.

Lar has had 6 articles that he authored make it to WP:DYK status while still managing to be primarily a metawikipedian. His involvement in the Wikipedia namespace started with the deletion discussion on Checkerboard Nightmare and he scuffled with several other editors during the course of that discussion and the subsequent WP:RfAr.

Lar has been active in many proposal discussions including 3D Illustrations, Proposed policy on userboxes (where he instigated a refactoring effort and tried hard to keep discussion on track), and Wheel war among others. He is a member of WikiProject Bridges, and many of his articles contributed so far have been related to bridges or bridge architects. Although he is an active participant in WP:AFD only one of his articles has ever been nominated, Pghbridges.com. It survived but Lar was chided for not assuming good faith by the nominator in a somewhat acrimonious exchange that spilt over from the article's AfD page and talk page to several other user pages (User_talk:JzG/Archive5) among others, something he never apologised for.

Somewhat controversially, he has taken the stand that it is useful to catalog his beliefs on his user page.

Non Wikipedia experience: He has previous organizational and online experience including a long and somewhat checkered history as a community activist in the LEGO hobby, having been an administrator at LUGNET (all the administrators resigned at once to protest lack of involvement by the owners), a moderator at BrickLink (forced out after losing confidence of the owner), one of the key organizers of BrickFest, and a founder of ILTCO (a LEGO train club umbrella organization) and Guild of Bricksmiths (a guild for custom kit designers). He is one of the top 3 or 4 contributors at BrickWiki, a mediawiki based resource for all things LEGO, having authored (or stolen adapted from here) many of the templates in use there, although he declined to serve as an admin. Lar has been active online since the 1980s. He ran a dialup BBS from 1990 to 1994 and was president of a 700 member PC club for several years during that period. He also moderated several discussions on the IBMPC conferencing disk (an internal discussion resource at IBM) and administered IBMEDS, another one. Professionally he is a IT consultant and system architect, involved with many clients, often acrimoniously, where he has to use his facilitation skills to determine the needs and desires of diverse constituencies.

Questions for the candidate

 * Q1. What do you think are the three best questions we could ask you, as nominee?
 * ooh, tough question.. I actually like the ones used in the current process. Some additional off the cuff (am at work so can't spend too much time on this) and with revision/extension later:
 * 1) WHY do you want to be an admin?
 * 2) How do you respond to criticism or sharp elbows, and why don't previous scuffles show that you're not suitable?
 * 3) How much time do you have to devote to admining?
 * I would rephrase this to "what percentage of your time...". This would indicate whether a user was intent on playing admin, or cleaning up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphax (talk • contribs) 04:37, 9 February 2006
 * Nod. I'd say that I would want to spend no more than 20-25% of my time here on straight admin tasks, if that. I like to participate in metadiscussion, and to write articles (although my article output lately has been atrocious!) and you don't need to be an admin to do that (although it helps give perspective. An analogy: In real life I'm a system architect, and often give advice to project managers... I don't have to have BEEN a project manager to give advice but it really helps (and I have been one, actually)... so being an admin and having done at least some few instances of all the tasks will make me better metawikipedian) ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What parts of admining would you be likely to spend most time on?
 * XfD closing, particularly thorny ones where judging consensus was tough, once I got good at that. Reverting vandals no longer needs adminship now that godmode light is available, and I'd only block if I happened to be involved in a revert of a pernicious vandal, or if I could block a friend and do it more graciously than anyone else could, if I thought that was the case. ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What parts of admining do you dislike, and why? How would they get done?
 * 2) Can you provide specific examples of where you upheld the 5 pillars?
 * Can you define what each of the pillars means to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphax (talk • contribs) 04:37, 9 February 2006
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: This is a big guide to what WP is NOT, as well as a guide to how articles should be written. We must avoid the temptation to accumulate cruft, yet we must also be embracing of anything that some small set of readers might want to find. We must write in a way that is accessible to all, and we must tailor our writing to those who want a quick hit, as well as those who want to drink deeply.
 * Wikipedia uses the "neutral point-of-view": This is a non negotiable requirement that we make sure that all sides are presented, with appropriate weight to their acceptance and importance, without taking a stand. Present the facts and let the reader draw their conclusion. Seek to avoid POV pushing, and work with those that do to seek consensus, and help shape their writing to remove it, and help them become better editors
 * Wikipedia is free content: This is a philosophical point... you don't own your work here, anyone can improve it (or use it elsewhere for nefarious purposes!), and information is provided for the benefit of all man kind. It is also a procedural one... we must not violate the licenses of anyone in what we gather or create, and we must appropriately license our work so that it stays GFDLable, even under forks.
 * Wikipedia follows the writers' rules of engagement: I can't do better than what it says. Be civil, be collegial, seek consensus, seek compromise, seek to come away friends even if you disagree with someone. I think I've done pretty well with that. There are some I suspect dislike me but I'd like to think I have good relationships even with them.
 * Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules: I am a process wonk, and this is the hardest of all of them to get my head around. I like rules and process as I think it means fairness. I prefer an environment where it's clear what the boundaries are, where the scope and deliverables are clear, where it is clear where the authority and funding lie. WP is none of that. Yet it works, we are fast closing on 1M articles... Jimbo says the purpose here is not to be a social experiment. Yet, it is one, anyway. I find that fascinating. I want to do my best to work within this philosophy but expect that people will sometimes call me on where I slip up. But, that said, I am not someone that feels that WP:IAR means anything goes. Process (which we arrive at here via consensus) is nevertheless important. Go against it only in emergencies and expect to be called on it by the community.
 * above by ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) *Interaction with newbies that assisted them to become better wikipedians?
 * 2) *Effective interaction with experienced wikipedians, showing that your ideas are beneficial to the discussions at hand?
 * 3) *Participation in contentious processes such as AfD and RfAr that either demonstrates ability to cogently advocate positions, ability to add new and useful information, ability to admit error, and in general graceful usefulness?
 * 4) What else in your previous (non or on) Wikipedia experience is actually relevant or predictive of your approach to admining?
 * Er, that's 7. I guess 1, 6 and 7 are the top 3. ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Q2. Admins are expected to bear criticism every once in a while. How do you "grade" your response to criticism, and what do you consider is the most important thing to do when an admin decision of yours is criticized?
 * And particularly sharp criticism (it happens!)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphax (talk • contribs) 04:37, 9 February 2006
 * Another good question! Using the conventional "ABCD,Fail" scale I'd say my response to criticism is at best a C+... I get too defensive too early. It is far easier to recognise this failing in others than it is to recognise it in one's own self. This has been a major failing of mine in previous admin endeavours. Given that, the most important thing when criticized is determine the home address of the criticizer in ICBM coordinates so an appropriate response can be delivered...er, no! The most important thing to do is to listen carefully to the criticism, assume good faith unless evidence clearly suggests otherwise, try to understand the point of view and concerns of the criticiser, examine the actions in that light and respond in an appropriate manner. Sometimes an indepth response is best. Sometimes a terser response is best (if the question is repetitive, for example, and was already addressed, or wildly off topic). Sometimes no response at all is best (if the comment is trollish and trying to provoke, for example). Knowing which size is appropriate is not easy. In any case the respose should be polite, should not use jargon excessivly, and should not be flippant. A good admin must balance the concerns of the community with the need for solidarity among admins, (admins should not indulge in excessive public infighting, for example, there is a place for private discussion, and further, excessive defensiveness can be bad, best to articulate principles rather than defend in detail) and with the need for openness while still being sensitive to the concerns of participants (too much transparency could invade privacy of some participants, or even hurt the feelings of those who had adverse impact from the decision). Oh, and terseness is a virtue too. I meant to write a shorter answer but ran out of time so you're stuck with this longish one. ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As for sharp criticism, I think a D is about all I can muster there. An area for improvement to be sure. ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Good guy, can be trusted with the mop. Support, that is. (Note: this is not a vote, as voting did not start yet, and I plan to follow the rules. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Poll
The poll isn't open yet. Please wait a couple of days, and join the discussion above.