Wikipedia:Discussions for adminship/Lar: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:31, 20 February 2006

Revision as of 04:11, 20 February 2006

Line 31:

# How do you respond to criticism or sharp elbows, and why don't previous scuffles show that you're not suitable?

# 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. {{unsigned|Alphax|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 [[m:metawikipedian|metawikipedian]]) ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 04:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

# 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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 04:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

# What parts of admining do you dislike, and why? How would they get done?

# Can you provide specific examples of where you upheld the 5 pillars?

#:Can you define what each of the pillars means to you?{{unsigned|Alphax|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 ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 04:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

#*Interaction with newbies that assisted them to become better wikipedians?

#*Effective interaction with experienced wikipedians, showing that your ideas are beneficial to the discussions at hand?

Line 42 ⟶ 50:

:Er, that's 7. I guess 1, 6 and 7 are the top 3. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|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!)?{{unsigned|Alphax|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 coordinate]]s 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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 04:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

====Poll====